“Health risks from mobiles? Just unbelievable, probably nonsense”,

 Is the position of most mobile-using ordinary normal busy people, aggrieved at yet another silly health scare to worry them.

This leads to a readiness to grab at the first reasonable sounding bit of almost-science that puts the boot in to the illiterate scaremongers.

 None of us wants to feel threatened or at risk, especially over the latest glamorous high status gadgetry we take pride in, identify with, and find indispensable for a full work and social life. Love me love my phone. Aside from addiction arguments revolving round adrenalin surges and a drive for the reassurance of close social contact in a splintered and even threatening world, there are sound scientific arguments for health risks no-one wants to listen to. These arguments refer to both the short and long term, evidence is of various kinds and constantly a hugely successful, popular and profitable industry naturally plays them down. Why do they not go away?

 Well because as Sir William Stewart, head of The Health Protection Agency, HPA, and compiler of the original Mobile Telephony Health Report, MTHR, assessing the science back in 2000, says in ‘The Times’ of November 20 this year:

“evidence of potentially harmful effects of microwave radiation has become more persuasive over the past five years”.

Far from going away, as the density of microwave radiation surrounding and penetrating our bodies grows exponentially, the evidence is accumulating in a harder way, just as the deposition of that electromagnetic energy is accumulating in our bodies. We, none of us, know our personal limits or when we will be tripped over the edge into life-destabilising EM hypersensitivity. For one of our sufferers, Brian Stein, it was fourteen years of accumulated heavy mobile use before… in his own words:

 “FACT

 I used a mobile phone for 15 years.  14 years not a problem, no issues.

 15th year.  Severe pain in my head and ear, only when I put the mobile to my head. Why is my pain, psychosomatic?

 Put the phone to my head.  Instant pain, take it away and pain goes away.  Problem.  What is happening???  This can’t happen!

 Although I cut down on using my mobile I did not stop completely.  Why, good question.  I was assured by all it was only temporary and like a fool I believed the scientists, the medics, the media.

 Then, one day putting the mobile to my head an explosion in my ear.  So much pain I could not bear the mobile to my head.  This can’t happen!  Thereafter, the weird experience I had over the twelve months earlier using a mobile phone, I started to experience in front of my computer, in front of my TV and in my car.

 This developed over time to an ordinary phone, video, washing machine, dish washer etc.  Whatever damage the mobile phones/microwaves, can do had been done to me.”

 Is fourteen years ‘long-term’? Tumours and malignancies bloom in that kind of time-frame, but who would think to blame it on effects from their trusty handy mobile? Anyway it might be the ambient background levels of radiation from your hi-tech computerised office environment, the emissions from the sides and back of your colleague’s humming machine, barely a metre away from you, or chemicals. Yet more worryingly even than those unknown quantities are risks to vulnerable and sensitive cell-dividing embryos, nestled in their mother’s womb, but pressed up against the desk and receiving hours and hours of exposure in a daily blast. The science on DNA and cell-division effects is particularly strong from the decades of research from Dr Henry Lai at the University of Washington among others.

  Brain tumour expert from the US Federal Brain Tumour Registry, Lloyd Morgan, talks of his “short historical synopsis of the cell phone scientific literature that was instrumental in convincing me of the harmful potential of continued cell phone use”.

He goes on to express his concern in rather vivid language:

“I fear, but hope that I am wrong, that we are at an historical moment, watching the tide recede prior to a health emergency tsunami that is poised to drown us in future health tragedies of unknown dimensions.”

That is his opinion, not that of the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, why? Because such institutions move much more slowly and they are fearful of bringing down on their heads the defensive wrath of a litigious industry, determined in the absence of what they now call ‘hard science’, to continue making massive profits. No ‘precautionary principle there’, despite Sir William Stewart’s clear MTHR call for it to be invoked in an arena of scientific disagreement, common sense to us.

 What on earth is this ‘hard’ science anyway?

 The one suddenly called for by Dr Michael Clark of the HPA on ‘You and Yours’ radio 4 last week? (around Nov 23) what does it mean?

Suddenly it seems a new category of conclusive science is being introduced, as if normal scientific proof has to attain a new level of certainty. This too in an area where as Dr Lai says “I think the main barrier in understanding the biological effects of Radio Frequency Radiation, RFR, is caused by the complex interaction of the different exposure parameters in causing an effect. An independent variable of such complexity is unprecedented in any other field of biological research.”

 As evidence of harm accumulates the bar is being raised higher and higher, to almost impossible to attain levels, by those defending a technology that was known to be suspect, even dangerous, from the very beginning. With tobacco, asbestos and lead in petrol there were only doubts, but with RFR dangers were known. The US government required the wireless industry back in 1992 to deal with the undercurrent of concern about possible health effects beginning to penetrate public awareness. These were the first reports of brain tumours, but industry officials claimed that “thousands of studies” already demonstrated phone safety. Under political pressure however, the industry raised 25 million dollars and recruited independent scientist and public health physician Dr George Carlo to supervise study of the issue. He soon discovered that few studies had ever been done and there was certainly no consensus on the vital question of whether we’re exposed to dangerous radiation each time we place a cell phone to our head, as he recounts in his book, “Cell Phones – Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age”.(ISBN 0-7867-0818-2)

 “One by one, alarming signs appeared in the research: that cell phones interfere with heart pacemakers; that the developing skulls of children are deeply penetrated by the energy emitted from a cell phone; that the blood brain barrier, which prevents invasion of the brain by toxins, can be compromised by cell phone frequencies and most startlingly, that radio frequency radiation creates micronuclei in human blood cells, a type of genetic damage known to be a diagnostic marker for cancer”

 This was the industry’s own research, not that of Luddites opposed to progress or scaremongering charities; as if we had such resources! Or worked fuelled by such motivation.

 By this time a reckless pell-mell gold rush had begun, so as Dr Carlo continued turning up scientific findings that mobiles pose health risks, the industry responded by not renewing his research funding, and sought to discredit him personally among reporters and other scientists. Those e-sensitive’s we know, nearly 300 now, who do their homework and climb the necessary learning curve, seeking explanations for their ill health, are left angry and incredulous that such devices were ever marketed when risks were always known from the very beginning. But they are painted as anti-scientific weirdoes, self-deluding and psychotic, such is the power of the ‘conventional wisdom’ portrayed by a pliable media in thrall to advertisers and confronted with a technically complex subject. The short attention span of observers, apparently healthy and so unconcerned, also applies. Why should we worry, load of tosh, better things to do?

 Who are the vulnerable?

 They are forming embryos, babies, young children, those weak from other chronic conditions, and those already extra-sensitive to environmental triggers and so allergy-prone. And of course those same unconcerned, apparently healthy adults, exposing themselves to above average levels of radiation; persistent mobile users, computer operators, anyone living near masts and power lines or with cordless phones and a predilection for wi-fi wireless equipment nearby. These are the ones slowly but steadily storing in sensitive tissue accumulations of cell-distorting radiation, deposited energy from RFR especially, but also from low-frequency electromagnetic fields from everyday electrical appliances, now vastly more used than previously. Energy forms previously alien to this planet and our bodies, known to be fundamental to the operations of the universe, are now insidiously saturating us, yet it is invisible and undetectable by our sense organs.

  The Swiss Government sees fit to pass ordinances and limits on emissions, see their www.buwalshop.ch DIV-5801-E report. Sweden recognises electrical sensitivity as a disablement or impairment and the authorities pay attention to all the science and assist the sensitive with shielding and low emission advice, low emission areas and appliances. In Austria Dr Gert Oberfeld guards the pass, here in the UK??................You have us……………..!

Rod ES-UK