Monday, May 2, 2016

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: What are the Most Popular Topics?

The most popular posts on the ElectromagneticRadiation Safety website have been discussions about the wireless radiation emitted by three cell phones: Apple’s iPhone 6 and Samsung’s Galaxy S6 or S7. 

Other popular topics have included Wi-Fi and mobile phone use in schools, electromagnetic radiation in hybrid and electric cars, cell phones and brain tumor risk in adults and children, Berkeley’s cell phone “right to know” law, and cell tower radiation effects on wildlife.  The links to these articles appear below.

In its three years of existence, the EMR Safety website has had over a half million page views and has been visited by people from more than 200 countries. The most visits have been from residents of the United States, Ukraine, France, Canada, Russia, India, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Israel.


Sep 29, 2015
Mar 4, 2013
Oct 5, 2015
Feb 1, 2015
Nov 3, 2013
Mar 23, 2016
Feb 24, 2016
Mar 1, 2016
Oct 9, 2014
Mar 24, 2014


Monday, April 18, 2016

iPhone SE SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation Distance

What are the SAR values for Apple’s iPhone SE smart phone? 

What is the manufacturer's recommended minimum 
body separation distance?

How should consumers use this information?

Be sure to read the latest 
about cell phone use.




April 18, 2016


iPhone Radio-Frequency information

Here is the one-page info sheet that comes with a new iPhone. The third paragraph instructs consumers about how to find RF exposure information for their new cellphone.
"Exposure to Radio-Frequency Energy On iPhone go to Settings > General > About > Legal > RF Exposure. Or go to www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure."
Does Apple really want consumers to see this information?



March 23, 2016

According to test reports filed with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the iPhone SE for cellular transmission is 1.14 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.14 w/kg when worn on the body. The wireless router SAR is also 1.14 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.59 w/kg at the head, 1.58 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.56 w/kg when the phone is used as a hotspot.

All SARs reported above are averaged over one gram of body tissue corresponding to the U.S. standard. According to the testing service, “The results documented in this report apply only to the tested sample, under the conditions and modes of operation as described herein.” The minimum separation distance for body-worn testing and hotspot exposure was 5 mm (about 0.2 of an inch). The SARs that the user experiences may vary depending upon the user's cell phone carrier. 

The SARs for the iPhone 6 models can be found at http://bit.ly/iphone6radiation.

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 health damage 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 inthe U.S. and other countries and exposure to cell phone radiation may be contributing to this increase. (17) Two hundred and twenty (220) scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health have now signed a petition, the International EMFScientist Appeal, calling for more protective limits on radiation from wireless devices including cellphones.

For tips on how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation, see "
Some Tips to ReduceYour 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).

References

(1) UL Verification Services, Inc . SAR Evaluation Report for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios. FCC ID: BCG-E3042A. Model Name: A1723, A1724. Report No. 15U21635-S1V2. Fremont, CA. Issue Date: 2/2/2016.


(2) Skipped.

(3) FCC. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

(4) FCC. “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.” Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

(5) Joel Moskowitz. “"Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: 'Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed'.:” http://www.saferemr.com/2013/01/commentary-gao-2012-report-on-mobile.html

(6) Wolchover N. Radiation Risk: Are Some Cellphones More Dangerous Than Others? Life's Little Mysteries. June 23, 2011. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1550-radiation-risk-some-cell-phones-more-dangerous-than-others.html

(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. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm

(9) Joel Moskowitz. “LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users.” Sep 20, 2013. http://www.prlog.org/12215083

(10) Joel Moskowitz. “Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use: Study. http://www.prlog.org/12216483

(11) Joel Moskowitz. “Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published.” http://www.prlog.org/12125230

(12) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm.” Nov 19, 2012.     http://www.prlog.org/12026867

(13) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children.“ http://www.prlog.org/12269207

(14) Joel Moskowitz. “Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone.html

(15) Joel Moskowitz. “Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_43.html

(16) Joel Moskowitz. “Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_4.html

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

(18) Joel Moskowitz. Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation  (one page handout). Undated. http://bit.ly/saferemrtips3

Sunday, April 17, 2016

"Wireless Phone Radiation Risks & Public Health" April 16



The slides for this presentation can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/WirelessCalday2016.​


Wireless Phones: Radiation Risks and Public Health
 for kids


When:      2:30-3:30 pm, April 16, 2016 (Cal Day)
Where:    182 Dwinelle Hall, UC Berkeley


As wireless technologies, particularly cellphones, become ubiquitous in our culture, researchers have been asking the question: what, if any, impact is there from this technology on our health? Research has been conducted concerning wireless technology and cancer, reproductive health, fetal development, children's health and electromagnetic sensitivities, to name a few areas of concern.

In May of 2015 190 scientists from 39 nations signed an appeal which was submitted to the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO). All of these scientists have published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation, part of the electromagnetic field (EMF) spectrum that includes Extremely Low Frequency fields used for electricity, and Radio Frequency radiation used for wireless communications. The International EMF Scientist Appeal calls upon the United Nations, the WHO, UNEP and all UN Member States to:
  • address the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods; and
  • urge that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) initiate an assessment of alternatives to current exposure standards and practices that could substantially lower human exposures to non-ionizing radiation.
To date, 220 scientists from 42 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health have signed the Appeal.

Last May, the City of Berkeley unanimously adopted a landmark cellphone "right to know" law that has recently been enacted despite a lawsuit filed by the telecom industry.

Featured speaker

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD
, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley School of Public Health. Dr. Moskowitz is an associate producer of the movie “Mobilize: A Film about Cell Phone Radiation”. His website is a valuable resource for journalists and the public. In the past year, he helped organize the International EMF Scientist Appeal (EMFScientist.org) and consulted on the Berkeley cell phone “right to know” ordinance.

More information about Cal Day: http://calday.berkeley.edu/

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Wireless Technology & Public Health Teleconference

Wireless Technology & Public Health: Health & Environmental Hazards in a Wireless World

The Collaborative on Health and the Environment, February 16, 2016


In a teleconference on February 16, 2016, sponsored by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment, Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, discussed new research related to wireless technology, public health and the implications for policy.

As wireless technologies, particularly cellphones, become ever more ubiquitous in our culture and communication systems, researchers have been asking the question: what, if any, impact is there from this technology on our health? Research has been conducted concerning wireless technology and cancer, reproductive health, fetal development, children's health and electromagnetic sensitivities, to name a few areas of concern.

In May of 2015 more then 200 scientists signed an appeal which was submitted to the United Nations, WHO, and UN Member States. All of these scientists have published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation, part of the EMF spectrum that includes Extremely Low Frequency fields (ELF) used for electricity, or Radio Frequency radiation (RFR) used for wireless communications. The International EMF Scientist Appeal calls upon the United Nations, the WHO, UNEP and the UN Member States to:
  • address the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods; and
  • urge that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) initiate an assessment of alternatives to current exposure standards and practices that could substantially lower human exposures to non-ionizing radiation.
Featured speaker:

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley School of Public Health. Dr. Moskowitz is an associate producer of the movie “Mobilize: A Film about Cell Phone Radiation”. His website is a valuable resource for journalists and the public. In the past year, he helped organize the International EMF Scientist Appeal (EMFScientist.org) signed by more than 200 EMF scientists and consulted on the Berkeley cell phone “right to know” ordinance.

Moderator:  Antoinette Stein, PhD, National Coordinator, CHE EMF Working Group

Friday, January 15, 2016

New York Times’ Exposé of CDC’s Retraction of Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation

Jan 13, 2016

According to Microwave News, "Senior officials at the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) pressured the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) into deleting the cautionary language that appeared on the CDC web site in August 2014. In response to external pressure from NCRP, CDC changed its fact sheet and retracted its precautionary recommendation, "Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use.” 

Microwave News reported that the NCRP last reviewed the radiofrequency health literature and issued exposure guidelines 30 years ago so the advice provided to CDC was obsolete. Moreover, the NCRP chairman of the board who led the effort to pressure CDC has a serious conflict of interest as he has served for many years as an expert witness for the cell phone and broadcast industries.



Jan 1, 2016

Today The New York Times published an exposé about the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) retraction of warnings about cell phone radiation. 

In June 2014, the CDC issued a public warning about the potential health risks from cell phone radiation, “We recommend caution in cellphone use.” The warning included a statement regarding the potential risks to children from cell phone use. Ten weeks later, the CDC withdrew the warning.

The Times obtained more than 500 pages of CDC internal records which revealed considerable disagreement among scientists and other health agencies about what to tell the public. 

Even though the CDC had spent three years creating the new warning, the agency was unprepared for the publicity it received. For example, a public official from Vermont raised the potential liabilities for schools and libraries that allow use of cellphones and wireless technology.

Some CDC officials argued that the Agency should just state that other nations, including Austria, Canada, Finland, Israel, and the United Kingdom, warn their citizens about cell phone radiation.

A CDC spokesperson told the Times that the cellphone industry did not weigh in before the new warnings were released. Does this imply that the industry "weighed in” after the warnings were published given that they were abruptly removed?

Dr. Christopher Portier, former director of the CDC National Center for Environmental Health, disagreed with CDC’s decision to retract the warnings. He believes there is sufficient evidence for parents to be cautious about their children’s cell phone use, and that parents should be warned. Dr. Portier was among 31 international experts for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) that declared cell phone and other wireless radiation a possible cancer-causing agent.

In spite of divided scientific opinion, the European Environment Agency and other European governmental agencies have called for a precautionary approach, “There is sufficient evidence of risk to advise people, especially children, not to place the handset against their heads.”

Dr. Elisabeth Cardis who directed a major cell phone study for the WHO stated, “If there’s a risk, it’s likely to be greater for exposures at younger ages, simply because the skull is thinner and the ears are thinner in children than in adults. Basically your phone is closer to your brain.”

The cellular industry has rejected health concerns and sued Berkeley, California which passed a cell phone law last spring requiring local retailers to inform their customers about safety information mandated by the Federal Communications Commission.

The Times article concluded, “‘Some organizations recommend caution in cellphone use,’ the agency’s guidelines now say. But the C.D.C. is not one of them.”

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety and Microwave News originally reported on this controversy in August, 2014. 

Microwave News posted a piece which poses important questions about the Times article.


Jan 2, 2016

An Open Letter to The New York Times from Raymond R. Neutra, MD, DrPH:

Dear Mr. Hakim:

Thanks for your interesting article on CDC's reversal on its advice with regard to the possible ways to use cell phones.

I am exasperated about four aspects of my public health colleagues' behavior:

First: the misleading way that some have characterized the volume and quality of data pertaining to possible hazards "there is NO evidence of a hazard" really means "the many studies suggesting a hazard do not meet my unstated criteria for entering them into evidence."

Second: their unhelpful way of characterizing their willingness to certify a causal link between cell phone use and cancer. How would we react to a TV weather reporter who said "I can't say for sure that it will rain tomorrow, but I can't say that it won't rain either." What we have come to expect is a statement like “After considering the evidence we certify that there is a 40% chance of rain tomorrow."  This second statement allows the girl wearing a satin Prom Dress to bring an umbrella just in case, and the person wearing a tank top, shorts and flip flops to leave his umbrella at home.

Third: The unspoken assumption that the government can only share causal judgments with the public if it is absolutely certain. The government has all kinds of information about ways of using cell phones that could drastically lower exposure. Some parents would take precautionary actions if CDC was 20% sure of a hazard, others would take action only if CDC was 90% certain. They have a right to take informed action. Why is CDC not packaging their judgment in ways that the public can use? 

Fourth: CDC's lack of transparency in revealing the stakeholders who complained about their first statement and their reasoning in rephrasing it. My exasperation is influenced by being a co-author of a text book on quantitative decision analysis in medicine and from heading up a decade-long policy project about magnetic fields from power lines at the California Department of Public Health.

Raymond Richard Neutra, MD, DrPH

Dr. Neutra retired in 2007 as Chief of the 200-person Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control after 27 years in the California Department of Public Health. He received his medical degree at McGill University in 1965 and his doctorate in epidemiology from Harvard School of Public Health in 1974. He has taught epidemiology at the Harvard Medical School and School of Public Health and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Schools of Medicine and Public Health. He is author and co-author of more than 100 articles and co-authored a text book on quantitative decision analysis in medicine.  Between 1994 and 2002 he was in charge of the Electric and Magnetic Fields Program in the California Department of Public Health, a seven million dollar policy-relevant research program. It asked the question "How certain must we be of how much EMF-related disease before we move from the status quo to cheap or expensive avoidance of magnetic fields?" 

Jan 4, 2016

Environmental Health Trust posted a piece which documents the changes CDC made to its cell phone radiation warnings after receiving input from industry-funded scientists.


References



Danny Hakim. “At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk." New York Times. Jan 1, 2016.  A version of this article appears in print on January 2, 2016, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline, "At C.D.C., Evolution Of Advice On Phones." http://bit.ly/cellphoneNYT

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. Press Release. "CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation." PRLog, Aug 13, 2014. http://bit.ly/1Rf32LF
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. Press Release. "CDC Retracts its Precautionary Health Warning about Cell Phone Radiation." PRLog, Aug 20, 2014. http://bit.ly/1SQEU1m
Microwave News. "CDC Calls for Caution on Cell Phones, Then Gets Cold Feet: First Federal Agency To Acknowledge Risk Soon Backs Down." Aug 16, 2014; Updated Aug 20, 2014. http://bit.ly/1OBLaf3

Microwave News. "New York Times Looks Behind CDC Reversal on Cell Phone Risks. Jan 1, 2016. Updated Jan 2, 2016.  
http://bit.ly/1TvL8nj 

Environmental Health Trust. "Information The New York Times Left Out of its Exposé on CDC's Retraction of Cell Phone Radiation Warnings." Jan 4, 2016. http://bit.ly/EHTCDC

CDC Freedom of Information Request. CDC Changes in Cell Phone Warnings. 518 pp. http://bit.ly/CDCFOIA

Martyn Warwick. "The signal and the noise: the cancer v. cellphone debate grinds on." Telecom TV. Jan 4, 2016. http://bit.ly/1VFlqht


Friday, January 1, 2016

Top Stories in 2015 about Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation

The top two news stories about cell phone and other wireless radiation this year were the International EMF Scientist Appeal and the Berkeley cell phone "right to know" law.


More Than 200 Experts Sign Petition to Reduce Wireless Radiation

Two hundred seventeen scientists from forty nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. The petition calls on the United Nations, the UN member states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) to adopt more protective exposure guidelines for EMF and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of health risks. Links to more than 50 news stories published in over two dozen nations can be found on the Appeal web site. For updates on the Appeal see:

http://bit.ly/saferappeal


Berkeley Adopts Landmark Cell Phone "Right to Know" Law

The Berkeley (California) City Council adopted a cell phone "right to know" law on a unanimous vote of 9-0 in May of this year.  Berkeley is the first city in the United States to pass a cell phone radiation ordinance since San Francisco disbanded its ordinance after a two-year court battle with the CTIA, the wireless industry's lobbying organization. The CTIA sued Berkeley and the case is currently being adjudicated in the Federal courts. Links to more than one hundred news stories from ten countries can be found on the EMR Safety website. For updates on the law and the ensuing litigation see:


Other Major Stories from 2015

Cell Phone

Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phone & Cordless Phone Use

Consumer Reports: Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
http://bit.ly/CRcellphonehistory


iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation Distance

Cellphone Industry Product Liability Lawsuit
http://bit.ly/braintumorlawsuit

Thyroid Cancer & Mobile Phone Use

http://bit.ly/cellphonethyroid







Wi-Fi & Cell Towers

Wi-Fi in Schools & Other Public Places

Recent Research on WiFi Effects

Cell Tower Health Effects

Government Negligence

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

Government Failure to Address Wireless Radiation Risks

Miscellaneous


Wireless Technology & Public Health Forum
http://bit.ly/MtnViewForum

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
California Medical Association Calls for Stronger Wireless Communication Safety Standards

Hybrid and Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks
http://bit.ly/saferemrcars

Earlier Stories Popular in 2015

Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure
http://bit.ly/EMRsafetytips3

Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC
http://bit.ly/1meAVRO

Council of Europe: Restrict Wi-Fi and Mobile Phone Use in Schools

MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study

Cellphones and Health


Monday, December 28, 2015

Cell tower radiation prevents garden cress from germinating

Peer-reviewed study replicates Danish student experiment

In 2013, five ninth grade students in Denmark conducted an experiment for a national science fair which found that cress seeds located near two Wi-Fi routers failed to germinate.

Mainstream media in many countries reported on this news story:



"European acclaim for grade 9 experiment." Nyheder, May 17, 2013.

"Can WiFi Signals Stunt Plant Growth? ... A Danish science experiment by a group of 9th-graders has gained worldwide interest and may have us rethinking the proliferation of wireless devices in our homes." ABC News, May 24, 2013.

"Deense leerlingen verbazen wetenschappers met Wifi-experiment." DeWereldMorgen, May 28, 2013.

"Le Wi-Fi mortel pour les graines de cresson? Attendons l'expérience scientifique." Slate, May 31, 2013.

"Wi-fried: do wireless routers really kill plants?" The Guardian, Dec 17, 2013.


The story went viral on the Internet. 

More recently, students in a few countries replicated the findings of this study, but pundits dismissed the results.

In a newly published peer-reviewed study, Drs. Cammaerts and Johansson conducted a partial replication of the original Danish student study using cell towers instead of WiFi routers as the source of wireless radiation. They found that cress seeds located 200 meters from two cell towers failed to germinate. 


They concluded that "wireless technology may effectively and seriously impact nature and should urgently be used much more cautiously."

--

Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study


Cammaerts MC, Johansson O. Effect of man-made electromagnetic fields on common Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) seed germination: a preliminary replication study. Phyton, International Journal of Experimental Botany 2015; 84: 132-137.

Abstract

Under high levels of radiation (70-100 µW/m2 =175 mV/m), seeds of Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) never germinated. In fact, the first step of seeds’ germination ‒ e.g. imbibitions of germinal cells ‒ could not occur under radiation, while inside the humid compost such imbibitions occurred and roots slightly developed. When removed from the electromagnetic field, seeds germinated normally. The radiation was, thus, most likely the cause of the non-occurrence of the seeds’ imbibitions and germination.

http://difusion.ulb.ac.be/vufind/Record/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/219257/Details


Imbibition is a special type of diffusion when water is absorbed by solids-colloids-causing them to enormously increase in volume.

Excerpts

The present work was undertaken consequently to that performed by a group of Danish girls (Lea Nielson, Mathilde Nielsen, Signe Nielsen, Sisse Coltau and Rikke Holm), at Hjallerup Skole, under the supervision of their biology teacher Mr. Kim Horsevad. These girls made an experiment as a part of a national science fair/competition for high school pupils about which more information can be found at the website www.ungeforskere.dk

It would be tempting to just discard such observations since they have not been performed under controlled conditions, thus not following all the rules of sciences. But often, observations done outside of the regular laboratory environments are the start of new discoveries. So, we decided to try to replicate the girls’ work.

Man-made electromagnetic waves have actually largely been shown to have adverse effects on living organisms. They affect, for instance, mammals (Adang et al., 2006; Benlaidi & Kharroussi, 2011), birds (Everaert & Bauwens, 2007), amphibians (Balmori, 2006), bees (Kimmel et al., 2007, Sharma & Kumar, 2010; Favre, 2011), ants (Cammaerts et al., 2012, 2013), fruit flies (Panagopoulos et al., 2004; Panagopoulos, 2012), and even protozoa (Cammaerts et al., 2011). In fact, they act firstly and essentially on the cellular membrane and so affect any living
organism (Cammaerts et al., 2011). Such waves have also been shown to impact plants (Roux et al., 2008; Haggerty, 2010), at physiological and ecological levels.

Four identical series of seeds of Brassicaceae Lepidium sativum (cress d’Alinois) (same quantity, quality, origin, age) were deposited on identical compost (same initial sample), each one in an identical tray (20 cm x 15 cm x 4 cm). Compost is the commonly used material for obtaining germination of seeds. The compost was humidified with same quantity (100 ml) of the very same tap water. Two of these trays were set at a place where the electromagnetic field reached an intensity of 70 - 100 µW/m2 (= about 175 mV/m), this being mainly due to the presence of two communication masts at about 200 meters of distance (Fig. 1). The two other trays were set at another place where the electromagnetic field had an intensity of about 2 - 3 µW/m2 (= 30 mV/m). These two series of seeds, set under low radiation level, were used as the control sample. since the existing electromagnetic fields were generated by communication masts, the frequencies of the emitted waves were 900 MHz and/or 1,800 MHz.

After four days, the seeds set under the two different electromagnetic field strengths already differed: those under the lower level had begun to germinate while those under the higher level of electromagnetic field had not at all done so. After seven days in total, many seeds maintained under low level of exposure had completed their germination and other ones were in the process of their germination while the seeds set under the higher level of exposure appeared unchanged (when looking at them from above) (Fig. 2 A). The experiment was continued until a total of 10 days with, at that time, the same results as above: normal germination for the seeds under low radiation, apparently no germination for those set under the higher radiation.

The fact that man-made electromagnetic waves probably have adverse effects on living organisms is actually more and more realized and admitted. Reviews on the subject exist (Pakhomov & Murphy, 2000; Fragopoulou et al., 2010; Sivani & Sudarsanam, 2012; Cucurachi et al., 2013).

In conclusion, the present investigation - although preliminary in its character- indicates that the prodigious wireless technology may effectively and seriously impact nature and should urgently be used much more cautiously (see also the published work of Doyon (2008)). The present study also brings some new information on the subject - effect of electromagnetism on plants - but it must be replicated on several plants species, at different independent laboratories, as well as developed further at the cytological and physiological levels by botanists, histologists and physiologists ....