Monday, September 29, 2008

Greenbrier getting radiated

Hi All
The Greenbrier is one of the top resorts in North America, boasting a spa and many recreational activities. Unfortunately they have now allowed the installation of a large disguised antenna, which will bathe the staff and customers in microwave radiation. How could they be so careless? Did they not research the heath effects of microwave radiation and microwave sickness before they made this decision? Do they not realize the danger that they are putting their staff into. Surely they would want their customers to enjoy a healthy spa setting without microwave radiation that is known to cause sleep disruption and which has links to many health effects and cancer.
The Greenbrier has just become another of those places that I can cross off my travel wish list, at least until they come to their senses, learn about the health dangers and make their premises radiation free.
Martin Weatherall
The Greenbrier, an award winning, five-diamond luxury resort and hotel in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, featuring three world championship golf ... - 12k

Greenbrier pine tree cell tower helping community

Mon. September 29, 2008; Posted: 11:45 AM
Sep 29, 2008 (The Register-Herald - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) --
WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS -- It's a cell tower. No, it's a pine tree. No, really, it's a cell tower.

Truth be told, it's really a cell tower disguised as a 100-foot-tall eastern white pine tree that's bringing the rural and technology-challenged Greenbrier Valley up to speed in the 21st century.

John Johnson, director of corporate communications for Verizon, described the "monopine" as the latest in stealthy cell tower construction that uses one of Mother Nature's original designs to conceal high-technology data services.

"Prior to constructing the monopine, Verizon customers could only roam on the network for West Virginia Wireless. You were able to place and receive calls, but you couldn't use any of the data services," Johnson said. "And getting a call through was a bit of a hit-and-miss situation depending upon your location, but now you've got a greater capacity for signal coverage and all of the services such as data and text messages, ringtones, GPS navigation and wireless Internet."

Johnson said when his company acquired the license to offer wireless service in the Greenbrier Valley, engineers examined the terrain using computer models for "determining the best way to serve the largest area with the fewest cellular antennas."

"One of our search areas was located on the resort's property," Johnson said. "We approached The Greenbrier and found them very receptive to placing a wireless tower on their property to provide guests the kind of voice and data services they need to conduct business."

Hotel guests had complained for years about the lack of cell coverage at the four-star resort, and the ability to use high-tech gadgets on their grounds was one of the components in the recent $50 million renovation project originally overseen by former resort president Paul Ratchford.

Johnson said it took about 10 days to construct the cell tower at a cost of $140,000 -- four times the amount of a regular cell tower. The tower was constructed last December on one of the highest peaks in White Sulphur Springs (Reservoir Hill, about 2,200 feet above sea level) and less than 100 yards from the resort's massive water reservoir that's a familiar landmark in the Spa City. The aging white reservoir and its large white columns that resemble the resort's famous springhouse are currently being replaced, officials said.

The monopine is also located within 100 yards of a few of the multimillion-dollar Greenbrier Sporting Club homes, but appears to be out of any of the homes' direct sight lines. The fake tree has also been constructed to allow other phone companies to hook up. Verizon Wireless has since opened a new sales store in downtown White Sulphur Springs.

The bark is an epoxy material applied directly to a galvanized steel core. The monopole is clad with the epoxy bark before it's lifted by crane and bolted upright onto threaded studs set into a concrete slab.

When this section is upright, the antennae systems are mounted near its top, Johnson said, and are hidden among tree branches made from epoxy with polypropylene (plastic) needles. Some of the branches are hollow to allow for wires, and others are bendable, he said.

In total, this monopine, which Johnson believes is the first of its kind in West Virginia, was fitted with 216 branches that begin about 20 feet from the ground. The fake tree does not require any flashing lights because it's less than 200 feet tall, he said.

"The branches are cast from real tree branches and connected to the mast, which conceals the antenna array without blocking their signal," Johnson said. "The monopine's lifelike nonreflective color comes from several different shades of brown."

The result is a tree that blends in well with its surroundings, despite the fact that at its base, large electric wires connect the tree to a nearby building which houses more of the monopine's infrastructure. When people are driving east on U.S. 60 and at various points on the grounds of the resort -- which quietly celebrated its 230th birthday this year -- the monopine is only recognizable because about a quarter of the tree juts beyond the normal skyline of other trees in the area.

"We've heard from many guests at the resort who looked directly at it and couldn't tell it was an antenna," Johnson said. "That's the ultimate compliment."

Other stealthy designs for cell towers include fake cacti, flag poles and hiding them inside church steeples, he said.

Mike Keatley, director of information and technology at The Greenbrier, said the monopine is a win-win situation for the resort and surrounding community. He said a taller, more traditional cell tower was also constructed on hotel-owned property near Sporting Club in nearby Hart's Run, allowing for even more coverage in the area.

"The monopine has given us the opportunity to provide better cell phone coverage to hotel guests than we've had in the past," Keatley said. "And to also preserve and maintain the ambiance of The Greenbrier."

-- E-mail:

We can't ignore the links between mobile phones and cancer like we did with tobacco, top scientists tell U.S. Congress

By Barry Wigmore
Last updated at 11:58 AM on 26th September 2008

Possible links between mobile phones and cancer cannot be ignored, scientists have warned (file photo)

Authorities must not make the same mistakes over possible links between mobile phones and brain cancer as they did with cigarettes and lung cancer, two top scientists have warned.

Mobile phones should carry a health warning like those on cigarette packets, a powerful US congressional committee has been told.

It took 50 years to get the tobacco industry to acknowledge the risks, and 70 years to remove lead from paint and petrol, they said.

Professor David Carpenter, director of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany told the committee: 'Society must not repeat the situation we had with the relationship between smoking and lung cancer where we waited until every "I" was dotted and "T" was crossed before warnings were issued.

'Precaution is warranted even in the absence of absolutely final evidence concerning the magnitude of the risk – especially for children.'

Dr Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute – one of the top American cancer research centres – agreed, saying: 'We must learn from our past to do a better job of interpreting evidence of potential risk.'

The committee heard that scientists are split over how dangerous mobile phones are to users.

But Dr Heberman said that most studies claiming there is no link between mobile phones and brain tumours are outdated. Many denying a link defined regular mobile phone use as once a week.

He added that most do not include enough long-term users because a brain tumour can take dozens of years to develop.

Both experts told the committee the brain cancer risk from mobile phone use is far greater for children than for adults. Dr Herberman produced a model showing how radiation from a mobile phone penetrates far deeper into the brain of a five-year-old than that of an adult.

The committee was shown a British research paper published this month by the Royal Society in London which found that teenagers who start using mobile phones before the age of 20 are five times more likely to develop brain cancer at the age of 29 than those who didn't use a mobile phone.

Professor Carpenter said: 'It's only on the side of the head where you use the cell phone.'

A study in Israel showed that heavy cell phone users were 50per cent more likely to develop a salivary gland tumour.

And another this year by Swedish cancer specialist Dr Lennart Hardell found that frequent cell phone users are twice as likely to develop a tumour on the nerves of the 'handset ear' than on the other ear.

Professor Carpenter said: 'This is a critical public health issue.'

Interphone exposed in the Economist

Mobile madness

Sep 25th 2008
From The Economist print edition

The threat to human health from mobile phones, if any, is much disputed. A shame, then, that a massive multinational study on the question has ended in chaos

Science Photo Library

“LONG-TERM mobile-phone use increases risk of benign tumours!” “Clean bill of health for the mobile!” “Mobile phone-cancer link not proven!” Those who have followed the saga of whether or not mobile phones are damaging people’s brains are used to contradictory headlines. A decade of coverage has left readers and viewers more confused than enlightened, with news reports alternating between alarming claims and soothing reassurances. Yet even by the standards of modern news, it is unusual to see such contradictory headlines about the same piece of research. Which is why a study, called Interphone, provides a cautionary tale.

Interphone began in 2000, ended in 2006, cost $30m and involved around 50 scientists working in 13 countries on 14,000 people. It has, however, still to come to a settled conclusion. A draft of its supposed findings was circulated in June, and Elisabeth Cardis of the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, who led it, thought until recently that a final paper would be submitted this month. Now, though, it looks as if that will not even happen this year.

The contradictory headlines are the result of national research teams releasing single-country reports, despite the fact that these inevitably involve smaller samples. The results from nine of the 13 single-country studies have been made available in this way, and the consequence is a farrago of misinformation. Many of the national reports suggest, for example, that ever having been a regular mobile-phone user offers statistically significant protection against some brain tumours. This finding is so counter-intuitive that it has led most of the people involved to acknowledge serious flaws in the study’s design.

Please press “recall”

One problem was what statisticians call selection bias. Interphone began by gathering a group of people who had had the cancers of interest (glioma, meningioma, acoustic neurinoma and parotid gland tumour) and questioning them about their past use of mobile phones. The researchers then approached a number of healthy people in order to compare them with the cancer patients, and find out if there was a systematic difference in mobile-phone use between the two groups. Some of those approached agreed, and some declined. Of those who agreed to take part, 59% were regular mobile-phone users as defined by the study’s protocol. Later on, those who had declined were recontacted and asked about their mobile use. Among this group, only 34% were regular users. That meant those in the control group were more likely than average to be regular users, and therefore were not representative of the population at large.

Moreover, the definition of “regular mobile-phone use” was itself questionable. Anyone who had used a phone just once a week for at least six months qualified. That is a pretty low rate of usage. If phones really do cause cancer, but only at high exposure, employing such a generous definition of regular use means that the effect might be diluted into undetectability.

Another potentially serious flaw is that participants asked in 2001-02 about their mobile use a decade earlier will have been using analogue, not digital, handsets. That would lead to a different pattern of exposure and therefore of potential risk.

How the shift from analogue to digital phones might have changed things is anybody’s guess. But both the selection bias and regular-phone-use definition might be expected to mask any adverse effect of phones. The most serious flaw in the study, however, is generally reckoned to be recall bias, which would tend to work in the opposite direction, by suggesting problems with phones that do not, in fact, exist.

Recall bias happened because the study was retrospective rather than prospective. In other words it looked at what people had done in the past rather than following their behaviour into the future. In practice, that meant asking them about past behaviour, and relying on the accuracy of their memories.

Even a healthy person would probably have difficulty recalling exactly how often he used his mobile phone a decade ago, and which ear he routinely held it to. Someone subsequently diagnosed with a brain tumour might easily be biased, consciously or unconsciously, to exaggerate the former and misstate the latter. And that would be enough to account for the fact that several of the single-country studies found that ten years’ mobile use was associated with an increased risk of brain tumours on the side of the head that people said was exposed to their handsets. It would also—more significantly—account for the studies’ weird suggestion that the same amount of use stops tumours developing on the other side of the head.

The scientists involved in Interphone are, it must be said, well aware of these biases, and efforts to work out their effects and adjust for them were always part of the plan. In May Dr Cardis and her colleagues published a validation study in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. This compared the recollections of about 500 Interphone subjects with their actual mobile use according to the records of the network operators. The researchers found a high level of recall errors. Participants underestimated the number of calls they had made by an average of about 20%, and overestimated call duration by 40%. Ominously for the statisticians, the recall errors of those with tumours increased with time.

Suitable (and legitimate) statistical massaging of all the data may be able to offset these biases in a way that could not so easily be done for the smaller data sets from individual countries. Nevertheless Dr Cardis admits the delays in releasing the report have been due to “the difficulty of interpreting the findings due to potential biases” and to the “conducting of additional analyses to try and disentangle the potential impacts of selection and recall errors on the risk estimates”.

The Interphone researchers are split into three camps. One believes any increased incidence of tumours shown in the study is purely the result of the biases. Another thinks it really has found increased risks of certain tumours and wants to call for precautionary measures. A third group is just keeping quiet. One person who knows many of the scientists, but prefers not to be named, describes the relations between members of the three groups as “strained”—harsh language in the world of scientific research.

Regardless of what eventually gets published, some people have already decided the findings warrant action. Ronald Herberman, the director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, made headlines in July with a memo to 3,000 members of his staff urging them to limit their use of mobile phones, to refrain from keeping their handsets near their bodies at night and to avoid using them when reception is weak as a phone will then boost the strength of its signal in order that the network can hear it. He based his warnings on “early unpublished data”, and is believed to have been referring to Interphone.

Whatever the outcome, though, at least one lesson has been learnt. Follow-up studies now in the planning stage are expected to use prospective as well as retrospective data. In other words they will pick people at random and see what happens to them. That method takes longer to come to a conclusion—but it is more likely to be one you can trust.

International EMR Alliance

Important W.E.E.P. Announcement

Under the leadership and initiative of Dr. Magda Havas, WEEP is providing web space and administrative assistance to the International EMR Alliance, a coalition aimed at facilitating the work already being done by existing individuals and organizations.

The EMR Alliance is not meant to replace WEEP or any other organization, and WEEP will continue operating as usual, pursuing our goal of informing the Canadian public about the potential environmental effects associated with various forms of electric and electromagnetic emissions by disseminating up-to-date scientific information on the subject of the effects of electromagnetic emissions on human populations and ecosystems and by encouraging a thorough implementation of the precautionary principle with respect to electromagnetic activity.

The International EMR Alliance aims to:
Support the work already being done by integrating skills, expertise, and primary interests of existing individuals and organizations.

The structure will be lateral rather than vertical but due to differing political systems, collective groups from one country or region may wish to adopt a 'local' name such as: EMR Alliance Canada, EMR Alliance UK and so on.

On behalf of Dr. Havas, WEEP would like to extend an invitation to:

  • Those who have scientific expertise; medical/health expertise; policy expertise; legal expertise; media expertise; technical expertise (about radio frequency, electricity, ground current, antennas, power lines, etc.); monitoring expertise; funding expertise; computer expertise, etc.
  • Those who want to actively participate in "doing" something useful to raise awareness, to help those who have EHS, to change policy, to educate the medical profession and the legal profession about this issue, to clean up schools, hospitals, homes, workplace, etc; to provide services such as monitoring and remediation.
  • Persons who are concerned about the health effects of EMR : teachers, parents, people with EHS as well as those without, etc.
If you are interested in joining the International EMR Alliance please fill out the questionnaire at:

(It only takes a few minutes to complete)

Once all interested parties have signed up and their interests and goals are known, we can organize the information and get the site up.

Those who give permission and want to be involved either actively or passively (just receiving updates) will go on a distribution list.

All information submitted to International EMR Alliance will be held strictly confidential

Saturday, September 27, 2008

EMF-Omega-News 27. September 2008

Dear Sir, Madam, Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

for your information.

Best regards,
Klaus Rudolph
Citizens' Initiative Omega
Member of the Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society)
Protectorate Union of the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection
against Electrosmog

Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

NCI on Cell Phone Health Risks

Scientific Update September 2008

ANH submits two petitions to the European Parliament

Complaint Filed Over Health Effects of French Mobile Antenna


Big defeat for wireless

Strovolos residents protest mobile masts

Shock as phone mast plans are submitted

Mast action in Norway

Families urged to join mast battle


The City of Athens tore down five illegal mobile phone masts

Application for mobile phone mast refused

Phone mast fiasco blamed on postal delay

Campaigners want phone mast removed

Support growing for mast protest


Outcry as Caesar Road phone mast application resurfaces

Claims of betrayal as mast erected

Phone mast plan refused

Fury erupts over Tenerife mobile phone masts

Delay row sees phone mast stay

Phone tower concerns communicated

Mobile phone pole vote due

Southport residents take on telecommunications giant Vodafone in mast battle

Power lines spur controversy in Cape Coral

US bans train drivers from using mobile phones

Using a mobile phone just before bed may cause insomnia

The Buzz on Vanishing Bees

Dr. Devra Davis on U.S. Coast-To-Coast Radio-Thursday, Sept 25

CBC TV Vancouver Report on WiFi in Rose Des Vents Elementary

Prevention that will reduce healthcare crisis by over 51%

CTIA Input + Reader's Digest Comment + Local TX TV

Government petition to recognise Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

The Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN): News Update for September
23, 2008

Next-up news Nr 686

Next-up news Nr 687

Next-up news Nr 688

Next-up news Nr 689

Next-up news Nr 690

Next-up news Nr 692

News from Mast Sanity


Our links: <>

Note: EMF-Omega News belongs to the Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated
society), Umbrella Organization of the Citizens and Initiatives for the
Protection against Electrosmog.
Editor and responsible for the content: Citizens' Initiative Omega,
member in the Buergerwelle. Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society),
which works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many
hours of daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to
support our activity for people around the world with a donation or an
aid fund unique or on regular base, you can do it: Recipient:
Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), bank-connection: Hypo Bank
Augsburg, account-No 2250284, BLZ 720 200 70, IBAN: DE83 7202 0070 0002
2502 84, SWIFT (BIC): HYVEDEMM408.
Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), Umbrella Organization of
the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection against Electrosmog: 1.
Chairman Siegfried Zwerenz, 2. Chairman Barbara Eidling, Mailing
address: Lindenweg 10, D-95643 Tirschenreuth, phone 0049-(0)9631-795736,
fax 0049-(0)9631-795734, e-mail, Internet . Thank you.


The information in our EMF-Omega-News are derived from sources, which we
believe to be accurate but this cannot be guaranteed.

We are not responsible for any errors or omissions and disclaims any
liability incurred as a consequence of any of the contents of this

The material in this post is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for purposes
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

E-mail based communication avoids unnecessary spending on paper, and
helps to preserve valuable natural resources. We do not wish to share
our valuable information with those who are not interested.

If you need to have translated our message in your language please go
to: . This is a free translation service.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Cell Phone Execs Refuse to Appear / congressional hearing / RST Update / ANH submits excellent petition on EMR

CNN, NPR, ABC all carried stories tonight about the congressional hearing today in Washington DC on the risks of cell phones and brain cancer.
David Carpenter, Co-Editor of the BioInitiative gave testimony. Dr. Ronald Herberman of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute also testified about the memo he issued to his 3000+ faculty and staff at UPMC.
Cindy Sage
Remaining Mute, Cell Phone Execs Refuse to Appear Before Congress
Industry Group a No-Show at Hearing On Whether or Not There is a Link Between Cell Phones and Cancer
September 25, 2008
The wireless industry association refused to appear before Congress today on a hearing about whether there is a link between cell phones and cancer.
(ABC News)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of (D-Ohio), chair of the subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which held a hearing Thursday, said that CTIA (The Wireless Association), the industry major trade association in Washington DC, declined his request to testify with scientists and government officials about the status of the scientific research on the topic.

"By their refusal they deny this Congress the benefit of their testimony and the opportunity to pose questions," Kucinich said at the hearing.

But a CTIA spokesperson said the organization's lack of testimony shouldn't be seen as a dodge. "We've always maintained that this debate must be guided by science," said Joseph Farren, a spokesperson for CTIA. "We are not scientists and we just think it's best left to the scientists."

Baby Acting Up: Cell Phone to Blame?
WATCH: Cell Phone Dangers: Can You Hear Me Now?

More from Brian Ross and the Investigative Team

Most studies have found no connection between cancer and cell phone use. The scientific studies pointing to an association between cell phones and brain cancer is controversial and limited. None of the major health organizations -- including the National Cancer Institute nor the American Cancer Society -- think that there is a link. In fact the chief medical director at the American Cancer Society, Otis Brawley, said as recently as this summer that some of the warnings about a link are "scaring people unnecessarily."

But during a hearing Thursday members of Congress wanted to know if they shouldn't push more people to take measures to prevent exposure.

Robert Hoover, director of epidemiology at the National Cancer Institute, did not think there was solid science."There are some isolated findings but larger studies are needed to sort out the role of chance and bias," he said. And, he noted, studies show there has been no increase in the instances of brain cancer between 1987 and 2005.

But some scientists believe there's enough of an association to be concerned, enough, at least, to take precautions in using cell phones, such as using an ear piece or limiting use.

That is what Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, did this summer, issuing a precautionary memo on cell phone use to his colleagues.

During testimony he explained his reasoning. "I cannot tell this committee that cell phones are definitely dangerous but I certainly cannot tell you that they are safe," Herberman said.

French Govt. Warns of Cell Phone Dangers
Cancer Doc Dials Up Cell Phone Concerns
Can Cell Phones Cause Cancer?

Part of the problem, he said, is that many of the studies have a key limitation: that they only measure short term influence instead of looking at whether the radiation has an impact over the long haul.

He and another scientist, David Carpenter, an epidemiologist at the University of Albany, pointed to a recent study that found an association between prolonged cell phone use and two brain cancers -- one that was five time greater among those who used cell phones before the age of 20.

"I certainly find the evidence at present to be less than 100 percent," Carpenter said. But, he added "the implications are enormous."

Enormous enough that "there should be national standards of warning or precaution relating ot the use of cell phones for children?" Kucinich wanted to know.

Carpenter's response: "I think evidence is certainly strong enough for warnings that children should not use cell phones. I think failure to do that is going to lead us to an epidemic of brain cancer in the future."

Hoover's response was less sanguine. "I think it does depend on whether there is a risk or not." And that, he said, would have to wait for a major study schedule to come out sometime next year.

Doctors Urge Research On Cell Phone-Cancer Issue
by Allison Aubrey

All Things Considered, September 25, 2008 · The suspicion that cell phones may be linked to brain cancer has percolated for years. But the vast majority of scientific studies have shown no association between the two.

The National Cancer Institute has reviewed more than a dozen studies looking for a possible link to brain cancer. Scientists there have found little or no increased risk within the first 10 years of cell phone use.

In addition, from 1987 to 2005 — a period when cell phone usage increased dramatically and phones became more powerful — there was no upturn in the incidence of brain cancers in the United States.

Dimitrios Trichopoulos, a professor of cancer prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health, says that when you combine all the information known so far, there's no cause for alarm.

"It's nothing that would make us very much worried," Trichopoulos says.
British scientists participating in the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research program also have weighed in. As part of the initiative, Lawrence Challis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Nottingham, led a panel in England that reviewed 23 studies on cell phone use and health effects.
The panel concluded that radio-frequency radiation from cell phones poses no short-term health risk.

But Challis says that among the few studies that included people who had been using cell phones for more than a decade, there is uncertainty. Some studies identified a very slight increase in the number of brain cancers among cell phone users.

"There are slight hints of something" for people who have used cell phones for more than 10 years," says Challis. "But they are not totally convincing hints. All they are, are suggestions."

It's possible the cancers were due to chance.

People concerned about long-term exposure have several options. They can text message, use headsets or earpieces, or use landlines instead of mobile phones. Some experts also recommend not keeping your cell phone attached to your body.
The British scientists have advised parents to err on the side of caution.

"Children may be more sensitive to exposures," says Challis. That's why the committee discourages the use of cell phones by children.

During a congressional hearing on cell phones and cancer, another expert issued a similar warning. Dr. Ronald Herberman, head of the University of Pittsburgh's Cancer Institute, made headlines in July when he urged his faculty and staff to limit cell phone use. In testimony before a House subcommittee, Herberman said he believes cell phones may pose a larger risk for everyone than the current science sheds light on.

"I cannot tell this committee that cell phones are definitely dangerous," Herberman said. "But I certainly cannot tell you that they're safe."

Herberman urged the panel to work with the cell phone industry and independent researchers. He said everyone needs to work together to produce the best, most accurate, long-term study.

Scientists debate possible cell phone link to brain cancer

* Story Highlights
* Studies conflict; do not consistently show cell phones cause cancer, expert says
* Expert says he cannot say they are definitely dangerous or definitely safe
* Children are at higher risk for cancer-causing radiation from phone, scientist says
* Woman at House panel hearing says her husband's brain cancer from cell phone

September 26, 2008
By Elizabeth Landau

(CNN) -- Bringing a growing health concern to Congress, scientists squared off Thursday over whether cell phones contribute to brain cancer.

Rep. Denis Kucinich of Ohio holds a model of a 5-year-old child's brain absorbing cell phone radiation.

Studies have indicated that long-term cell phone use may be associated with brain cancer, according to Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and Dr. David Carpenter, director of Institute for Health and the Environment at University of Albany. They both testified in front
of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy.

"I cannot tell this committee that cell phones are definitely dangerous. But, I certainly cannot tell you that they are safe," Herberman said.

Herberman and Carpenter cited the results from a study recently presented by Dr. Lennart Hardell of Örebro University in Sweden.

The results indicated that people who use cell phones have double the chance of developing malignant brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, which are tumors on the hearing nerve. The study also said people under age 20 were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.

But Dr. Robert Hoover, director or Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program at the National Cancer Institute, said the study has not yet appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, so has not come under sufficient scrutiny. The evidence for the connection between cell phones and cancer is inconclusive and more research is needed, he said.

"Larger studies are needed to sort out chance and bias," Hoover testified.
Interphone, a series of multinational studies on the risk of cancer from cell phones, has not found an increase in tumors associated with the first 10 years of mobile phone use, he said.

Some findings show an increased risk of tumors diagnosed on the side of the head that the cell phone is pressed against, but this pattern has not been seen consistently, Hoover said.

Don't Miss
* Cell phones can affect sperm quality, researcher says
* 5 tips to limit your cell phone use

CTIA, the International Association for Wireless Telecommunications, declined the invitation to testify, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential candidate from Ohio, who led the hearing, said.

Steve Largent, CEO of CTIA, issued a statement Wednesday saying the industry has supported scientific research on these issues and supports the Federal Communications Commision's safety guidelines.

"The available scientific evidence and expert reviews from leading global health organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, United States Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization reflect a consensus based on published scientific research showing that there is no reason for concern," Largent's statement said.

The overall evidence for the cancer-phone link has not been statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level, a standard in science, Carpenter said. But he also noted that U.S.-funded research is very scarce.

"Are we at the same place we were with smoking and lung cancer 30 years ago?" he asked.

Carpenter and Herberman testified that the risk of brain cancer for children is far greater than for adults. Herberman demonstrated a model showing that the radiation from cell phones would penetrate far deeper into a 5-year-old's brain than an adult's. See models from researchers at the University of Pittsburgh »
But the incidence of brain cancer in children has not increased significantly from the late 1980s to 2005, Hoover said.

The Federal Communications Commission limits cell phone radio frequency energy emissions, called the specific absorption rate (SAR), at 1.6 watts per kilogram, as measured over one gram of tissue.

The standard was developed in 1997 in consultation with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a professional association open to everyone, including
manufacturers and health specialists.

Health Library
* Brain tumor

But the SAR standard reflects a biological response to cell phone radio frequency energy heating tissue, Kucinich said.

Many experiments show that radio frequency energy does cause "biological effects" without heating tissue, although not all of those effects are harmful, Carpenter said. Hoover agreed that there could be such effects related to cancer risk, but they have not been properly vetted in a laboratory.

The FCC itself does not have the expertise to evaluate whether this standard is appropriate protection for possible heath risks, Julius Knapp, director of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, testified.

The hearing took place just a week after the Cleveland Clinic reported a study showing that keeping a cell phone on talk mode in a pocket can decrease sperm quality.

Herberman had issued a warning to physicians, scientists, and staff at the University of Pittsburgh in July advising them to limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer. The Israeli Health Ministry endorsed this recommendation within a week, he said.

Ellen Marks of Lafayette, California, whose husband found out he had a brain tumor on his right frontal lobe in May, attended the hearing.

The tumor is on the same side of his head where he held his cell phone, which he used about 30 hours per month. She believes the tumor is the result of cell phone use.

"I often threatened to throw it in the garbage, and how I wish I had," she said. "This horror could have been avoided with a simple warning."


The Radiation Research Trust conference - update

On 8th & 9th September continues to attract an incredible amount of news around the globe. Attention has focused on Lennart Hardell, Professor of Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden and the Swedish team's research indicating children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones. I would like to draw your attention to direct quotes with regards to brain tumours and children taken from some of the PowerPoint presentations from Professor Hardell, Lloyd Morgan, Professor Yury Grigoriev and Dr. David Carpenter.

Professor Lennart Hardell concluded his presentation saying: "there is a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma & glioma after 10 years ipsilateral mobile phone use. Current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not safe for long term tumour risks and needs to be revised."

David O. Carpenter, M.D, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany & Co-Author of the Bioinititive Report has given evidence at the USA Congressional hearing. He also presented at the Radiation Research Trust Conference in London and said "Swedish studies show elevated brain cancer & acoustic neuromas in individuals using a mobile phone for 10 + years. Israeli studies show parotid gland cancers in heavy mobile phone users. There is overwhelming evidence that in general children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental exposures. Unfortunately children are major users of all phones in today's culture."

Professor Yury GRIGORIEV, Chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia. Professor Grigoriev gave a powerful presentation with regards to children. He said: "The potential risk to children's health is very high and a completely new problem. Use of mobile phones for those under 18 or pregnant should be restricted. Children have a unique vulnerability as they grow and develop; there are "windows of susceptibility" periods when their organs and systems may be particularly sensitive to the effect of certain environmental threats. The existing standards cannot guarantee the safe, healthy development of the next generation."

Lloyd Morgan, Director of the Central Brain Tumour Registry of the United States (USA) also gave a presentation at the Radiation Research Trust conference. Based on a 30 year latency time for brain tumours, he projects there could be up to 1.6 million mobile phone brain tumours in the USA by 2019. At a treatment cost of $250K per patient, this would cost $400 Billion. It would also require 32-fold more neurosurgeons eleven years from now.

Also please read enclosed important statement from ICNIRP Chairman, Paolo Vecchia , see below:

"Info taken from PowerPoint presentation - Professor Paolo Vecchia:

ANH submits two petitions to the European Parliament

Open letter to all members of the European Parliament's Committee for the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) <>
18th September 2008

Dear MEP
Food supplements and mobile phones: are their respective risks to public health being managed proportionately?

Most technologies with which humans interact are now heavily influenced by risk assessment. Following the assessment, risks are generally managed via regulation and communication strategies. The alleged justification of all of this is to achieve a high level of consumer protection. The recent changes in health and safety requirements in many people's working environment and the ever-growing attention to safety measures in motor vehicle design are just two areas that readily spring to mind.

In some areas, the amount of regulation appears to be disproportionate to the known risk, while in others, the lack of concern for risk or the tolerance of risk because of an assumed benefit derived from exposure to the source of risk, appears to expose the public to substantial risk.

The raft of regulation emanating from Brussels and targeting natural health products is an example of the former, while the reliance by the orthodox medical profession on pharmaceuticals is an example of the latter. Pharmaceutical-based healthcare continues despite evidence that mortality associated with the use of "properly prescribed" medicines is the fourth biggest killer after heart disease, stroke and cancer (JAMA. 1998; 279(15): 1200-5). The situation is comparable elsewhere, especially in the industrialised world. Another less well know example relates to the public health risks of low intensity electromagnetic fields (EMF) from cellular (mobile) phones and wireless devices.

This begs the question: is this tolerance or intolerance of risk really the result of a careful weighing up of risks and benefits to public health? Or has it perhaps got more to do with the sheer gravity of corporate influence on policy makers and regulators?

We urge you, as a Member of the European Parliament, to consider carefully two issues about which we have just submitted petitions to the European Parliament Petitions Committee. These affect risk assessment and management methodologies for vitamin and mineral food supplements and sources of EMF respectively.

The first of these sectors is being pressurised to such an extent, that if regulatory initiatives, particularly in Europe, are not altered, the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals allowed in food supplements will be lower than those found in a single junk food meal. To give you just one example, European citizens are critically short of selenium since we stopped importing North American wheat grown in selenium-rich soils. This essential mineral supports numerous vital enzyme functions in the body and helps reduce cancer risk, yet the most influential risk assessment body in Germany wants consumers to be limited on a daily basis to the amount of selenium found in just one-third of a brazil nut!

Food supplements are taken by around half the population of most western countries, and increasing amounts of research—as well as experience from the practice of clinical nutrition—shows that increased vitamin and mineral intakes can substantially improve wellbeing, at very little cost to government.

On the other hand, the radiation emitted by cellular phones, cordless DECT phones and WIFI systems far exceeds those levels considered safe by the majority of scientists researching the risks of very low intensity electromagnetic radiation from such devices. Children and foetuses are most susceptible, yet the public are told nothing about these risks. Just how well are these risks being managed or communicated?

Most people are exposed to multiple sources of radiation from these devices on a daily basis and their overall exposure has increased dramatically over just the last five years as more and more wireless technologies are rolled out.

We, at the ANH, argue that regulators or standard setting bodies have seriously misappropriated the risks—especially the relative risks—of these contrasting technologies. The risks of food supplements appear to have been dramatically overstated. Any analysis of food safety data indicates that risks associated with vitamin and mineral supplements are the lowest of any product consumed orally, being substantially less than that of conventional foods. Yet, food supplements, especially within the European Union, are facing regulatory pressure that could see the vast majority of beneficial dosages of nutrients banned.

Poly-herbal products originating from non-European traditional medicinal cultures, such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine, are also set to have a particularly rough ride in the years ahead, many potentially falling between the two stools of European law designed for traditional herbal medicines and food supplements respectively.

We also argue, and are supported in this by a group of leading researchers in the field, that the risks from very low intensity electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by a wide range of wireless telecommunications technologies have been dramatically understated by regulatory and standard setting bodies.

Alive to our concerns, Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott, has agreed to host two petitions by the ANH which focus on each of these issues.

The European Parliament, the only vestige of a democratic system within the law-making environment of the European Union, has a significant responsibility to its electorate to ensure that risks are assessed objectively and accurately, while being managed proportionately.

The ANH petitions, submitted yesterday to the European Parliament Petitions Committee, are calling for urgent and independent re-evaluation of risk assessment and management approaches affecting both the food supplement and telecommunications sectors, given recent evidence and published science that suggests the models used in both sectors are seriously flawed and not fit for purpose.

The ANH petitions can be downloaded from the following links:

· Food supplement petition <> ;

· Telecommunications petition <> .

Please forward these petitions to those you know who may be concerned. We would also very much like to hear from organisations wishing to lend their support to either or both of our petitions. Please email us at<>.

Thank you for your consideration of these important public health issues.

Yours, in health, naturally

Robert Verkerk BSc MSc DIC PhD
Executive and Scientific Director
Alliance for Natural Health <>
Supporting the sustainability of natural health in Europe and beyond

Updated: 18 Sep 2008
Informant: Dorothee Krien