Children and Wireless Technology

September 2007

Electro - Magnetic Radiation the Invisible Hazard

“There are strong political and economic reasons for wanting there to be no health effect of RF/MW exposure, just as there are strong public health reasons for more accurately portraying the risks. Those of us who intend to speak for public health must be ready for opposition that is nominally but not truly scientific.”

Professor John Goldsmith

“In our growing dependence on wireless telecommunication systems, we increasingly find ourselves absorbing electric and magnetic wave emissions from these microwave systems. Although the human species has evolved amidst a broad band of these same frequencies that originate from throughout the universe, in the last few decades, human exposure to artificial, repetitive signals has risen dramatically – by more than a trillion times.”

Andrew Michrowski, Ph.D.

“A major contemporary threat to the health of Society is man-made 'electrosmog'. This non-ionizing electromagnetic pollution of technological origin is particularly insidious, in that it escapes detection by the senses – a circumstance which tends to promote a rather cavalier attitude regarding personal protection. Yet the nature of the pollution is such that there is literally 'nowhere to hide'. Furthermore, given the relatively short time for which humanity has been exposed to it, we have no evolutionary immunity either against any adverse effects it might directly have on our bodies or against possible interference with natural electromagnetic processes, upon which homeostasis appears to depend, for example, the Schumann resonance – a weak electromagnetic field that oscillates resonantly in the cavity between the earth's surface and the ionosphere at frequencies close to those of human brain rhythms, isolation from which has been found to damage human health.”

Dr. Gerard Hyland

1. From BC CPAC (BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils)

BCCPAC represents a membership of over 1,000 Parent Advisory Councils and District Parent Advisory Councils from every school district in the province.Collectively, it represent the parents of hundreds of thousands of children in BC.

TITLE: Prohibiting the siting of Cellular Phone Masts or Antennae on School buildings and School grounds.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT: BCCPAC urge school boards and municipal governments to prohibit the siting of cell or mobile phone masts aka antennae in any areas regularly used by students such as school buildings and school grounds.

2. Statements on wireless computer networks (wi-fi) - United Kingdom Teachers
xxBriefing to PressAssociation on wi-fi, United Kingdom 22nd April, 2007

Philip Parkin, General Secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT), said: "I have concerns about the health of both pupils and staff.

"I am concerned that so many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any understanding of the possible long-term consequences.

"The proliferation of wireless networks could be having serious implications for the health of some staff and pupils without the cause being recognised."

"I am not saying there is a danger, but I have enough concern to ask for it to be investigated.

"There are huge commercial pressures which may be why there has not yet been any significant action.

"I am writing to the Education Secretary to ask for a full scientific investigation into the effects of wi-fi networks in schools."

www.pat.org.uk/index.cfm/page/_sections.contentdetail.cfm/navid/11/parentid/0/_sa/17/id/278

3. Cell phones and children. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients July 2005
xxby Rose Marie Williams ( 5pp )

Cellular phones seek out a receiver by sending strong electromagnetic radiation several miles in all directions. This poses significant exposure levels to the brain since phone antennas are within an inch of the head. Other individuals in the immediate area who are not using a cellular phone are also exposed to EMFs. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and electromagnetic radiation (EMR) generally refer to the same phenomenon the outward radiation of energy fields from a transmitter. The terms are used interchangeably as was discussed in "Cell Phone Controversy," which appeared in the June issue of the Townsend Letter. (1)

The human body was designed to generate its own beneficial electromagnetic fields to govern its many intricately related functions. Artificially generated EMFs from phones and other sources may be harmful by disrupting the body's own biologically useful EMFs which control all bodily functions from memory and reasoning to organ function and nerve health. (1)

EMFs from cellular phones are directed into the ear, jaws, eyes, scalp, brain, hypothalamus, sinuses, and the pineal gland. Very small magnetic fields influence the pineal gland by increasing or decreasing the production of melatonin and serotonin, two important neurohormones with multiple functions, including the direct control of all bio-cycles in the human body. (1)

The Cellular Phone Task Force, a consumer advocacy organization, advises that using a cellular or digital cordless phone for two minutes disrupts the blood-brain barrier. Longer use permanently destroys brain cells. Dizziness, nausea, insomnia, memory loss, inability to concentrate, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and agitation are all neurological symptoms warning of irreversible damage. (1)

This laundry list of symptoms may encourage the inappropriate use of numerous prescription drugs without the real cause ever being suspected or corrected.

Continued ....

4. Phones Hurt Children Even Worse Than Adults by William Thomas July 2003 ( 4pp )

Last April, while corporate news managers were guiding the attention of Americans elsewhere, a London newspaper reported on What Cell Phones Can Do To Youngster's Brain In 2 Minutes.

It turns out that a call lasting just two minutes can open the blood-brain barrier in kids as well as adults, allowing toxins in the bloodstream to cross this blood vessel gateway into the skull and attack brain cells. The same two-minutes cell phone exposure also disrupts the natural electrical activity of a child's brain for up to an hour afterwards.

Leading medical experts now question whether it is safe for children to use mobile phones at all, reported the Mirror. Doctors fear that disturbed brain activity in children could lead to psychiatric and behavioral problems or impair learning ability.

Dr. Gerald Hyland says he is extremely disturbed by the new findings released in Marbella, Spain by the Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute.

"The results show that children's brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use, this mobile phone adviser to the British government explained. Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period. This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance."

Dr. Hyland and other MDs worry that cell phones deep penetration into children's brains and the resulting disruption to the subtle electronic exchanges between brain cells could cause kids to lose the ability to concentrate and remember, making it impossible to learn.

Dr. Hyland also states that cell phone use is also linked with aggressive behavior in children. Previous studies show that anyone exposed to cell phone energy may experience radical changes in mood and behavior. Measuring relatively low microwave and radio frequency power levels in urban areas in 1975, Dr. William Blise found clinically diagnosed depression and violence. These effects may be even more pronounced in more susceptible adolescent children. [EMF Health Report March/April, 1995]

"It makes one wonder whether children, whose brains are still developing, should be using mobile phones," this MD declared.

http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Cell_Phone_Health_Children.htm

5. Dr. Om P. Gandhi 1996 (1pp )
xxEnergy scans - penetration of cellphone radiation into simulated human skull.

6. New problems with Cellphones Andrew Michrowski, Ph.D. (10pp )
xxPresentation from: Whole Life Expo 2005 Toronto, November 27, 2005
xxhttp://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/emf2005.pdf

The level of typical exposure to cellphone-related emissions has more than doubled for most Canadians in the last 5 years. This exposure has interacted with vaccines, common drugs and may be responsible for the genetic variations of Asian flu and E Coli distribution. Although sensitivity and absorption of these emissions is not the same for all, children are more vulnerable than adults. What can soon happen on a large scale in Canada has already occurred in Japan where MDs specialize in pathologies related to cellphone emission exposure.
continued......

7. Cindy Sage, Sage & Associates. Santa Barbara
xxCA 93108 USA March 28, 2003 ( 3pp )

Parents and their children need to understand more about the possible risks of using cell and cordless phones in the home and at school. A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that chronic, low-level exposure to radiofrequency (RF) from cell phones, cordless phones and
even cell tower antennas may be harmful.

Massively increased RF exposure has no precedent in human history. These exposures simply did not exist 100 years ago. Our use of microwave frequencies for wireless communication means that we have no track record for the consequences, but there is substantial and worrisome evidence of health risks, particularly for children. The number of brain tumor cases in the US and Europe has increased up to 40% in the past twenty years, and is increasing in ALL age groups. Males between 20 and 40 years old are the most affected, particularly white-collar workers and professionals. Researchers point to environmental causes that cannot be ruled out - including cellular phones, computers and other exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Kids today can be exposed by:

• Cell phone use (by the child, and to second-hand radiation from others)
• The family's cordless phones in the home
• Wireless LAN (or Land-area Network) systems at schools or home
• Cell towers in the neighborhood, or near schools
• Wireless computers at home and at school
• Two-way radios (think family ski-trips)
• WIFI systems (at McDonalds and Starbucks for wireless computers)

Why don't we hear more about this issue? What about existing standards
that are supposed to protect the public?

continued....

8. Put This In Your Ear And Light It
xxCigarette Marketers Target Kids For Cell Phones ( 3pp )
xxBy William Thomas - Convergence Weekly - 9/04/2005 xxhttp://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Cell_Phone_Hazards.htm

9. Digital Cordless Baby Monitors - Our Experiences Powerwatch News: February 22, 2006

Summary:
Over the past five years we, with the help of parents, have measured a variety of baby monitors and the DECT pulsing ones seem to be far more disruptive of the infant's sleep and state of contentment (causing restlessness, irritability and crying). The old wired ones and the older "analogue" cordless ones do not seem to cause the same problems if kept at least one metre from the cot / bed.

We have had a number of reports from parents that their babies did not sleep well and cried a lot when they used DECT monitors but were OK when no baby monitor was used. When they then tried a cheaper analogue monitor, the infant then slept as well as they did with no monitor.

A DECT monitor placed in your baby's bedroom will expose them to more pulsing microwave radiation than living near to a mobile phone base station mast would do. As a result, whilst there have been no studies done into baby monitors specifically, studies that cover mobile phone masts provide a good background to the effects that would be expected in your baby.

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20060222_baby_monitors.asp

Sunday Mirror (UK) 20 February 2006 MONITORS BABY RISK

PARENTS have been warned to avoid using new digital cot monitors amid fears they emit cancer-causing radiation. Emissions were found to be twice as strong as those found within 100 metres of mobile phone masts.

Research suggests the slow-pulsing microwaves used by the transmitters could cause headaches, leukaemia, or brain tumours and may disturb sleep or upset behaviour. Alasdair Philips, from Powerwatch, said: "We don't recommend they are used. Do not put a wireless transmitter in a child's bedroom and irritate them unnecessarily."

10. Driving and cell phone use
xxxStudy Explains Why Hands-Free Phones are Just as Bad as Hand-held (2pp)

Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions
Donald A. Redelmeier, M.D., and Robert J. Tibshirani, Ph.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 336:453-458 February 13, 1997 Number 7

ABSTRACT

Background : Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case – crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.

11. Death By Cell Phone By Eddie Wren

Most people – certainly business people – would agree that cell phones have revolutionized our way of life by adding convenience, swift responses and an ability to continue working uninterrupted by travel time. But the sad fact – despite the protests from all those who don't wish to have their new-found convenience limited – is that cell phones, when used by drivers, have also revolutionized one of our ways of death, too. This is why some U.S. states, such as New York, have already made it illegal to use a hand-held cell phone while driving.

A study commissioned by a leading UK insurance company, Direct Line (2003), revealed that talking on any cell phone while driving is so mentally distracting that it is as dangerous as driving when slightly over the legal blood-alcohol limit. (In Britain, the BAC limit is 0.08%, the same as in the U.S.A.) Despite these results applying to hands-free phones as well as hand-held ones, Direct Line drew a line by suggesting that the findings should be used to bring about a total ban on the use only of hand-held cell phones while driving, but in purely safety terms that was a climb-down by a company that did not wish to aggravate potential clients by supporting an all-out ban.

By mid 2004, American bodies such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) were rightly starting to challenge the wisdom of approving the use even of hands-free cell phones while driving.

Direct Line commissioned their study from the world-renowned Transport Research Laboratory after a survey revealed that 40% of drivers in Britain (i.e. about 10 million motorists) use a cell phone while driving. Even though most of those drivers realized that using a cell phone is distracting, they did not think it to be as dangerous as drinking and driving. Direct Line commissioned the research in order to quantify the risks.

The study was carried out over three months, after which a panel of volunteers was tested on a sophisticated driving simulator. The level of driving impairment was tested for the three relevant driving situations: talking on a hand-held cell phone, talking on a hands-free phone, and driving when slightly over the legal blood-alcohol limit. The result was that the drivers’ reaction times were thirty percent worse when they were talking on cell phones than when they were borderline intoxicated. Compared to normal driving conditions, drivers talking on the hand-held phone were fifty percent impaired. Two of the most visible problems that resulted from this impairment were an inability to maintain a constant speed and an inability to remain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead.

Drivers in the study later admitted that they had actually found it easier to drive while intoxicated (just over the legal limit) than when using a cell phone, whether it was hand-held or hands-free. Drivers using cell phones also missed many more road signs than did the drunk drivers. It should go without saying that hand-held cell phones proved to be even more distracting than hands-free units. Drivers using hand-held cell phones took about half a second longer to react than a driver under normal circumstances, and this was also longer than those who were mildly drunk. In real-life terms, this means for example that at 70 mph a driver on a cell phone would travel an extra 46 feet before even reacting to a danger on the road. And that, in many, many cases, has already proved to be the difference between life and death.

All contents copyright ©, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc., 2003 onwards, unless specified otherwise.

Read the original ABSTRACT from the Transport Research Laboratory report (TRL547) upon which this author's article was based,

12. Wireless networks: Official advice about use in schools and kindergartens.
xxxLetter from Salzburg Goverment, Austria. 12/2005 ( 1pp )

13. Testimony: Dr. Magda Havas, Trent University. Canada.

Concerning Wi-Fi systems in urban areas and the adverse effects of radio frequency radiation.
( 5pp)
Analysis of Health & Environmental Effects of proposed San Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network (51pp)

14. Wireless Devices, Standards, and Microwave Radiation in the Education Environment

By Gary Brown, Ed.D. in Instructional Technologies and Distance Education from Nova Southeastern University and Public School District Educational Technology and Distance Learning Specialist. ( 13pp )

Introduction
Since there is a shortage of space in schools, many school districts often use portable trailers to serve as classrooms for school students. Up to this point in their technology upgrade program, many school districts have not funded the broad scale deployment of technology within portable classrooms. Schools must decide whether such deployment will utilize the same building wiring standards that have guided efforts within the permanent campus or utilize wireless local area networking technology. To make this decision, public schools are analyzing the feasibility of placing wireless computers into classrooms, especially portable classrooms (portables) used by schools with rapidly-expanding enrollments. Such computers would interact with servers in the central processing site via the proposed Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN). Promoters of wireless technology state that it is less expensive, and can be installed easily and quickly because there is no need to dig trenches or open walls and ceilings to install cables as would be required for hard-wired systems. Another element favoring the utilization of wireless technology is its inherent mobility; that is, devices can more easily be moved and reactivated in other portables or conventional classrooms.

However, on the flip side, there are many negative aspects to “going wireless” in schools related to health and safety. This analysis provides information regarding health effects associated with wireless radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation transmitting technologies, specifically the WLAN.

continued................

15. School wi-fi radiation levels 'three times that of phone masts'
xxxFrom The Times. London May 21, 2007
xxxHelen Nugent

Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, has called for a review of the health risks of wireless technology after an investigation into its effects on children.

The BBC’s investigative programme Panorama claims that wi-fi networks in schools can give off three times as much signal radiation as phone masts.

Current government advice says that phone masts should not be sited near schools without consulting parents and teachers, because children are thought to be more vulnerable to radio-frequency radiation.

The programme-makers measured radiation levels from a wi-fi-enabled laptop in a classroom in Norwich. It found that the signal strength was three times higher than that of a typical phone mast. Wi-fi, or wireless fidelity, allows a computer user to connect to the internet at broadband speeds without cables.

More than two thirds of secondary schools and nearly half of primary schools have wi-fi. Panorama spoke to nearly 50 schools and only one had been alerted to possible health risks. Others had been told that there was no risk.The Government says that wi-fi poses no health risks, citing advice from the World Health Organisation.

In 2000 Sir William produced a report on the impact of mobile phone masts on health. He found that: “There may be changes, for example in cognitive function . . . There were some indications that there may be cancer inductions . . . There was some molecular biology changes within the cell. . . ”

The levels of radiation found in the Norwich classroom were 600 times lower than the levels deemed dangerous by the Government. It uses data from the International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection, which bases exposure limits on a thermal effect. In other words, the radiation has to be strong enough to cause a heat effect before it is restricted.

Dr Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has carried out experiments on radiation similar to or lower than wi-fi and found biological implications. Asked if the commission was right to set limits based on thermal effect, he said: “That’s just rubbish. You cannot put emphasis on such guidelines.”

16. ELECTROSMOG - What Price Convenience ?
B. Blake Levitt and Theresa Morrow, WestView July. 2007 ( 2pp )

An excellent review of the current situation and some history of cellphone introduction.

For an indepth view of the whole EM radiation topic a good starting point is

17. ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION Michrowski, Andrew, Ph.D. ( 8pp )

Dr. Andrew Michrowski is president of the Ottawa based Planetary Association for Clean Energy Incorporated, an international, interdisciplinary scientific society, concerned with such issues as: electromagnetic pollution, advanced clean energy technologies, ozone depletion, climatic changes and reutilization of waste biomass. Previously, he served as Senior Analyst for the Secretary of State, and as Chief Planner for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He is the author of numerous scientific and governmental publications about the environment and has acted as scientific advisor for films and television documentaries.

ELECTROMAGNETIC DISHARMONY ON THE EARTH

Our association was created in 1975 and is composed of 3,600 scientists from 60 countries. Our first position was that the world does not realize the seriousness of the electromagnetic pollution problem that exists today, and our scientists have been searching for ways of protecting us if this problem continues to exist. In order to eliminate the need for power lines and decrease electromagnetic pollution, we have been working on alternatives to local electricity and long distance transmissions. We can do this and yet have all, if not more, of the benefits of civilization that we know today. In the 1950's and 60's before so many atomic bomb explosions had occurred, the world was in a much more balanced state, with both hemispheres in harmony. Today's excessive electromagnetic pollution is aided by the destruction of our forests and we have changed our climate to such a degree that even the nature of electric storms has changed.

The most intense and widespread electromagnetic radiation produced by man - many times stronger than from natural sources - is in the extremely low frequency (ELF) spectrum. In 1989, the average intensity of the background man-made ELF magnetic fields was about ten times stronger than that resulting from all natural planetary and cosmic events, doubling the ELF fields monitored less than a decade earlier. A spectrum analysis done in Ottawa in 1982 showed radiation from 60 hertz power lines, hydro stations, 10 hertz Soviet radar emissions, and signals from the Soviet Union, Japan, China, Europe and Africa. These all contribute to the changes we see today. This permeates our homes, work places, industries and our outdoors and it increases every year as we pollute more and more electromagnetically, and creates a tremendous stress to all living systems. Since all living organisms on earth are exposed to electromagnetic radiation, it is urgent to establish standards of acceptable exposure levels for various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity to disease, even new sicknesses have been linked to extended exposure to electromagnetic fields of specific frequencies and intensities. Perhaps this may account for the much higher susceptibility to death from AIDS in regions of highest electromagnetic pollution.

Over the last 25 years, all kinds of studies of the effects of low level frequency exposure on the nervous system, on the blood and on growth and development, have been conducted. The United States Navy conducted very well funded studies, probably in the order of 50 to 100 million dollars. Their study, published in 1984, showed that exposure to harmful electromagnetic frequencies resulted in altering the behaviour of cells, tissues, organs and organisms; altered hormone levels, altered cell chemistry, altered immune processes, affected calcium ion bonding in cells, modified human brain waves, caused defects in chick embryos, and caused sterility in male animals. They also found that certain diseases can be cured by applying specific extreme low frequency levels. Their results have been reproduced in numerous laboratory tests, but these studies are not very well known publicly. The first serious news report was done in the New York Times in 1987. Scientists statistically linked ordinary power lines and commonly used household devices to an increase in human cancer. High quality laboratory research was done on both animals and humans. They found that if human beings or animals came within a certain range of electric power lines, which is considered to be safe, they augmented the field. Ten thousand volts per meter is considered safe because conventional research states that voltages higher than 10,000 volts per meter are strong enough to penetrate the skin and have possible biological effects on living cells. Although the field is 10,000 volts, on the skin surface it is 18 times higher. Even by conventional logic, safety levels should be 18 times higher than existing levels. When this research was published, many electrical companies got very worried. Our association is very unhappy about this situation because we have been saying this for ten or fifteen years. We can't understand why government ministers and power companies who spend your money to hurt you don't seek their advice from scientific advisors like they should; but they are insisting more than ever before, that it is safe.

continued

Penelope A. Bonnett
Healthy Housing Society
New Denver. B.C. Canada
September 2007