|
Dr. Neil Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand;
former Member of the N.Z. Parliament, from his June 1998 report:
Actual or potential effects of ELF and RF/MW radiation on accelerating aging of human, animal or plant cells.
"There is strong evidence that extreme low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency microwaves (RF/MW) are associated with accelerated aging (enhanced cell death and cancer) and moods, depression, suicide, anger, rage and violence, primarily through alteration of cellular calcium ions and the melatonin/serotonin balance."
|
|
 |
|
Cindy Sage, Environmental Policy Consultant, Sage Associates California:
"If you think that the levels of radiofrequency radiation that we have from cell phones and communications is important enough to consider today, wait until you see what might happen when you dramatically increase the amount of information , or electrosmog, in the atmosphere related to wireless internet.
I believe that it's one of the most important public debates we could have on the planet today. This has not been a public debate yet. The technology and the industry have run far ahead, building, planning but not talking to the public. And this is not correct. We need to open this debate about high tech and about whether there is high risk and whether or not we choose this as our future."
|
|
 |
Dr John Goldsmith, M.D., M.P.H., Dept. of Epidemiology & Health Svs. Evaluation, Ben Gurion Univ., Israel (deceased):
" The Russians, between 1953 and 1976, irradiated with radio frequency the personnel of the US Embassy in Moscow. It wasn't clear why they decided to do this.
And it wasn't until the ambassador came down with leukemia and then the second ambassador who replaced him later came down with leukemia, that serious attention was felt and blood samples were sent back to the U.S. and they were found to show increased frequency of DNA abnormalities, a failure to reproduce.
The radiofrequency sickness syndrome , which the Russians felt was one of the bases for their health protection guidelines - which were much lower than in the West - was reproduced in the Embassy staff, according to the criteria that was used in the survey.
So one of the mysteries of the cold war - Why did the Russians irradiate the U.S. Embassy? - could be answered: Because they wanted to produce this interference with the ability to concentrate, the ability to think, the ability to sleep, which were aspects of the radiofrequency sickness syndrome which they defined previously under experimental conditions.
They suceeded not only in doing it, they succeeded in getting the leading U.S. epidemiologist to document it, and then to ignore it!
|
|
 |
B.Blake Levitt, award-winning journalist, (N.Y.Times), Science & Medicine Writer, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves:
"It's very, very difficult , as you know, to prove cause and effect when it comes to the energy modalities.
The brain tumors are probably going to begin, they probably already are beginning to show up in cell phone users. It's going to take probably 10 - 15 years for it to show up in those who live near the cell towers, more than likely.
And then it's going to take another 2 years to gather the data; it's going to take another 3 years for peer review; it's going to take another 4 years to end up in the journals. So we're 20 years away from holding the industry accountable.
And in the meantime - do the math! There's billions of dollars they're going to rake in and they very cynically know how many years it's going to take to prove this."
|
|
 |
Dr. Henry Lai, Research Professor, Bioengineering Dept., Univ. of Washington, Seattle:
"In our experiments, conducted with my colleague, Dr. Singh, we only expose animals for a short time. Now then the question is asked, what happens if you're exposed to radiation, for example from a cell tower? Of course, it's a long term exposure. The main question is, Will the effects accumulate over time?
There's some indication that they accumulate. So long term exposure to a low intensity may equal short term exposure to high intensity."
|
|
 |
Dr. Jerry Phillips, Ph.D. Research Biophysicist, Colorado:
"The scientific literature documents the exquisite sensitivity of the brain to radiofrequency radiation."
"I wouldn't let my child go out and play in the traffic - I'm not going to give my child a cell telephone to put up against her head!"
"I think one has to exercise caution at this point. And what makes the cellular telephone area so difficult right now is there is no money available for research other than that which is coming from industry.
So what does this do? I don't have any faith in what comes out - I've absolutely none. Not with my dealings with industry."
|
|
 |
A 1996 study by Gandhi, et al, Univ. of Utah, shows the absorption of cell phone energy or radiofrequency radiation into a head. These are "phantom heads," mock-ups that scientists use to measure the absorption of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) by real living tissue.
At upper left is an adult head. The ear canal is the small circular shape at bottom center. The yellow color indicates a lot of radiofrequency is being absorbed. You can see how the profile of the energy goes into the brain. That's an adult.
At upper right is the skull of a ten year old child. Look how much more the radiofrequency radiation penetrates the head of a 10 year old child.
At bottom left is a five year old's head. Look now at the amount of penetration of radiofrequency radiation into the head.
These children are absorbing more energy into their head with the same phone call than an adult ever would. The reason is that their head size is smaller, and more resonant with the wave length of the cell phone frequency.
|
|
 |
Dr. Olle Johannson, Nueroscientist, Karolinska Institute, Sweden:
"Is it really good, then, to whole-body irradiate 24 hours a day? Of course not! And also, then, a recommendation would be, that please, if not stop, then at least diminish the use as much as possible until we can say that everything is safe. And today we just cannot say that. On the contrary, there is so much knowledge nowadays, and they're all pointing, like a forest in the wind, in the same direction, towards there are biological effects, there are risk effects, and some of the effects are even scary."
|
|
 |
Professor Dr. Michael Kundi, University of Vienna, Austria:
"The public is concerned all over the globe. And it is now recognized all over the world that it might be possible to considerably lower the limits of exposure."
|
|
 |
Senator Tom Hayden, California State Legislature:
"The evidence shows that there's a causal link between the radiation and alteration of cellular tissue in the brain."
"In the case of tobacco, it's not possible by what is known as "scientific standards" to establish that the individual cigarette that you are smoking is the one that caused the lung cancer that you developed.
And I think it is sufficient, by scientific evidence, if you establish an association - now you 're at the limits of science. And we HAVE established an association. To say , well it's ONLY an association and you can't show me a dead body and the cell phone, the smoking cell phone that caused the brain cancer, is a preposterous industry argument."
|
|
 |
|
|