Friday, May 29, 2015

Scientists call for action on radiation risks from mobile phones and wifi devices

Scientists call for action on radiation risks from mobile phones and wifi devices

Gordon Noble
Managing Director at Inflection Point Capital Management

May 17, 2015

Last week a global group of 190 scientists issued an international appeal, calling on the UN Secretary General and UN member states to address the risks of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, which include radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas and smart meters.

The scientists included Dr. Charles Teo, a prominent neurosurgeon at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, who founded the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation and publicly addressed the US Congress as part of US President Barack Obama’s vision to explore and map the human brain. Dr Teo has publicly warned that exposure to radiation should be minimised.
The action by the scientists comes on the back of the listing by the World Health Organisation of radiation from mobile phones as a possible carcinogen. The number of scientific studies showing links between radiation and a range of biological impacts – including cancer – continues to grow. The insurance industry refuses to provide insurance coverage against health impacts of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Why is it that so little is being done by governments to address the risks from the growing proliferation of radiation devices?

A small number of MPs have spoken up against the dangers radiofrequency radiation with Greens Senator Scott Ludlum the most prominent, but they have been met with a wall of opposition from Labor and the Coalition.

It is hard not to conclude that governments themselves are \conflicted. Governments receive significant revenues from auction of spectrum and many government authorities also receive income from rent of public spaces for mobile phone towers. Governments may also face legal claims for authorising the use of radiation exposure.

The risks from radiofrequency radiation are growing. NBN towers are now being installed across the country, with locals fighting to stop the installation of towers next to schools. Public education has become flooded with radiation. Every child in Victoria’s public education system is exposed to routers that have the capacity to simultaneously download content for a whole class on ipads and wireless devices.

When we look at the scientists that have joined together to raise the risk of radiofrequency radiation exposure, what we see is a lack of commercial self interest. These scientists are not funded by the corporate sector and indeed face the risk of campaigns against them if they speak up publicly – as Dr Teo has experienced first-hand.
Nevertheless they have the courage to speak out.

What we need is the courage to listen.

A full transcript of the scientists’ international appeal follows:
To: His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Honorable Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, U.N. Member States

Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure
We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

Scientific basis for our common concerns
Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.

Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines
The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”[1]. These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields[2]. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.

The WHO adopted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) in 2002[3] and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in 2011[4]. This classification states that EMF is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Despite both IARC findings, the WHO continues to maintain that there is insufficient evidence to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.
Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields. The deliberations of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guide precautionary action.
Collectively we also request that:

1.children and pregnant women be protected;
2.guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened;
3.manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology;
4.utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current;
5.the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies;
6.medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity;
7.governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers; disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and
9.white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.


Calling All Angels -Dedicated to wireless freedom fighters everywhere

Calling All Angels: Dedicated to Wireless Freedom Fighters Everywhere

Thursday, May 28, 2015

ALEC: The CTIA (and Other Corporate Entities) Making Secret Agreements on Bills with Senators Behind Closed Doors

The CTIA (and Other Corporate Entities) Making Secret Agreements on Bills with Senators Behind Closed Doors

An Atlanta TV station just aired one of the best takedowns of the secretive nature of ALEC we've ever seen:
Posted by Media Matters for America on Friday, May 22, 2015

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Ionospheric Heaters and Destroying the Van Allen Belts

Ionospheric Heaters and Destroying the Van Allen Belts


Hacking the Van Allen Belts

Could we save satellites and astronauts by wiping out the Van Allen belts?
By Charles Q. Choi Posted 26 Feb 2014 | 15:00 GMT

Electric Light Orchestrated? Alas, even if we took control of the Van Allen belts, it probably wouldn’t result in more auroras.

The radiation belts around Earth are loaded with dangerous protons and electrons that can damage spacecraft. Now researchers are launching experiments to see if they can clear away the high-energy particles that pose the hazard by blasting them with radio waves.

When humans began exploring space, the first major find was the Van Allen radiation belts, doughnut-shaped zones of magnetically trapped, highly energetic charged particles. The Van Allen belts consist mainly of two rings: The inner belt starts roughly 1000 kilometers above Earth’s surface and extends up to 9600 km, while the outer belt stretches from about 13 500 to 58 000 km above Earth. The location and shapes of the belts can vary, and they can even merge completely.

High-energy protons are found within the area of the inner belt, whose size remains generally stable over the course of years to decades. The outer belt, on the other hand, is home to high-energy electrons and can vary dramatically in size and shape over the course of hours or days.

An error occurred.

Unable to execute Javascript.

The huge amounts of radiation in the Van Allen belts can pose major risks for the host of satellites that pass through or orbit within these swaths of space. There are ways to make spacecraft more resistant against this radiation. For instance, spikes on their surfaces known as electron emitters can radiate away excess lower-energy electrons that might otherwise accumulate and cause a spark. In addition, shielding can help keep high-energy protons and electrons from penetrating nonconducting materials and building up inside them, which could lead to a damaging discharge.

However, decades of models and observations suggest a more dramatic solution: using carefully tuned electromagnetic waves to drive these particles out of space and into Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists first explored the idea of dispersing electrons in the outer belt, and they are now targeting protons in the inner belt.

“It’s really mind-boggling to think there could be human control over such huge volumes of space,” says Jacob Bortnik, a space physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “On Earth we control nature all the time, like building dams, but the prospect of doing it in space is fascinating—it seems a bit like science fiction.”

One radiation-clearing strategy involves using very large radio transmitters on the ground to beam very low frequency (VLF) waves upward. These can in principle interact with and scatter charges in the radiation belt and drive them into the upper atmosphere.

“The result would be a little bit like auroras, although you wouldn’t see them,” Bortnik says.

Fig. 1. Observation geometry and image data from two low-light imaging systems capturing 557.7-nm emissions from a bull’s-eye-shaped artificial ionospheric plasma over the HAARP facility. A reconstruction based on the image data shows the central spot and the ring to form two distinct artificial layers separated in altitude by ∼15 km, which matches closely the multiple layers seen in ionosonde echoes (lower right).

The problem with that approach is getting VLF waves through the ionosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that sits about 80 to 640 km above Earth. “That layer is very conductive, so it’s hard to get signals through it efficiently,” Bortnik says.

Another strategy would station satellites that emit VLF waves in the radiation belts. “The problem is that you’d need quite a lot of energy,” Bortnik says, and large antennas that would be challenging to fit onto spacecraft.

Still, Bortnik points out, the U.S. Air Force’s Demonstration and Science Experiments (DSX) satellite, set for launch in 2016, will carry an instrument to monitor the effects that VLF waves broadcast in space might have on these dangerous electrons. “Those experiments can show how well VLF waves actually do, and maybe change what we think we know about what is needed to clear away electrons,” Bortnik says.

Satellite Threat Due to High Altitude Nuclear Detonation - Eisenhower Institute - Papadopoulos-Presentation 280369

Satellite Threat Due to High Altitude Nuclear Detonation – Eisenhower Institute – Papadopoulos-Presentation 280369

Initial efforts to clear the Van Allen belts targeted electrons because they tend to get trapped there as the result of high-altitude nuclear explosions. In 1962, a U.S. high-altitude nuclear weapons test named Starfish Prime generated a highly energetic artificial electron belt that disabled the first commercial communications satellite, TelStar 1, so researchers sought ways to protect spacecraft from nuclear weapons used in space.

However, it’s the protons in the inner belt that scientists have recently explored. Getting rid of them would potentially open up valuable new orbits for satellites and make travel safer for astronauts, says Maria de Soria-Santacruz Pich, whose Ph.D. work at MIT was on manipulating the Van Allen belts. It might also be impossible.

An error occurred.

Unable to execute Javascript.

“Protons are heavy, about 2000 times heavier than electrons, so if you imagine a proton bashing into a piece of silicon, it can do a whole lot more damage than an electron,” Bortnik says. “Clearing them out would be good.”

High-Voltage Orbiting Long Tether (HiVOLT): A System for Remediation of the Van Allen Radiation Belts

A System for Remediation of the Van Allen Radiation Belts

Pich and her colleagues discovered that a type of VLF electromagnetic wave known as an electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) wave could potentially disperse protons in the inner belt. Pich says this strategy poses no hazard to Earth—the swarm of protons would be virtually unnoticed in the atmosphere.

Dr. Jacob Bortnik

Dr. Jacob Bortnik, UCLA “consultant to QuakeFinder, based in Palo Alto, CA. QuakeFinder uses a chain of search-coil magnetometers to look for possible magnetic precursors to large earthquakes, as well as DEMETER satellite data.”

Pich and her colleagues recently refined the computational strategy needed to figure out what frequencies space-based antennas should use and how much power is needed. However, Pich also found that to disperse all the protons from the region, you’d need a million 15-meter antennas operating for a few years, “which is indeed not feasible in the near future,” she says.

Nonetheless, Pich noted, her calculations assume that the waves these antennas generate do not bounce back and forth inside the inner belt. If they do, that could greatly improve their effectiveness, potentially making the strategy possible. A satellite mission would decide the matter one way or another, but there’s a lot of engineering work needed to even propose such a mission, she says.

It remains uncertain as to whether removing these radiation belts might have unintended consequences.

“At present we don’t think there is any downside to not having them, but as with all things geophysical, it is hard to know all the complex interconnections between the various systems and estimate the full effect of removing the radiation belts completely,” Bortnik says.

“That’s the most any of us can really say at the moment.”

This article originally appeared in print as “Can We Hack the Van Allen Belts?.”
Mirrored from:
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The military has been trying to destroy or control our ionosphere, magnetosphere, and Van Allen Belts for over fifty years and now it is getting crazy.  I find it highly ironic that Dr. Bortnik shoots electromagnetic missiles around our planet AND predicts earthquakes due to heated skies….. RRRREALLY!?!  I see what you did there, chicken before the egg my butt.  Read more about “radiation belt remediation” and the whole story here on our HAARP and the Sky Heaters page]

An error occurred.

Unable to execute Javascript.

HAARP and the Sky Heaters

Radio Hazard Safety Assessment for Marine Ship Transmitters: Measurements Using a New Data Collection Method and Comparison with ICNIRP and ARPANSA Limits

Joel's comments: The ICNIRP and ARPANSA RF electric field limits are likely too permissive to protect the health of workers and the general public. Nonetheless, the limits for the general public were exceeded on the bridge roof of this vessel.

Radio Hazard Safety Assessment for Marine Ship Transmitters: Measurements Using a New Data Collection Method and Comparison with ICNIRP and ARPANSA Limits

Malka N. Halgamuge. Radio Hazard Safety Assessment for Marine Ship Transmitters: Measurements Using a New Data Collection Method and Comparison with ICNIRP and ARPANSA Limits. Published: 19 May 2015. (This article belongs to the Special Issue Electromagnetic Fields and Health)


We investigated the levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) emitted from marine ship transmitters. In this study, we recorded the radio frequency (RF) electric field (EF) levels emitted from transmitters from a marine vessel focusing on the areas normally occupied by crew members and passengers. Previous studies considered radiation hazard safety assessment for marine vessels with a limited number of transmitters, such as very high-frequency (VHF) transceivers, radar and communication transmitters. In our investigation, EF levels from seven radio transmitters were measured, including: VHF, medium frequency/high frequency (MF/HF), satellite communication (Sat-Com C), AISnavigation, radar X-band and radar S-band.

Measurements were carried out in a 40 m-long, three-level ship (upper deck, bridge deck and bridge roof) at 12 different locations. We developed a new data-collection protocol and performed it under 11 different scenarios to observe and measure the radiation emissions from all of the transmitters.

In total, 528 EF field measurements were collected and averaged over all three levels of the marine ship with RF transmitters: the measured electric fields were the lowest on the upper deck (0.82–0.86 V/m), the highest on the bridge roof (2.15–3.70 V/m) and in between on the bridge deck (0.47–1.15 V/m).

The measured EF levels were then assessed for compliance with the occupational and general public reference levels of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standards. The ICNIRP and the ARPANSA limits for the general public were exceeded on the bridge roof; nevertheless, the occupational limits were respected everywhere. The measured EF levels, hence, complied with the ICNIRP guidelines and the ARPANSA standards.

In this paper, we provide a new data collection model for future surveys, which could be conducted with larger samples to verify our observations. Furthermore, this new method could be useful as a reference for researchers and industry professionals without direct access to the necessary equipment.


In this investigation, we performed measurements and analysed radio frequency radiation emitted by the transmitters aboard a marine vessel, focusing on areas normally occupied by crew members and passengers. In total, 528 electric field measurements were taken. Additionally, we developed a new data collection protocol and performed various scenarios to accurately measure the radiation from all transmitters. Under the normal operating conditions, there were a few marine ship transmitters and antennas transmitting continuously, and other radios operate intermittently. By considering this, for the first time, we report measuring the electric field from each transmitter condition, which is insignificant, and this must be carefully taken into account for future studies. Our results show that the electric field levels were highest on the bridge roof and the lowest in the upper deck, and the measured values were within a range of 0.001–39.46 V/m. The limits for the general public were exceeded on the bridge roof; nonetheless, the occupational limits were respected everywhere. Hence, this complies
with the occupational and general public reference levels of the ICNIRP guidelines and the ARPANSA standards. Some further conclusions that can be drawn from this paper are: (i) electric field levels were high with the VHF fixed (Sailor 6006) transmitter; and (ii) high frequency electric field levels that are radiated from the vessels’ transmitters on the bridge roof will not have much impact for crew members and passengers. Nevertheless, this study should be useful as a reference for many researchers and
industry professionals without direct access to the necessary equipment. Further research is desired to determine the electric field levels for a larger amount of ships using the proposed protocol in this paper. Such research would provide a basis for establishing safety distances and support the development of guidelines by suitable authorities.


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

News Releases:
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Effect of mobile phone usage time on total antioxidant capacity of saliva and salivary immunoglobulin a

Effect of mobile phone usage time on total antioxidant capacity of saliva and salivary immunoglobulin a

Arbabi-Kalati F, Salimi S, Vaziry-Rabiee A, Noraeei M. Effect of mobile phone usage time on total antioxidant capacity of saliva and salivary immunoglobulin a. Iran J Public Health. 2014 Apr;43(4):480-4.


BACKGROUND: Nowadays mobile phone is very popular, causing concern about the effect it has on people's health. Parotid salivary glands are in close contact to cell phone while talking with the phone and the possibility of being affected by them. Limited studies have evaluated the effect of cell phone use on the secretions of these glands; so this study was designed to investigate the effects of duration of mobile phone use on the total antioxidant capacity of saliva.

METHODS: Unstimulated saliva from 105 volunteers without oral lesions collected. The volunteers based on daily usage of mobile phones were divided into three groups then total antioxidant capacity of saliva was measured by Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) method. Data were analyzed by SPSS software version 19. ANOVA was used to compare 3 groups and post-hoc Tukey test to compare between two groups.

RESULTS: Average total antioxidant capacities of saliva in 3 groups were 657.91 µmol/lit, 726.77 µm/lit and 560.17 µmol/lit, respectively. The two groups had statistically significant different (P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION: Over an hour talking with a cell phone decreases total antioxidant capacity of saliva in comparison with talking less than twenty minutes.
Open Access Paper:


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

News Releases:
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Digital Detox Concert

Article in the Times 26.5.15 ...."Pop festival fans turn off and tune in":
More than 1,500 people spent the bank holdiday weekend at one of hte first festivals of the summer - but there wasn't a tweet or a selfie to prove it.
The crowd gathered for Britain's first 'digital detoxing' event, a phone-free celebration organised by Unplugged Weekend. Using a phone was impossible at the Innocent Unplugged festival in Kent woodland.  There was no wi-fi no 3G signal and electricity was generated by solar or pedal power.
...Lucy Pearson and Vikki Bates two twenty somethings from London founded the weekend last year after meeting on a meditative trip to the Sahara.  they organise workshops and retreats throughout Britain and Europe.
Theri trips consist of yoga and music encouraging a technology-obsessed generation to turn off its phones.  they said "While we embrace all things digital...there's a lot to be gained from taking time out to go gadget free"
Has anyone heard of these? One to follow up?
Kind Regards


Oncologist Nearly Fired for "Raising Concerns"

Oncologist Nearly Fired for "Raising Concerns"

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 Words like epidemic and genocide accompany discussion of the proliferation of microwave technology. Indeed, it was Dr. Devra Davis, epidemiologist and author of Disconnect and founder of the Environmental Health Trust in the United States, who first coined the phrase “the slow roll-out of an epidemic” of a host of diseases including cancer.

 The predicted epidemic has also been anticipated by the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland five years ago when they sought more money to protect patients while in care.
 Evidence - if not proof - of the emerging cancer epidemic comes from a top Irish medic who claimed his job was threatened (a common occurrence in the scientific community) for questioning the health service. The following article is instructive:Inline image 30

 There are other medical professionals in Europe who are on the firing line who wish to remain anonymous.
 It is worth noting that the introduction of driverless vehicles can/will have an impact on car owners. If General Motors is not challenged by it's claim to ownership of software which makes a car work, companies and governments can/will control the car owner's ability to travel in their own vehicles. This is an important issue for personal freedom.
 Again, thank you to Lyn McLean, Australia, Josh del Sol, U.S.A.,  and Martin Weatherall, Canada, for their leadership and sharing their work.

Kind regards,

John Weigel

All I Really Need to Know About EMF I Learned After My Wife Got Sick

All I Really Need to Know About EMF I Learned After My Wife Got Sick

A Brief History of Electrosmog

Published: May 26, 2015

"Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." — Tobacco executive internal memo, 1969

"There really are people who feel pain, etc., related to EMF, etc., and rather than have them becoming hysterical, etc., I would quietly leave them alone." — Former California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey in an email to Pacific Gas & Electric's Brian Cherry seized by California authorities, 2010.

History was never my favorite subject. I preferred English, theatre, religion — subjects where the imagination seemed unrestricted by the weight of historical facts. Of course, I had heard the truism about not being able to understand the present without knowing the past. I appreciated the idea intellectually. But it wasn't until my wife Godeliève Richard, a Swiss dancer/choreographer and visual artist, became sick in the spring of 2010 and we came to understand, after three torturous years, that the root of her suffering was her sensitivity to RF (radio frequency) wireless radiation of the sort emitted by cell towers, cell phones, computers trying to pick up Wifi, Wifi enabled routers, cordless phones, tablets, our electric meter, etc., etc., etc., that I became an avid student of history.
We began reading books, articles, websites. We watched documentaries. We spoke with activists. It took me several months to completely accept that EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity) was what had derailed our lives and stolen time and energy from our now three-year-old son. Members of our family and friends quietly confided their belief to me that this must be a mental problem. In a way, I wished they were right. How would we live? How would she survive?

Sometimes at four in the morning after another sleepless night when we were deciding whether or not to go to the emergency room, it seemed like death was a possible final outcome. Luckily, we found a solution for our home that has allowed her to sleep well again and begin to heal, however she still can't leave the house for more than a few hours at a time. Among other adjustments we have made, a doctor recommended a company making biotuners, a small rectangular casing placed on the fuse box in order to deactivate the harmful information from electrosmog.

One of my many layers of resistance to accepting that electromagnetic pollution or electrosmog was what had destroyed her health was a simple, naive faith in the regulatory powers of the U.S. government. This radiation is literally everywhere. If it could be so dangerous, how could it be allowed on such a massive scale? But after I found the startling analogy between RF and asbestos and cigarettes laid out on more than one advocacy group site, things began to click.

The tobacco industry’s manipulation of the science and the U.S. court system began in the 1950s. In 1981, Japanese researcher Takeshi Hirayama definitively established the link between cancer and second hand smoke. Every year that passed added to the death toll in America. Why the lag time? One reason was that the tobacco industry had hired product defense firms that specialized in one product: doubt. If you can define the parameters of a scientific study that you pay for, it turns out there is quite a good chance the scientists you have hired will reach a conclusion that supports your position that there is no problem. Cell phone companies have hired, literally, some of the same supporting cast used by the tobacco industry.

In May, 2014, tobacco scientist Peter Valberg of product defense firm Gradient, testified in Worcester, MA, to the Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals about the safety of National Grid's smart meter pilot program. Smart meters are two-way RF transmission devices that the Massachusetts of Department of Public Utilities issued an order for utility companies to install on June 12, 2014. The Mass DPU relied on Valberg's testimony in their assessment that the radiation emitted from smart meters was safe because it is below FCC limits. A fraud complaint was filed with the MA Attorney General's office against the DPU in March.

It turns out our electric meter was installed in the late 90's already equipped to pulse RF radiation every couple of seconds from the meter to the street. I called our electric company and told them that radiation made my wife sick and asked that they pull in to our driveway as they drive by and read the meter in person. I was told this was not possible. I suggested that we could simply shield the meter and they could lift the shielding off to take the readings. But this, they warned, would lead to potentially more expensive "estimated readings" when their truck got back to headquarters without a reading from our meter.

Telecom Companies Hold A Legislative Trump Card
Between 1994 and 1998, telecom companies made nearly $12 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress. In 1996, they helped write the Telecommunications Act, which stipulates that "no state or local government . . . may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication Commission's] regulations concerning such emissions."

This provision stripped my town's Zoning Board of Appeals, not to mention every U.S. individual, local and state government, of the ability to say “no” to a cell tower proposal on the basis of health concerns. The result is that although the now more than 6,000 independent studies demonstrating health risks may be mentioned during the hearing process, the tower AT&T proposed on our road had to be denied on some other grounds, like its proximity to a road designated as a Scenic Byway or perhaps the average of 15 percent drop in property value for those unfortunate enough to live next to it.

Luckily for us — and even better for the elderly people and children who would have been living about 150 feet from the tower — AT&T withdrew their proposal. They didn't say why, but looking at the pattern of new cell tower placement around the U.S., we can surmise that this was a business decision based on their strategy of following the path of least resistance. In other words, putting a new tower on the road of a publicly known person suffering from EHS probably looked a little too costly. My wife and I make plays for a living and our latest, Innocenzo, tells the tale of a clown who, after visiting many doctors and healers, finally realizes that he has become electro-hypersensitive. We didn't have to do much research.

Cell companies have become adept at hiding their antennas and AT&T wanted to stash the one designated for our road in an oversized barn silo. In Switzerland, where we tour our plays in French, there is a tower hidden in a church steeple not far from our apartment. Consequently, although Switzerland has the lowest RF limits in the world, Godeliève has a harder time leaving the house there than the rural road where we live in the U.S. Unfortunately, hiding cell towers or decorating them as trees does nothing to change health impacts.

A German study published in 2004 (Eger, et al), found that living within 400 meters of a cell tower increased the likelihood of developing cancer by 300%. These results are typical of the growing number of studies being done outside the U.S. where the distinctive lack (read $0) of federal funds being spent on RF safety research seems unsurprising given the "over 400 million dollars in political contributions and lobbying [by the wireless industry]," according to lawyer Andrew Campanelli who now specializes in preventing unwanted cell tower installation after starting his career as a telecom lawyer.

Everyone is Electro-sensitive
It might seem, at first glance, that people like Godeliève should be shipped off to an island so that the rest of the un-sensitive population can enjoy their wireless lives. Although countries are establishing radiation free zones for people like her, everyone is electro-sensitive. Everyone's melatonin production (the substance which cleans up cancer-causing free radicals, among other things, while we sleep) is inhibited when exposed to levels of RF currently deemed safe. Humans are electrical beings composed of cells that have been proven damaged by much, much lower levels of RF than you would experience in your typical coffee shop or elementary school.

One key historical moment concerns the Federal Communication Commission standards themselves. Back in 1953, researcher Herman Schwan, a former Nazi scientist imported in 1949 to work for the U.S. Navy, suggested a thermal (heat) exposure limit for RFs based on heating effects he had noted when radar operators cooked hot dogs in their microwave beams. In other words, if your cell phone doesn't measurably heat your skin, it must be okay, even if you are a fetus, newborn or otherwise more vulnerable being than the top 10% of U.S. military recruits in 1989, the skull of whom the FCC bases its SAR (specific absorption rate of RF by the brain) calculations upon.

The patently absurd idea, if you are a biologist, of no cellular damage happening below the thermal limit has been challenged by the American Pediatric Association, the U.S. Department of the Interior (who are concerned about effects on migratory birds), the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the California Medical Association, Swisscom (in a patent application), and many others. The FCC standard is so high that telecom companies have had no incentive to engineer anything that might be even a little bit safer. Isn't it every person's right to stream an HD movie on his/her phone while waiting in line at the post office? How about two at time? How about 16?

Nothing like the changes in federal policy that are needed have ever come as an initiative from the corporations or government. It has only happened, as Ralph Nader likes to remind us, because people came together in the common wish for a place where people can drink clean water, breathe clean air, share the same rights as other citizens and, in this case, be able to live their lives without having their health damaged in the relative safety of their own homes.

Global RF Reduction Efforts
One of the ironies of the RF radiation puzzle is that there are many straightforward steps that can be taken by individuals, governments and corporations to reduce this multiple source 24/7 exposure. This year France and Taiwan became the first countries to pass national legislation aimed at protecting the public from wireless emissions. In this case, they took their cue from emerging health research and primarily defined the public as very young children, whose thinner skulls allow lower levels of RF to penetrate deeper into the brain. There will be no more wi-fi in French nursery schools; in elementary schools it will be turned off except when needed.

National legislation of this sort, besides being progressive and forward-thinking also happens to be in the financial self-interest of governments around the world. Insurance companies have quietly stopped offering coverage for wireless-related health problems. Who is going to pay for skyrocketing rates of cancer, Alzheimer's, ADHD, autism, and burn-out leading to missed work days? Since there can be no definitive 1-to-1 correlation for the multiple environmental factors weighing on our systems, how are you going to make anyone pay the bill for what Swedish researcher Lennart Hardell descibes as "the world's greatest biological experiment ever"?

The makers of wireless technology are in a terrible spot. Like the tobacco companies, they have to keep denying the existence of a problem or face major legal and financial repercussions.

The 2011 World Health Organization classifies RF as a Class 2B "possible carcinogen," along with lead and car exhaust. In the 2014 French documentary "Ondes, Science, Manigances" (Microwaves, Science and Lies), director Jean Heches demonstrates that despite this classification, the WHO is extremely influenced (to put it politely) by the telecom industry. Sweden, the first country where EHS is officially recognized as a functional impairment, offers a cell phone network and a provider of health care coverage to around 300,000 people with the sensitivity. Lennart Hardell's 2014 research on long term cell phone use in that country suggests that RF should be re-classified as a Class 1 "known carcinogen." However, this reclassification is a financial impossibility (from a certain privileged point of view) as there are trillions of dollars and hefty sections of the ecomony depending on the perpetuation of doubt. Unsurprisingly, Hardell has become the victim of a smear campaign.

The makers of wireless technology are in a terrible spot. Like the tobacco companies, they have to keep denying the existence of a problem or face major legal and financial repercussions. Utility companies and the state bureaucracies charged with regulating them (or abetting them in California's case), after having installed RF-emitting transmitters on our homes, are in the same bind. So you can bet no corporate movement will be made towards protecting the public until we create a financial incentive for them — or they have no choice. That is, if history has anything to teach us.

Jonathan Mirin's plays have been performed around the U.S. and internationally. He co-founded Piti Theatre Company with his wife Godeliève Richard in 2004, whose recent productions include 28 FEET (about growing up with Crohn's disease), To Bee or Not to Bee (about honeybee disappearance) and Innocenzo. For more about Piti Theatre Company's production Innocenzo visit Upcoming tour dates include: June 2, 2015: Greenfield Community Television live taping, Greenfield MA, and June 6, 2015: Shelburne Falls' Riverfest, at the Shelburne Senior Center, 1 pm.