|
Reprinted from
Life Extensions Magazine August 2007
The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation By
Sue Kovach Article Highlights:
Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing
Flawed Danish Study Reports Cell Phones are Safe
Lawsuit Prompts Safety Studies
Industry Seeks To Discredit Findings, Scientists
WHY CELL PHONES ARE DANGEROUS
Gauss Meters
Return to
WaveShield Page
Every day, we’re swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)
produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings,
and a slew of other technologies that are part of modern life. From
the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio
next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your
ear—sometimes for hours each day—exposure to EMR is growing and
becoming a serious health threat.
But there’s a huge public health crisis looming from one
particular threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from
the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the
signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors,
genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9
Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media
machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a
product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish
epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate
conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10
George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist
who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications
industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. That
program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran
afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed
preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use.
In this article, we look at why cell phones are dangerous; Dr.
Carlo’s years-long battle to bring the truth about cell phone
dangers to the public; the industry’s campaign to discredit him and
other scientists in the field; and what you can do to protect
yourself now.
The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when
communications technology that had been developed for the Department
of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits.
This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured
government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without
pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the “low power
exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens
based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that
time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high
power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and
cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an
exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell
phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, “Those phones were slowly
prompting a host of health problems.”
Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being
exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers
government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit
exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain
tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9
The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to
Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds.
Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so
low that we can’t detect it.
The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact,
enough scientific evidence exists that some companies’ service
contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service
provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is
largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets
new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr.
Carlo points out, “None of those studies can prove safety, no matter
how well they’re conducted or who’s conducting them.” What’s going
on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to
this point is complex.
WaveShield |
Top of Page
In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone
dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10
Newspaper headlines blared: “Danish Study Shows Cell Phone
Use is Safe,” while TV newscasters proclaimed, “Go ahead and
talk all you want—it’s safe!” The news seemed to be a
holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, it’s a
flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed
to bring a positive result. The industry’s public relations
machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get
top-billing in the media worldwide.
According to Dr.
George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify
even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves
there’s no risk from cell phones is a blatant
misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a
very dangerous false sense of security.
“Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the
outcome because they’re observational in nature instead of
experimental,” Dr. Carlo explains. “It’s possible to design
studies with pre-determined outcomesthat still fall within
the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed
epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed
journals because they’re judged against a pragmatic set of
standards that assume the highest integrity among the
investigators.”
Key problems with the study are:
-
There are few discernable differences between who
was defined as cell phone users and who wasn’t. Thus,
people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much
the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation.
With few differences, it’s nearly impossible to find a
risk.
-
Users were defined as anyone who made at least one
phone call per week for six months between 1982 and
1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone
user and therefore considered exposed to radiation.
Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In
reality, the radiation exposure between users and
non-users defined in this manner is not discernable.
-
The “exposed” people used ancient cell phone
technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones
used today. The results, even if reliable, have no
relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today.
-
From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more
than today and people used their phones much less. Thus
there was very little radiation exposure.
-
During the study’s time frame, people likely to use
their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers.
Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most
easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the
study.
-
There were no biological hypotheses tested in the
study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored
were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of
cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage,
blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular
communication. The study did not discuss any research
supporting the notion that cell phones could cause
problems in users.
-
The study itself was inconsistent with cancer
statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish
population. This study showed a low risk of cancer
overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest
cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested
that something in the data does not add up.
The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial
interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be
harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. “Industry-funded
studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes.
By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific
systems and public information steps over the lines of
propriety that are appropriate for protecting business
interests—especially when the casualty of the interference
is public health and safety.”
To learn more about the dangers of cell phones and to
read Dr. George Carlo’s full formal analysis of the Danish
cell phone study, visit the Safe Wireless Initiative website
at
www.safewireless.org.
WaveShield |
Top of Page
In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to
invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of
this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by
Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer
NEC. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed
cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public
on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing
the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for
hours each day.
The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall
Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association
at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went
into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones
were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA
reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones,
so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies,
but, says Dr. Carlo, “The industry had lied. The only studies in
existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million
people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested
for safety.”
Dr. Carlo Heads Cell Phone Research
Cell
Phone Radiation: What You Need to Know
-
Originally developed for the Department of Defense,
cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They
entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole.
-
Questions about cell phone safety arose in the early
1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit alleging that
cell phones caused his wife’s death due to brain cancer.
-
To address the questions surrounding cell phone
safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit
organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). Dr.
George Carlo was appointed to head WTR’s research
efforts.
-
Under Dr. Carlo’s direction, scientists found that
cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, impaired DNA
repair, and interfered with cardiac pacemakers.
-
European research confirmed Dr. Carlo’s findings.
Studies suggest that cell phone radiation contributes to
brain dysfunction, tumors, and potentially to conditions
such as autism, attention deficit disorder,
neurodegenerative disease, and behavioral and
psychological problems.
-
Dr. Carlo brought safety information about cell
phones to the public through his book, Cell Phones:
Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, and by creating
the Safe Wireless Initiative and the Mobile Telephone
Health Concerns Registry.
-
The best protection against cell phone radiation is
keeping a safe distance.
-
Always use a headset to minimize exposure to harmful
cell phone radiation.
Forced to take action, the cell phone industry set up a
non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR), to
perform the study. Dr. Carlo developed the program outline and was
asked to head the research. Oversight of the issue was charged to
the FDA, though it could have and probably should have gone to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which fought hard for
jurisdiction. But the industry had enough influence in Washington to
get whatever overseer it wanted. It simply didn’t want to tangle
with EPA because, says Dr. Carlo, “… the EPA is tough.”
“Anything that’s ever made a difference in terms of public health
has come from the EPA,” he says. “But safety issues that are covered
in corruption and questions seem to always have a connection to the
FDA, which has been manipulated by pharmaceutical companies since it
was born.”
When called to help with the cell phone issue, Dr. Carlo was
working with the FDA on silicone breast implant research. The choice
of Dr. Carlo to head WTR seemed unusual to industry observers. An
epidemiologist whose expertise was in public health and how epidemic
diseases affect the population, he appeared to lack any experience
in researching the effects of EMR on human biology. Based on this, a
premature conclusion was drawn by many: Dr. Carlo was an “expert”
handpicked by the cell phone industry, and therefore his conclusions
would only back up the industry’s claim that cell phones are safe.
Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be an easy target. He quickly
recruited a group of prominent scientists to work with him,
bulletproof experts owning long lists of credentials and reputations
that would negate any perception that the research was predestined
to be a sham. He also created a Peer Review Board chaired by Harvard
University School of Public Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that
made FDA officials more comfortable since, at the time, the agency
was making negative headlines due to the breast implant controversy.
In total, more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the
project.
WaveShield |
Top of Page
STRICT STUDY GUIDELINES
Once all involved agreed on what was to be done, Dr. Carlo
presented the study’s stakeholders in the industry, the government,
and the public with a strict list of criteria for moving forward.
“The money had to be independent of the industry—they had to put
the money in trust and couldn’t control who got the funds,” he says.
“Second, everything had to be peer reviewed before it went public,
so if we did find problems after peer review, we could use that
information publicly to recommend interventions.”
A third requirement was for the FDA to create a formal
interagency working group to oversee the work and provide input. The
purpose of this was to alleviate any perception that the industry
was paying for a result, not for the research itself. But the fourth
and last requirement was considered by Dr. Carlo to be highly
critical: “Everything needed to be done in sunlight. The media had
to have access to everything we did.”
THE RESEARCH BEGINS
The program began, but Dr. Carlo soon discovered that everyone
involved had underlying motives. “The industry wanted an insurance
policy and to have the government come out and say everything was
fine. The FDA, which looked bad because it didn’t require pre-market
testing, could be seen as taking steps to remedy that. By ordering
the study, law makers appeared to be doing something. Everyone had a
chance to wear a white hat.”
Dr. Carlo and his team developed new exposure systems that could
mimic head-only exposure to EMR in people, as those were the only
systems that could approximate what really happened with cell phone
exposure. Those exposure systems were then used for both in vitro
(laboratory) and in vivo (animal) studies. The in vitro studies used
human blood and lymph tissue in test tubes and petri dishes that
were exposed to EMR. These studies identified the micronuclei in
human blood, for example, associated with cell phone near-field
radiation. The in vivo studies used head only exposure systems and
laboratory rats. These studies identified DNA damage and other
genetic markers.
Says Dr. Carlo: “We also conducted four different epidemiological
studies on groups of people who used cell phones, and we did
clinical intervention studies. For example, studies of people with
implanted cardiac pacemakers were instrumental in our making
recommendations to prevent interference between cell phones and
pacemakers. In all, we conducted more than fifty studies that were
peer-reviewed and published in a number of medical and scientific
journals.”
WaveShield |
Top of Page
But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at
the start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never
defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell
phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to
prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by
the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being
said by the scientists behind closed doors.
The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come.
Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers,
but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the
problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the
report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr.
Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England
Journal of Medicine in 1997,11
the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It
took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a
scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr.
Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing
eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead,
as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint.
The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire
warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When
the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were
suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to
take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried
everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a
lot to lose.
Fearing the industry would selectively release research results
at best, or hold them back at worst, Dr. Carlo and his colleagues
took the information public on their own, creating a highly visible
war between the scientists and the industry. An ABC News expose on
the subject increased the wrath of the industry.
According to Dr. Carlo, “The industry played dirty. It actually
hired people to put negative things about me and the other
scientists who found problems on the internet, while it tried to
distance itself from the program. Auditors were brought in to say we
misspent money, but none of that ever held up. They tried every
angle possible.”
This included discussions with Dr. Carlo’s ex-wife to try to
figure out ways to put pressure on him, he says. Threats to his
career came from all directions, and Dr. Carlo learned from
Congressional insiders that the word around Washington was that he
was “unstable.” But all the character assassination paled in
comparison to what happened next.
Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlo’s house mysteriously burned
down. Public records show that authorities determined the cause of
the blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo
refuses to discuss the incident and will only confirm that it
happened. By this time, enough was enough. Dr. Carlo soon went
“underground,” shunning the public eye and purposely making himself
difficult to find.
WaveShield |
Top of Page
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on
waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two
types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a
far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate
electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and
organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the
near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the
environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and
when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo,
so is metabolism and physiology.
“The near field plume is
the one we’re most concerned with. This plume that’s
generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell
phone’s antenna is determined by the amount of power
necessary to carry the signal to the base station,” he
explains. “The more power there is, the farther the plume
radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves.”
A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most
phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue
and doesn’t do damage. The information-carrying secondary
wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem,
says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range
familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two
cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the
information-carrying wave as an “invader,” setting in place
protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and
cause biological problems that include intracellular
free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier,
genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication,
and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of
recognizing the signal, therefore, aren’t from direct
damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in
the cell.
Here’s what happens:
-
Cellular energy is now used for protection rather
than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping
nutrients out and waste products in.
-
Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher
concentration of free radicals, leading to both
disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular
dysfunction.
-
Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the
micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid
between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free
to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is
the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
-
Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane,
resulting in disruption of intercellular communication.
When cells can’t communicate with each other, the result
is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the
blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can’t keep
dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue,
which results in damage.
With the background levels of information-carrying radio
waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use
of cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the
effects from the near and far-fields are very similar.
Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic
symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained
in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These
symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep,
general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the
increase in recent years of conditions such as
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and
anxiety disorder?
“One thing all these conditions have in common is a
disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular
communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on
top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell
phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the
street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s
absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein
vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and
interpret it as an invader, only works because the body
recognizes something it’s never seen before.”
As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use,
it’s too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr.
Carlo. “We’re never going to see that in time to have it
matter. Here in the US, we’re six years behind in getting
the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best
data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an
increase, the ticking time bomb is set.”
Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in
2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain
and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed
studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of
epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number
to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide.
“This means we’re on the beginning curve of an epidemic,
with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a
disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends
serious public health consequences,” says Dr. Carlo. “This
is what’s not being told to the public. One of the things
that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an
air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current
moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient
informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases
your exposure.”
WaveShield |
Top of Page
Gauss
Meters: Detecting Electromagnetic Radiation
Invisible electromagnetic radiation surrounds us each
day, emanating from diverse sources such as power lines,
home wiring, computers, televisions, microwave ovens,
photocopy machines, and cell phones.
While undetectable to the eye, scientists have proposed
that electromagnetic radiation may pose serious health
effects, ranging from childhood leukemia to brain tumors.
As scientists continue to unravel the precise health
dangers of electromagnetic radiation, it makes good sense to
avoid these potentially dangerous frequencies as much as
possible. A gauss meter is a useful tool you can use to
measure electromagnetic radiation in your home and work
environments.
Using the gauss meter at varied locations, you can easily
detect electromagnetic radiation “hot spots” where exposure
to these ominous frequencies is the greatest. Armed with
this crucial information, you can then avoid these areas,
re-arranging furniture or electronic devices as needed in
order to avoid unnecessary exposure to electromagnetic
radiation.
WaveShield | Top of Page
|