Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Comic Strip: WiFi & Cell Tower Safety, Industry Profits & Government Negligence

Einar Flydal has given me permission to post his comic strip, "The Daily Dose."

Prior to retirement, Einar Flydal was a researcher and senior adviser with the strategy department of Telenor, one of the world's largest mobile communication companies. He was an adjunct assistant professor in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the former chair of the Norwegian Mirror Committee on ISO 26000 on Social Responsibility.

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Monday, September 19, 2016

EMF Controversies in Neurobiology

Controversies on Electromagnetic Fields in Neurobiology of Organisms

Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy
Special issue edited by Suleyman Kaplan and Devra Davis
Volume 75, Part B, Pages 41-140 (September 2016)

Süleyman Kaplan, Devra Davis. Editorial. Pages 41-42


•Microwave EMFs activate voltage-gated Ca2+ channels (VGCCs) concentrated in the brain.
•Animal studies show such low level MWV EMFs have diverse high impacts in the brain.
•VGCC activity causes widespread neuropsychiatric effects in humans (genetic studies).
•26 studies have EMFs assoc. with neuropsychiatric effects; 5 criteria show causality.
•MWV EMFs cause at least 13 neuropsychiatric effects including depression in humans.
Non-thermal microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. Calcium channel blockers block EMF effects and several types of additional evidence confirm this mechanism. Low intensity microwave EMFs have been proposed to produce neuropsychiatric effects, sometimes called microwave syndrome, and the focus of this review is whether these are indeed well documented and consistent with the known mechanism(s) of action of such EMFs. VGCCs occur in very high densities throughout the nervous system and have near universal roles in release of neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones. Soviet and Western literature shows that much of the impact of non-thermal microwave exposures in experimental animals occurs in the brain and peripheral nervous system, such that nervous system histology and function show diverse and substantial changes. These may be generated through roles of VGCC activation, producing excessive neurotransmitter/neuroendocrine release as well as oxidative/nitrosative stress and other responses. Excessive VGCC activity has been shown from genetic polymorphism studies to have roles in producing neuropsychiatric changes in humans. Two U.S. government reports from the 1970s to 1980s provide evidence for many neuropsychiatric effects of non-thermal microwave EMFs, based on occupational exposure studies. 18 more recent epidemiological studies, provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects, with several of these studies showing clear dose–response relationships. Lesser evidence from 6 additional studies suggests that short wave, radio station, occupational and digital TV antenna exposures may produce similar neuropsychiatric effects. Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/ tingling/ dermographism and EEG changes. In summary, then, the mechanism of action of microwave EMFs, the role of the VGCCs in the brain, the impact of non-thermal EMFs on the brain, extensive epidemiological studies performed over the past 50 years, and five criteria testing for causality, all collectively show that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects.

Suleyman Kaplan, Omur Gulsum Deniz, Mehmet Emin Önger, Aysın Pınar Türkmen, Kıymet Kübra Yurt, Işınsu Aydın, Berrin Zuhal Altunkaynak, Devra Davis. Electromagnetic field and brain development. Review Article. Pages 52-61.

•Side effects of electromagnetic field.
•How electromagnetic field affects the brain development?
•Experimental and clinical studies about the electromagnetic field.

Rapid advances in technology involve increased exposures to radio-frequency/microwave radiation from mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices. As cell phones are held close to the head during talking and often stored next to the reproductive organs, studies are mostly focused on the brain. In fact, more research is especially needed to investigate electromagnetic field (EMF)’s effects on the central nervous system (CNS). Several studies clearly demonstrate that EMF emitted by cell phones could affect a range of body systems and functions. Recent work has demonstrated that EMF inhibit the formation and differentiation of neural stem cells during embryonic development and also affect reproductive and neurological health of adults that have undergone prenatal exposure. The aim of this review is to discuss the developing CNS and explain potential impacts of EMF on this system.


Berrin Zuhal Altunkaynak, Gamze Altun, Ahmed Yahyazadeh, Arife Ahsen Kaplan, Omur Gulsum Deniz, Aysın Pinar Türkmen, Mehmet Emin Önger, Suleyman Kaplan. Different methods for evaluating the effects of microwave radiation exposure on the nervous system. Review Article. Pages 62-69.

•Overview to different frequencies of electromagnetic field radiation exposure.
•Possible side effects of microwave radiation on the central nervous system.
•Qualitative and quantitative analysis to reveal the effects of the electromagnetic field exposure.

Microwave radiation (MWR) leads to hazardous effects on he central nervous system (CNS) for both human and animals. The widespread use of mobile phones has increased the risks of health problems in the CNS caused by radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. To determine these effects various methodological approaches related to neuroscience such as stereology, immunohistochemistry, and electron microscopy have been used. These approaches examine the effects on cells exposed to MWR at the light microscopic and ultrastructural levels, and novel information is obtained. The main aim of this paper is to discuss possible side effects of MWR in the light of current literature with different methodological approaches.


Ferhat Say, Berrin Zuhal Altunkaynak, Sina Coşkun, Ömür Gülsüm Deniz, Çağrı Yıldız, Gamze Altun, Arife Ahsen Kaplan, Sefa Ersan Kaya, Ahmet Pişkin. Controversies related to electromagnetic field exposure on peripheral nerves. Review Article. Pages 70-76.

•Possible effects of electromagnetic field.
•How electromagnetic field affects the peripheral nerve structure?
•Experimental and clinical studies of nervous system on the electromagnetic field.

Electromagnetic field (EMF) is a pervasive environmental presence in modern society. In recent years, mobile phone usage has increased rapidly throughout the world. As mobile phones are generally held close to the head while talking, studies have mostly focused on the central and peripheral nervous system. There is a need for further research to ascertain the real effect of EMF exposure on the nervous system. Several studies have clearly demonstrated that EMF emitted by cell phones could affect the systems of the body as well as functions. However, the adverse effects of EMF emitted by mobile phones on the peripheral nerves are still controversial. Therefore, this review summarizes current knowledge on the possible positive or negative effects of electromagnetic field on peripheral nerves.


Murat Terzi, Berra Ozberk, Omur Gulsum Deniz, Suleyman Kaplan. The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. Review Article. Pages 77-84.

•Description of electromagnetic fields and evaluation of its possible effects on biological systems.
•The association between the electromagnetic field and neurodegenerative diseases.
•Experimental and clinical studies on the electromagnetic field.

In the modern world, people are exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as part of their daily lives; the important question is “What is the effect of EMFs on human health?” Most previous studies are epidemiological, and we still do not have concrete evidence of EMF pathophysiology. Several factors may lead to chemical, morphological, and electrical alterations in the nervous system in a direct or indirect way. It is reported that non-ionizing EMFs have effects on animals and cells. The changes they bring about in organic systems may cause oxidative stress, which is essential for the neurophysiological process; it is associated with increased oxidization in species, or a reduction in antioxidant defense systems. Severe oxidative stress can cause imbalances in reactive oxygen species, which may trigger neurodegeneration. This review aims to detail these changes. Special attention is paid to the current data regarding EMFs’ effects on neurological disease and associated symptoms, such as headache, sleep disturbances, and fatigue.


Suleyman Dasdag, Mehmet Zulkuf Akdag. The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress. Review Article. Pages 85-93.

Wireless communication such as cellular telephones and other types of handheld phones working with frequencies of 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, 2450 MHz have been increasing rapidly. Therefore, public opinion concern about the potential human health hazards of short and long-term effect of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Oxidative stress is a biochemical condition, which is defined by the imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the anti-oxidative defense. In this review, we evaluated available in vitro and in vivo studies carried out on the relation between RF emitted from mobile phones and oxidative stress. The results of the studies we reviewed here indicated that mobile phones and similar equipment or radars can be thought as a factor, which cause oxidative stress. Even some of them claimed that oxidative stress originated from radiofrequencies can be resulted with DNA damage. For this reason one of the points to think on is relation between mobile phones and oxidative stress. However, more performance is necessary especially on human exposure studies.


Duygu Sahin, Elcin Ozgur, Goknur Guler, Arın Tomruk, Ilhan Unlu, Aylin Sepici-Dinçel, Nesrin Seyhan. The 2100 MHz radiofrequency radiation of a 3G-mobile phone and the DNA oxidative damage in brain. Pages 94-98.

•The 2100 MHz radiofrequency radiation and oxidative DNA damage in brain.
•The effects of duration and tissue type to DNA damage.

We aimed to evaluate the effect of 2100 MHz radiofrequency radiation emitted by a generator, simulating a 3G-mobile phone on the brain of rats during 10 and 40 days of exposure. The female rats were randomly divided into four groups. Group I; exposed to 3G modulated 2100 MHz RFR signal for 6 h/day, 5 consecutive days/wk for 2 weeks, group II; control 10 days, were kept in an inactive exposure set-up for 6 h/day, 5 consecutive days/wk for 2 weeks, group III; exposed to 3G modulated 2100 MHz RFR signal for 6 h/day, 5 consecutive days/wk for 8 weeks and group IV; control 40 days, were kept in an inactive exposure set-up for 6 h/day, 5 consecutive days/wk for 8 weeks. After the genomic DNA content of brain was extracted, oxidative DNA damage (8-hydroxy-2′deoxyguanosine, pg/mL) and malondialdehyde (MDA, nmoL/g tissue) levels were determined. Our main finding was the increased oxidative DNA damage to brain after 10 days of exposure with the decreased oxidative DNA damage following 40 days of exposure compared to their control groups. Besides decreased lipid peroxidation end product, MDA, was observed after 40 days of exposure. The measured decreased quantities of damage during the 40 days of exposure could be the means of adapted and increased DNA repair mechanisms.


İkinci, Tolga Mercantepe, Deniz Unal, Hüseyin Serkan Erol, Arzu Şahin, Ali Aslan, Orhan Baş, Havva Erdem, Osman Fikret Sönmez, Haydar Kaya, Ersan Odacı. Morphological and antioxidant impairments in the spinal cord of male offspring rats following exposure to a continuous 900 MHz electromagnetic field during early and mid-adolescence. Pages 99-104.

•Spinal cords of male rats were investigated following exposure to 900 MHz EMF.
•Tissue malondialdehyde and glutathione levels increased in the EMF group.
•Light microscopy revealed atrophy in the spinal cord in the EMF group.
•TEM revealed invagination into the axon in the EMF group.
•TEM revealed loss of myelin sheath integrity in the EMF group.

The effects of devices emitting electromagnetic field (EMF) on human health have become the subject of intense research among scientists due to the rapid increase in their use. Children and adolescents are particularly attracted to the use of devices emitting EMF, such as mobile phones. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate changes in the spinal cords of male rat pups exposed to the effect of 900 MHz EMF. The study began with 24 Sprague-Dawley male rats aged 3 weeks. Three groups containing equal numbers of rats were established—control group (CG), sham group (SG) and EMF group (EMFG). EMFG rats were placed inside an EMF cage every day between postnatal days (PD) 21 and 46 and exposed to the effect of 900 MHz EMF for 1 h. SG rats were kept in the EMF cage for 1 h without being exposed to the effect of EMF. At the end of the study, the spinal cords in the upper thoracic region of all rats were removed. Tissues were collected for biochemistry, light microscopy (LM) and transmission electron microscopic (TEM) examination. Biochemistry results revealed significantly increased malondialdehyde and glutathione levels in EMFG compared to CG and SG, while SG and EMFG catalase and superoxide dismutase levels were significantly higher than those in CG. In EMFG, LM revealed atrophy in the spinal cord, vacuolization, myelin thickening and irregularities in the perikarya. TEM revealed marked loss of myelin sheath integrity and invagination into the axon and broad vacuoles in axoplasm. The study results show that biochemical alterations and pathological changes may occur in the spinal cords of male rats following exposure to 900 MHz EMF for 1 h a day on PD 21–46.


Ersan Odacı, Hatice Hancı, Ayşe İkinci, Osman Fikret Sönmez, Ali Aslan, Arzu Şahin, Haydar Kaya, Serdar Çolakoğlu, Orhan Baş. Maternal exposure to a continuous 900-MHz electromagnetic field provokes neuronal loss and pathological changes in cerebellum of 32-day-old female rat offspring Pages 105-110.

•The female rat pup cerebellum was investigated following prenatal 900 MHz EMF exposure.
•Total Purkinje cell numbers were estimated following prenatal 900 MHz EMF exposure.
•Purkinje cell numbers were lower in the EMF group compared to the control and sham groups.
•Pyknotic neurons with dark cytoplasm were observed in the EMF group.

Large numbers of people are unknowingly exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from wireless devices. Evidence exists for altered cerebellar development in association with prenatal exposure to EMF. However, insufficient information is still available regarding the effects of exposure to 900 megahertz (MHz) EMF during the prenatal period on subsequent postnatal cerebellar development. This study was planned to investigate the 32-day-old female rat pup cerebellum following exposure to 900 MHz EMF during the prenatal period using stereological and histopathological evaluation methods. Pregnant rats were divided into control, sham and EMF groups. Pregnant EMF group (PEMFG) rats were exposed to 900 MHz EMF for 1 h inside an EMF cage during days 13–21 of pregnancy. Pregnant sham group (PSG) rats were also placed inside the EMF cage during days 13–21 of pregnancy for 1 h, but were not exposed to any EMF. No procedure was performed on the pregnant control group (PCG) rats. Newborn control group (CG) rats were obtained from the PCG mothers, newborn sham group (SG) rats from the PSG and newborn EMF group (EMFG) rats from the PEMFG rats. The cerebellums of the newborn female rats were extracted on postnatal day 32. The number of Purkinje cells was estimated stereologically, and histopathological evaluations were also performed on cerebellar sections. Total Purkinje cell numbers calculated using stereological analysis were significantly lower in EMFG compared to CG (p < 0.05) and SG (p < 0.05). Additionally, some pathological changes such as pyknotic neurons with dark cytoplasm were observed in EMFG sections under light microscopy. In conclusion, our study results show that prenatal exposure to EMF affects the development of Purkinje cells in the female rat cerebellum and that the consequences of this pathological effect persist after the postnatal period.


Arda Esmekaya, Mehmet Zahid Tuysuz, Arın Tomruk, Ayse G. Canseven, Engin Yücel, Zuhal Aktuna, Semih Keskil, Nesrin Seyhan. Effects of cell phone radiation on lipid peroxidation, glutathione and nitric oxide levels in mouse brain during epileptic seizure. Pages 111-115.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of cellular phone radiation on oxidative stress parameters and oxide levels in mouse brain during pentylenetetrazole (PTZ) induced epileptic seizure. Eight weeks old mice were used in the study. Animals were distributed in the following groups: Group I: Control group treated with PTZ, Group II: 15 min cellular phone radiation + PTZ treatment + 30 min cellular phone radiation, Group III: 30 min cellular phone radiation + PTZ treatment + 30 min cellular phone radiation. The RF radiation was produced by a 900 MHz cellular phone. Lipid peroxidation, which is the indicator of oxidative stress was quantified by measuring the formation of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). The glutathione (GSH) levels were determined by the Ellman method. Tissue total nitric oxide (NOx) levels were obtained using the Griess assay. Lipid peroxidation and NOx levels of brain tissue increased significantly in group II and III compared to group I. On the contrary, GSH levels were significantly lower in group II and III than group I. However, no statistically significant alterations in any of the endpoints were noted between group II and Group III. Overall, the experimental findings demonstrated that cellular phone radiation may increase the oxidative damage and NOx level during epileptic activity in mouse brain.


Mehmet Zulkuf Akdag, Suleyman Dasdag, Fazile Canturk, Derya Karabulut, Yusuf Caner, Nur Adalier. Does prolonged radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various tissues of rats? Pages 116-122.

Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) providers have become essential in our daily lives, as wireless technology is evolving at a dizzying pace. Although there are different frequency generators, one of the most commonly used Wi-Fi devices are 2.4 GHz frequency generators. These devices are heavily used in all areas of life but the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emission on users is generally ignored. Yet, an increasing share of the public expresses concern on this issue. Therefore, this study intends to respond to the growing public concern. The purpose of this study is to reveal whether long term exposure of 2.4 GHz frequency RF radiation will cause DNA damage of different tissues such as brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissue and testicular tissues of rats. The study was conducted on 16 adult male Wistar–Albino rats. The rats in the experimental group (n = 8) were exposed to 2.4 GHz frequency radiation for over a year. The rats in the sham control group (n = 8) were subjected to the same experimental conditions except the Wi-Fi generator was turned off. After the exposure period was complete the possible DNA damage on the rat’s brain, liver, kidney, skin, and testicular tissues was detected through the single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet) method. The amount of DNA damage was measured as percentage tail DNA value. Based on the DNA damage results determined by the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) method, it was found that the% tail DNA values of the brain, kidney, liver, and skin tissues of the rats in the experimental group increased more than those in the control group. The increase of the DNA damage in all tissues was not significant (p > 0.05). However the increase of the DNA damage in rat testes tissue was significant (p < 0.01).
In conclusion, long-term exposure to 2.4 GHz RF radiation (Wi-Fi) does not cause DNA damage of the organs investigated in this study except testes. The results of this study indicated that testes are more sensitive organ to RF radiation.

•Exposure to the pulse modulated radio-frequency radiation could lead to increase in the permeability of blood–brain barrier.
•New researches are needed to discuss the effects of radio-frequency radiation on children.
•Efforts have to be made to understand the mechanisms of the interaction of radio-frequency radiation and the central nervous system.

With the increased use of mobile phones, their biological and health effects have become more important. Usage of mobile phones near the head increases the possibility of effects on brain tissue. This study was designed to investigate the possible effects of pulse modulated 900 MHz and 1800 MHz radio-frequency radiation on the permeability of blood–brain barrier of rats. Study was performed with 6 groups of young adult male and female wistar albino rats. The permeability of blood-brain barrier to intravenously injected evans blue dye was quantitatively examined for both control and radio-frequency radiarion exposed groups. For male groups; Evans blue content in the whole brain was found to be 0.08 ± 0.01 mg% in the control, 0.13 ± 0.03 mg% in 900 MHz exposed and 0.26 ± 0.05 mg% in 1800 MHz exposed animals. In both male radio-frequency radiation exposed groups, the permeability of blood–brain barrier found to be increased with respect to the controls (p < 0.01). 1800 MHz pulse modulated radio-frequency radiation exposure was found more effective on the male animals (p < 0.01). For female groups; dye contents in the whole brains were 0.14 ± 0.01 mg% in the control, 0.24 ± 0.03 mg% in 900 MHz exposed and 0.14 ± 0.02 mg% in 1800 MHz exposed animals. No statistical variance found between the control and 1800 MHz exposed animals (p > 0.01). However 900 MHz pulse modulated radio-frequency exposure was found effective on the permeability of blood-brain barrier of female animals. Results have shown that 20 min pulse modulated radio-frequency radiation exposure of 900 MHz and 1800 MHz induces an effect and increases the permeability of blood-brain barrier of male rats. For females, 900 MHz was found effective and it could be concluded that this result may due to the physiological differences between female and male animals. The results of this study suggest that mobile phone radation could lead to increase the permeability of blood-brain barrier under non-thermal exposure levels. More studies are needed to demonstrate the mechanisms of that breakdown.


Göknur Güler, Elcin Ozgur, Hikmet Keles, Arin Tomruk, Sevil Atalay Vural, Nesrin Seyhan. Neurodegenerative changes and apoptosis induced by intrauterine and extrauterine exposure of radiofrequency radiation. Pages 128-133.

•Fetal exposure to mobile phone radiation causes apoptosis and oxidative damage in brain.

Adverse health effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on the ongoing developmental stages of children from conception to childhood are scientifically anticipated subject. This study was performed to identify the effects of global system for mobile communications (GSM) modulated mobile phone like RFR in 1800 MHz frequency on oxidative DNA damage and lipid peroxidation beside the apoptotic cell formation, using histopathological and immunohistochemical methods in the brain tissue of 1-month-old male and female New Zealand White rabbits that were exposed to these fields at their mother's womb and after the birth. Oxidative DNA damage and lipid peroxidation levels were investigated by measuring the 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels, respectively. Histopathological changes were observed using by hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining. Apoptotic cells were detected in the examined organs by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end-labeling (TUNEL) staining.

For both male and female infants; 8-OHdG levels increased in the group exposed to RFR in both intrauterine and extrauterine periods compared to the infants that were never exposed to RFR and the ones were exposed when they reached one month of age (p < 0.05). MDA results were different for male and female rabbits. There was no difference between all female infant groups (p > 0.05), while only intrauterine exposure significantly causes MDA level increase for the male infants. HE staining revealed mild lessions in neuronal necrobiosis in brain tissues of female rabbits that had only intaruterine exposure and male rabbits had only extrauterine exposure. Gliosis were mildly positive in brain tissues of rabbits that are exposed only intrauterine period, also the group exposed both intrauterine and extrauterine periods. However, there was no apoptotic change detected by TUNEL staining in the brain tissues of all groups.


•Oxidative stress plays important role in biology of Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)
•2.45 GHz increased oxidative stress in brain and liver pregnant rats and their newborns
•Brain seems sensitive to oxidative injury in the development of newborns.

An excessive production of reactive oxygen substances (ROS) and reduced antioxidant defence systems resulting from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure may lead to oxidative brain and liver damage and degradation of membranes during pregnancy and development of rat pups. We aimed to investigate the effects of Wi-Fi-induced EMR on the brain and liver antioxidant redox systems in the rat during pregnancy and development.
Sixteen pregnant rats and their 48 newborns were equally divided into control and EMR groups. The EMR groups were exposed to 2.45 GHz EMR (1 h/day for 5 days/week) from pregnancy to 3 weeks of age. Brain cortex and liver samples were taken from the newborns between the first and third weeks. In the EMR groups, lipid peroxidation levels in the brain and liver were increased following EMR exposure; however, the glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity, and vitamin A, vitamin E and β-carotene concentrations were decreased in the brain and liver. Glutathione (GSH) and vitamin C concentrations in the brain were also lower in the EMR groups than in the controls; however, their concentrations did not change in the liver. 

In conclusion, Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in the brain and liver of developing rats was the result of reduced GSH-Px, GSH and antioxidant vitamin concentrations. Moreover, the brain seemed to be more sensitive to oxidative injury compared to the liver in the development of newborns.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation

Aug 1, 2016

Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation is an award-winning, feature-length documentary that explores the potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation, including cancer and infertility. 

The film examines recent scientific research, follows state and national legislative efforts, and illuminates the influence that technology companies have on public health. The film was selected as the best documentary film at the California Independent Film Festival in 2014. 

Mobilize features interviews with scientists, doctors, politicians, cancer patients, and technology experts. 

The film was directed by Kevin Kunze and produced by Ellie Marks, Joel Moskowitz, and Devra Davis. For more information see the official Mobilize web site and Facebook page.

The online version of the film can be rented or purchased from Dreamscape Media on Vimeo: or The DVD can be purchased through Amazon:

Note: I have no financial interest in the film.

KPFA Interview 
of Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., about Mobilize on September 11, 2014.

KALW panel on Mobilize, Joel Moskowitz and Kevin Kunze. September 16, 2014.

Film review:
Mobilize 3 1/2 stars (2014) 84 min. DVD: $19.98. ISBN: 978-1-939517-25-8.
What are the long-term health consequences from daily use of cellular phones? No one really knows, since widespread cell phone use is fairly new. Still, filmmaker Kevin Kunze’s documentary Mobilize makes a strong case that persuasive evidence has emerged regarding the potential for damage to the human body through heavy cell phone usage. Buried in the fine print of the manuals that accompany new cell phones are warnings about keeping the devices a short distance from a user’s head. But studies outlined here make it clear that such precautions aren’t enough: radiation from phones causes heat that, over time, can injure the brain, while a phone’s constant radio interactions with mobile device towers can alter brain chemistry. The problems don’t end there: cell phones carry a potential threat to pregnant women and their babies, and have been linked to cancer, low sperm count, and attention deficit disorder (the industry is also marketing to toddlers, assuring that future generations will be exposed to this radiation). Despite the concerns, Mobilize illustrates how the lobbying and legal powers of the telecommunications industry have been able to shut down any legislative or judicial attempts to curb emissions (or even educate consumers). An alarming documentary with unquestionably controversial findings, this is highly recommended. Aud: C, P. (T. Keogh)

Saturday, September 10, 2016

An Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it Regulates

Click on graphic to enlarge. Posted with permission of Einar Flydal.

June 26, 2015

Alster, Norm. Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Cambridge, MA:  Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.  2015. 

PDF:  (free)
Kindle: ($0.99 -- check out the book reviews)

This exposé provides insight into how the FCC became a victim of regulatory capture by industry and the implications of these corrupting influences for our health and safety, our privacy, and our wallets. 

This book concludes with a series of recommendations by its author, Norm Alster, an investigative journalist, who has written for the New York Times, Forbes, Business Week, and Investor’s Business Daily.  He wrote this book while serving as a journalism fellow with the Investigative Journalism Project at Harvard University.

Following are some excerpts that pertain to the wireless radiation industry and its corrupting influences on the FCC. I encourage you to read Mr. Alster's entire treatise.


A detailed look at FCC actions—and non-actions—shows that over the years the FCC has granted the wireless industry pretty much what it has wanted.

Money—and lots of it—has played a part ... In all, CTIA, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile USA, and Sprint spent roughly $45 million lobbying in 2013. Overall, the Communications/Electronics sector is one of Washington‘s super heavyweight lobbyists, spending nearly $800 million in 2013-2014, according to CRP data.

As a result, consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence …. Most insidious of all, the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health impact routinely ignored. Industry control, in the case of wireless health issues, extends beyond Congress and regulators to basic scientific research. And in an obvious echo of the hardball tactics of the tobacco industry, the wireless industry has backed up its economic and political power by stonewalling on public relations and bullying potential threats into submission with its huge standing army of lawyers. In this way, a coddled wireless industry intimidated and silenced the City of San Francisco, while running roughshod over local opponents of its expansionary infrastructure.

… Currently presiding over the FCC is Tom Wheeler, a man who has led the two most powerful industry lobbying groups: CTIA and NCTA. It is Wheeler who once supervised a $25 million industry-funded research effort on wireless health effects. But when handpicked research leader George Carlo concluded that wireless radiation did raise the risk of brain tumors, Wheeler‘s CTIA allegedly rushed to muffle the message. ”You do the science. I‘ll take care of the politics,” Carlo recalls Wheeler saying.

Graphic: The revolving door between the FCC and industry

Tom Wheeler, former Head of CTIA & NCTA, is now FCC Chair.
Meredith Atwell Baker, former FCC Commissioner, is now head of CTIA.
Michael Powell, former FCC Chair, is now head of NCTA.
Jonathan Adelstein, former FCC Commissioner, is now head of PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association.

Graphics: Top House and Senate recipients of cellular industry campaign contributions 

It all begins with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, legislation once described … as “the most lobbied bill in history.” Late lobbying won the wireless industry enormous concessions from lawmakers, many of them major recipients of industry hard and soft dollar contributions. Congressional staffers who helped lobbyists write the new law did not go unrewarded. Thirteen of fifteen staffers later became lobbyists themselves.

In preempting local zoning authority—along with the public‘s right to guard its own safety and health—Congress unleashed an orgy of infrastructure build-out. Emboldened by the government green light and the vast consumer appetite for wireless technology, industry has had a free hand in installing more than 300,000 sites. Church steeples, schoolyards, school rooftops, even trees can house these facilities.

In a 2010 review of research on the biological effects of exposure to radiation from cell tower base stations, B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai found that “some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting” ….

Beyond epidemiological studies, research on a wide range of living things raises further red flags. A 2013 study by the Indian scientists S. Sivani and D. Sudarsanam reports: “Based on current available literature, it is justified to conclude that RF-EMF [electromagnetic fields] radiation exposure can change neurotransmitter functions, blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, cellular metabolism, calcium efflux, and gene and protein expression in certain types of cells even at lower intensities.”

… Citing other studies—often industry-funded—that fail to establish health effects, the wireless industry has dismissed such concerns. The FCC has typically echoed that position.

… since the passage of the 1996 law, the very opposite has occurred. Again and again both Congress and the FCC have opted to stiffen—rather than loosen—federal preemption over local zoning authority ….

… would consumers‘ embrace of cell phones and Wi-Fi be quite so ardent if the wireless industry, enabled by its Washington errand boys, hadn‘t so consistently stonewalled on evidence and substituted legal intimidation for honest inquiry?

The FCC in 1997 sent the message it has implicitly endorsed and conveyed ever since: study health effects all you want. It doesn‘t matter what you find. The build-out of wireless cannot be blocked or slowed by health issues.

… federal preemption is granted to pretty much any wireless outfit on just one simple condition: its installations must comply with FCC radiation emission standards. In view of this generous carte blanche to move radiation equipment into neighborhoods, schoolyards and home rooftops, one would think the FCC would at the very least diligently enforce its own emission standards. But that does not appear to be the case.

Indeed, one RF engineer who has worked on more than 3,000 rooftop sites found vast evidence of non-compliance. Marvin Wessel estimates that “10 to 20% exceed allowed radiation standards.” With 30,000 rooftop antenna sites across the U.S. that would mean that as many as 6,000 are emitting radiation in violation of FCC standards. Often, these emissions can be 600% or more of allowed exposure levels, according to Wessel.

The best ally of industry and the FCC on this (and other) issues may be public ignorance.

An online poll conducted for this project asked 202 respondents to rate the likelihood of a series of statements … there was one statement of indisputable fact: “The U.S. Congress forbids local communities from considering health effects when deciding whether to issue zoning permits for wireless antennae,” the statement said.

Though this is a stone cold fact that the wireless industry, the FCC and the courts have all turned into hard and inescapable reality for local authorities, just 1.5% of all poll respondents replied that it was “definitely true.”

… many respondents claim they would change behavior—reduce wireless use, restore landline service, protect their children—if claims on health dangers of wireless are true.

… in May 2015, more than 200 scientists boasting over 2,000 publications on wireless effects called on global institutions to address the health risks posed by this technology.

Some have suggested that the health situation with wireless is analogous to that of tobacco before court decisions finally forced Big Tobacco to admit guilt and pay up.

It seems significant that the responses of wireless and its captured agency—the FCC—feature the same obtuse refusal to examine the evidence. The wireless industry reaction features stonewalling public relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve undermining the credibility and cutting off the funding for researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these hardball tactics that look a lot like 20th century Big Tobacco tactics. It is these hardball tactics—along with consistently supportive FCC policies—that heighten suspicion the wireless industry does indeed have something to hide.

So how does the FCC handle a scientific split that seems to suggest bias in industry-sponsored research?

In a posting on its Web site that reads like it was written by wireless lobbyists, the FCC chooses strikingly patronizing language to slight and trivialize the many scientists and health and safety experts who‘ve found cause for concern. In a two page Web post titled “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,” the FCC four times refers to either “some health and safety interest groups,” “some parties,” or “some consumers” before in each case rebutting their presumably groundless concerns about wireless risk. Additionally, the FCC site references the World Health Organization as among those organizations who‘ve found that “the weight of scientific evidence” has not linked exposure to radiofrequency from mobile devices with ”any known health problems.”

Yes, it‘s true that the World Health organization remains bitterly divided on the subject. But it‘s also true that a 30 member unit of the WHO called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was near unanimous in pronouncing cell phones “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011. How can the FCC omit any reference to such a pronouncement? Even if it finds reason to side with pro-industry scientists, shouldn‘t this government agency also mention that cell phones are currently in the same potential carcinogen class as lead paint?

Cell phones are not the only wireless suspects. Asked what he would do if he had policy-making authority, Dr. Hardell swiftly replied that he would “ban wireless use in schools and pre-schools. You don‘t need Wi-Fi,” he noted.

So what is the FCC doing in response to what at the very least is a troubling chain of clues to cellular danger? As it has done with wireless infrastructure, the FCC has to this point largely relied on industry “self-regulation.” Though it set standards for device radiation emissions back in 1996, the agency doesn‘t generally test devices itself. Despite its responsibility for the safety of cell phones, the FCC relies on manufacturers‘ good-faith efforts to test them. Critics contend that this has allowed manufacturers undue latitude in testing their devices.

The EPA, notably, was once a hub of research on RF effects, employing as many as 35 scientists. However, the research program was cut off in the late 80s during the Regan presidency. [Former EPA Scientist, Carl] Blackman says he was personally “forbidden” to study health effects by his “supervisory structure.”

Blackman is cautious in imputing motives to the high government officials who wanted his work at EPA stopped. But he does say that political pressure has been a factor at both the EPA and FCC: “The FCC people were quite responsive to the biological point of view. But there are also pressures on the FCC from industry.” The FCC, he suggests, may not just be looking at the scientific evidence, “The FCC‘s position—like the EPA‘s—is influenced by political considerations as well.”

Still, the FCC has ultimate regulatory responsibility and cannot indefinitely pass the buck on an issue of fundamental public health. Remarkably, it has not changed course despite the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic, despite the recent studies showing triple the glioma risk for heavy users, despite the floodtide of research showing biological effects, and despite even the recent defection of core industry booster Alex Lerchl. It is the refusal of both industry and the FCC to even acknowledge this cascade of warning signs that seems most incriminating.

This is a very rich industry that does not hesitate to outspend and bully challengers into submission. Meanwhile, amidst the legal smoke and medical confusion, the industry has managed to make the entire world dependent on its products. Even tobacco never had so many hooked users.

Such sustained success in the face of medical doubt has required industry to keep a lid on critics and detractors. Many scientists who‘ve found real or potential risk from the sort of microwave radiation emanating from wireless devices have learned there is a price to be paid for standing up to the industry juggernaut. A few prominent examples …

The FCC‘s network of corruption doesn‘t just shield industry from needed scrutiny and regulation on matters of public health and safety. Sometimes it just puts its hand directly into the public pocket and redistributes that cash to industry supplicants …

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued several reports citing fraud, waste and mismanagement, along with inadequate FCC oversight of the subsidy program. Bribery, kickbacks and false documentation can perhaps be expected in a handout program mandated by Congress and only indirectly supervised by the FCC.

[The "subsidy program," the Universal Service Fund, subsidizes various technology programs at public cost.]

Fraud—as pervasive and troubling as it has been—is just one of the problems with the programs of universal service. It may not even be the fundamental problem. More fundamental issues concern the very aim, logic and efficiency of programs to extend broadband and wireless technology at public expense. Though the aims of extending service to distant impoverished areas seem worthy on the surface, there are many reasons to think the major beneficiaries of these programs are the technology companies that win the contracts.

… the FCC, prodded by an industry ever on the lookout for incremental growth opportunities, is ignoring the health of youngsters to promote expanded Wi-Fi subsidies in schools across the U.S.

As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest.

… the auctions of electromagnetic spectrum, used by all wireless communications companies to send their signals, have yielded nearly $100 billion in recent years. The most recent auction to wireless providers produced the unexpectedly high total of $43 billion. No matter that the sale of spectrum is contributing to a pea soup of electromagnetic "smog" whose health consequences are largely unknown. The government needs money and Congress shows its appreciation with consistently pro-wireless policies.

Science is often the catalyst for meaningful regulation. But what happens when scientists are dependent on industry for research funding? Under pressure from budget cutters and deregulators, government funding for research on RF health effects has dried up. The EPA, which once had 35 investigators in the area, has long since abandoned its efforts.85 Numerous scientists have told me there‘s simply no independent research funding in the U.S. They are left with a simple choice: work on industry-sponsored research or abandon the field.

… an FCC with public interest commissioners is an idea worth consideration. It would at least require party apologists to defend how they so consistently champion the moneyed interests that have purchased disproportionate access and power in Washington.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

iPhone 7 Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure

What are the SAR values for iPhone’s new smart phones? How should consumers use this information?

Be sure to read the latest 
about cell phone use.

Also see: "Do iPhones emit more radiation than 
Samsung Galaxy phones?"

Note: I recommend corded headsets or hands-free use of cell phones, not wireless ear buds. Moreover, one should never keep a cell phone next to your body, especially during a phone call, but also whenever the phone is powered on. For more information see my AirPods post.

According to test reports filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the iPhone 7 (Model A1660: GSM and CDMA ) for cellular transmission is 1.10 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.14 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.16 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.49 w/kg at the head, 1.56 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.56 w/kg when used as a hotspot. (1a)

The SAR for the  iPhone 7 (Model A1778: GSM, no CDMA) for cellular transmission is 1.19 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.09 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.14 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.56 w/kg at the head, 1.51 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.58 w/kg when used as a hotspot. (1b)

The SAR for the iPhone 7 Plus (Model A1661: GSM and CDMA) for cellular transmission is 1.09 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.10 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.13 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.45 w/kg at the head, 1.51 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.58 w/kg when used as a hotspot.  (2a) 

The SAR for the iPhone 7 Plus (Model A1784: GSM, no CDMA) for cellular transmission is 1.09 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.14 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.14 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.42 w/kg at the head, 1.54 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.54 w/kg when used as a hotspot.  (2b) 

All SARs reported above are averaged over one gram of body tissue corresponding to the US standard. The SARs may vary depending upon your specific cell phone carrier (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon). 

The minimum separation distance for body-worn testing was 5 mm (about two-tenths of an inch).

The SARs for the Samsung Galaxy S7 and Note smart phones were obtained at a separation distance of 15 mm (about six-tenths of an inch) from the body so the body-worn SAR values are not comparable to those reported for the Apple iPhones. The iPhone SAR values can be found in my article about the Samsung smart phones.

The FCC ID number for the iPhone 7 is xx, and for the iPhone Plus it is xx. The SAR values for these smart phones will soon be available from Apple and from the FCC

What do SAR values mean to the consumer?

The legal limit for the SAR in the U.S. is 1.60 w/kg (averaged over one gram of tissue).

The FCC requires that all cell phone models be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. The SAR is a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head or the body. It is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR, which is measured in watts per kilogram, represents the maximum amount of energy absorbed in any one gram of tissue in the test model. Phones sold in the U.S. typically range in SAR values from about 0.20 w/kg up to the 1.60 legal limit. (3, 4)

The SAR test, adopted in 1996 by the FCC, was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2012. (5) The test does not reflect those who currently use cell phones, nor does it correspond to the way people use them. Today many children are cell phone users--the child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. Moreover, the artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, earrings, or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond the measured SAR in the laboratory. (5)

The FCC assumes that consumers will carry their cell phones in a manufacturer-approved holder that keeps the phone a minimum distance away from the body. However, most people do not keep their phone in a cell phone holder. For the body-worn SAR test, the FCC allows the manufacturer to choose the separation distance between the cell phone and the test model as long as consumers are informed about the minimum distance tested. However, few consumers are aware of the manufacturer’s recommended minimum body separation distance from their cell phone because this information is often difficult to find. Thus, most consumers are in the dark about precautions they can take to keep their exposure to microwave radiation below the legal limit. This prompted the city of Berkeley, California to adopt landmark legislation that requires cellphone retailers to inform their customers about the manufacturer’s safety information.

To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin. The cell phone is not tested directly against the body because almost all cell phones would fail the SAR test as the radiation absorption increases dramatically when the cell phone is close to the body.

Is the legal limit sufficient to protect the cell phone user’s health?

Federal policies in the U.S. could lead the public to believe that all legally-marketed cell phones are safe, and that a cell phone's SAR doesn't matter as long as it meets the legal limit: 1.6 watts per kilogram. (3, 4)

However, the Environmental Working Group and experts point out that the SAR only measures the maximum microwave absorption from cell phone use that perfectly matches laboratory conditions. The SAR is not a good indicator of one’s cumulative microwave exposure under naturalistic conditions.  The research evidence suggests that how one uses the phone (e.g., hands-free) and one’s cell phone carrier actually matters more than the phone’s SAR level.  (4, 6, 7)

The SAR standard was developed to protect users only from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation (i.e., the thermal effect). (5) The SAR limit does not protect users from the non-thermal effects caused by the cumulative exposure over time to cell phone radiation.

Yet, thousands of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable chemical toxins in the circulatory system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10)  Based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2B). (11)

Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive harm and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and ADHD [attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder]) in children. (12, 13)

Based upon the weight of the evidence from several decades of research including thousands of peer-reviewed published studies, many experts worldwide have signed declarations calling upon government to adopt stronger radiation standards to protect consumers from low intensity, non-thermal exposures from radiation associated with wireless communications, and to alert consumers about how to reduce their risk of harm. (14 -16)

Recent evidence suggests that brain tumor incidence is increasing in the U.S. and other countries and exposure to cell phone radiation may be contributing to this increase. (17) In 2015 more than 220 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health signed a petition, the International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling for stronger regulation of wireless radiation.

For tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation, see "
Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation". (18) In short, limit your use of the phone, keep the phone away from your body whenever it is powered on, use the phone hands-free, and turn off transmitters not in use (e.g., shut off Wi-Fi or use airplane mode).


(1a) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios. FCC ID: BCG-E3085A. Model Name: A1660, A1780. Prepared for Apple, Inc. Report Number: 16U23309-S1V8. Issue Date: 9/1/2016. Fremont, CA.

(1b) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios. FCC ID: BCG-E3091A. Model Name: A1778. Prepared for Apple, Inc. Report Number: 16U23338-S1V10. Issue Date: 9/1/2016. Fremont, CA.

(2a) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios. FCC ID: BCG-E3087A. Model Name: A1661, A1786. Prepared for Apple, Inc. Report Number: 16U23287-S1V8. Issue Date: 9/1/2016. Fremont, CA.

(2b) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios. FCC ID: BCG-E3092A. Model Name: A1784. Prepared for Apple, Inc. Report Number: 16U23366-S1V9. Issue Date: 9/1/2016. Fremont, CA.

(3) FCC. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Undated.

(4) FCC. “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.” Undated.

(5) Joel Moskowitz. “"Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: 'Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed'.:”

(6) Wolchover N. Radiation Risk: Are Some Cellphones More Dangerous Than Others? Life's Little Mysteries. June 23, 2011.

(7) Environmental Working Group. EWG’s Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use: Where is EWG's cell phone database? August 27 2013. 

(8) Giuliani L. Soffritti M. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Bologna, Italy: National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer. 2010.

(9) Joel Moskowitz. “LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users.” Sep 20, 2013.

(10) Joel Moskowitz. “Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use: Study.

(11) Joel Moskowitz. “Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published.”

(12) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm.” Nov 19, 2012.

(13) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children.“

(14) Joel Moskowitz. “Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014.

(15) Joel Moskowitz. “Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014.

(16) Joel Moskowitz. “Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions.” Aug 4, 2014.

(17) Joel Moskowitz. Brain Tumor Rates are Increasing in the U.S.: The Role of Cell Phone and Cordless Phone Use.

(18) Joel Moskowitz. Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation  (one page handout). Undated.