the first statement from the W.H.O. saying we should be careful with exposure to this kind of radiation

By TARA PARKER-POPE and FELICITY BARRINGER

A World Health Organization panel has concluded that cellphones are “possibly carcinogenic,’’ putting the popular devices in the same category as certain dry cleaning chemicals and pesticides, as a potential threat to human health.

The finding, from the agency’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, adds to concerns among a small but growing group of experts about the health effects of low levels of radiation emitted by cellphones. The panel, which consisted of 31 scientists from 14 countries, was led by Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Southern California and a member of President Obama’s National Cancer Advisory Board.

The group didn’t conduct any new research but reviewed numerous existing studies that focused on the health effects of radio frequency magnetic fields, which are emitted by cellphones. During a news conference, Dr. Samet said the panel’s decision to classify cellphones as “possibly carcinogenic” was based largely on epidemiological data showing an increased risk among heavy cellphone users of a rare type of brain tumor called a glioma.

Last year, a 13-country study called Interphone, the largest and longest study of the link between cellphone use and brain tumors, found no overall increased risk, but reported that participants with the highest level of cellphone use had a 40 percent higher risk of glioma. (Even if the elevated risk is confirmed, gliomas are relatively rare and thus individual risk remains minimal.)

Most major medical groups, including the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, have said the existing data on cellphones and health has been reassuring. For years, concerns about the health effects of cellphones have been largely dismissed because the radio frequency waves emitted from the devices are believed to be benign. Cellphones emit nonionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancers. Scientists have said repeatedly that there is no known biological mechanism to explain how nonionizing radiation might lead to cancer or other health problems.

The W.H.O. panel ruled only that cellphones be classified as Category 2B, meaning they are possibly carcinogenic to humans, a designation the panel has given to 240 other agents, including the pesticide DDT, engine exhaust, lead and various industrial chemicals. Also on the list are two familiar foods, pickled vegetables and coffee, which the cellphone industry was quick to point out.

“This I.A.R.C. classification does not mean cellphones cause cancer,’’ John Walls, vice president for public affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry group, said in a statement. Mr. Walls noted that both the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration have concluded that the weight of the scientific evidence does not link cellphones with cancer or other health problems.

This year, The Journal of the American Medical Association reported on research from the National Institutes of Health, which found that less than an hour of cellphone use can speed up brain activity in the area closest to the phone antenna. The study was among the first and largest to document that the weak radio frequency signals from cellphones have a measurable effect on the brain. The research also offers a potential, albeit hypothetical, explanation for how low levels of nonionizing radiation could cause harm without breaking chemical bonds, possibly by triggering the formation of free radicals or an inflammatory response in the brain.

“We looked carefully at the physical phenomena by which exposure to such fields might perturb biological systems and lead to cancers,” said Dr. Samet. But he said the result was inconclusive, adding, “We found some threads of evidence about how cancer might occur but have to acknowledge gaps and uncertainties.”

The panel made no comment on how large or small a risk cellphone radiation may pose to human health. “Our task was not to quantify risk,’’ said Dr. Samet.

Although the panel did not make specific recommendations to consumers, a representative did note that using a hands-free headset during a conversation or communicating via text message would be options for lowering radio frequency exposure.

The panel’s recommendation is unlikely to have any immediate effect, but is expected to be used as guidance by the World Health Organization, which may make recommendations about cellphone safety.

Dr. Meir Stampfer, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health who is a paid adviser for the cellphone industry, said it was important to remember that the panel’s decision to rank cellphones as a “possible” carcinogen was very different from saying that they pose a real health risk.

“It’s a very thoughtful group, but the important thing is putting it into the perspective of what ‘possible’ means, and the likelihood that this is really something to be concerned about,’’ Dr. Stampfer said. “The evidence doesn’t support that. Comparing this to going out in the sun or any number of normal everyday activities that we’re not really concerned about, I would put cellphones in the lower part of that category.’’

Still, Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, a newsletter that focuses on nonionizing radiation, said in an e-mail that the fact that the W.H.O.’s cancer panel had expressed concern had the potential to change the debate about the health risks of cellphones. “It’s a wake-up call for the telecom industry and for the U.S. government to take cellphone radiation seriously,” he said. “The first step should be limiting the use of cellphones by children.”

Henry C. Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in electromagnetic fields, said the credibility of the W.H.O. panel made it difficult to dismiss the findings.

“The debate will go on, except this is the first statement from the W.H.O. saying we should be careful with exposure to this kind of radiation,’’ he said. “It’s quite a mixture of people, and some very respectable researchers. If someone says this panel isn’t good, I don’t know who else we should be listening to.”

Dr. Lai added that the solution to concerns about cellphone risks is relatively simple. “A precautionary approach is the best policy,” he said. “If people use cellphones, they should consider using an earpiece. Just keep the phone away from the head.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/cellphone-radiation-may-cause-cancer-advisory-panel-says/

Well – Tara Parker-Pope on Health
May 31, 2011, 4:30 pm

Aired June 4, 2011 – 13:00 ET

As you probably heard, the world health organization has added cell phones to the list of substances that are possibly carcinogenic, meaning they might cause cancer.

The wireless association, which represents the cell phone industry is dismissing the report saying the classification is based on, quote, “limited evidence and no research.” OK, cell phone companies, if you know enough to dismiss the finding, what evidence do you have about the long-term effect of cell phone use?

Because if you’re sitting on a report that proves conclusively that cell phones don’t cause brain cancer, release it. Save us all a lot of worrying. If you aren’t, as I suspect, why don’t you get out in front of this issue. It may be good business to do independent research and put this pesky question to rest. Some people are already comparing cell phone companies to tobacco companies.

You know, the very first study linking smoking and lung cancer was down back in 1939. Other reports followed, but it wasn’t until the late 1990s that tobacco companies actually began admitting that smoking causes cancer.

Here is the difference. Unlike smoking, nobody is actually calling for us to quit our cell phones. It’s just the opposite. It’s a growth opportunity. A whole new industry could spring up around technology designed to keep our phones a safe distance from our heads or our hearts or our reproductive organs. Imagine the headsets that can be sold.

If it’s liability you’re worried about, sitting on critical information for decades didn’t save the tobacco companies any money in the end. Get out in front of this now. That’s my appeal to you. If you won’t step up, maybe it’s time for the government to step in.

We need a fresh look at current radiation standards for our phones and we need, maybe, a federal research program to study the effects of cell phone radiation on humans, especially on children. We can’t afford to 30 years or 40 years for the answer to become obvious.

That is too high a price to pay.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/04/cnnitm.01.html

users might consider common-sense precautions such as texting more instead of talking and using a headset to keep the phone farther from the head to minimize exposure.

By Rob Stein, Published: May 31

An international panel of experts has weighed in on the controversy about cellphone safety — and come to a conclusion that falls far short of recommending that consumers put down the devices, although it may make them more anxious.

Cellphones are “possibly carcinogenic” to humans, according to the panel organized by the World Health Organization. But an exhaustive, eight-day review of hundreds of studies concluded that the existing evidence is insufficient to know for sure. And because cellphones are so popular, further research is urgently needed, the experts said.

“Possibly carcinogenic” is the WHO’s third-highest rating, falling below “carcinogenic” and “probably carcinogenic” but above “not classifiable” and “probably not carcinogenic.” Other substances that the group has categorized as “possibly carcinogenic” include talcum powder, which has been possibly linked to ovarian cancer, and low-frequency magnetic fields, which are emitted by power lines and appliances and have been possibly associated with childhood leukemia.

Nonetheless, the cellphone classification marks a departure for the WHO, which previously said there were no risks from exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields emitted by the devices.

“The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and, therefore, we need to keep a close watch for a link between cellphones and cancer risk,” said Jonathan M. Samet of the University of Southern California, who chaired the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer panel.

The classification was based primarily on two large epidemiologic studies that found an association between cellphone use and brain cancer, particularly a malignant form called glioma and a benign tumor known as acoustic neuroma.

The panel, which included 31 scientists from 14 countries, did not quantify the possible risk; nor did it estimate how much cellphone use might be safe or risky, make any recommendations about whether cellphones should be regulated more strictly, or recommend what steps consumers should take. But one panel member said users might consider common-sense precautions such as texting more instead of talking and using a headset to keep the phone farther from the head to minimize exposure.

“This is left to the individual consumer to make a decision about whether the current level of evidence is strong enough to take such precautionary measures,” Kurt Straif, who heads the IARC’s monographs program, said in a telephone briefing Tuesday.

But some experts said the conclusion should lead to immediate action, not only by consumers but also by the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission.

“This is the first formal acknowledgment that we may have a problem on our hands — and it could be a very big problem,” said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, a trade publication. “The IARC decision, surely, is a wake-up call that people, especially children, should take sensible precautions.”

CTIA, which represents cellphone makers, dismissed the significance of the classification, noting that it was not based on new research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national

The Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) has decided to conduct a survey on the accidents caused by the lightning striking in close proximity to telecommunication towers, Chairman, TRC, Anusha Palpita said.

“The initial stage of the study will start from Kalutara and, depending on the survey results, the TRC is planning to expand the survey in certain other areas of the country,” Palpita said. Residents at Kalutara have already been requested to inform the TRC about any accidents caused by lightning near telecommunication towers. The complaints could be brought to the attention of the TRC on 0112 68 93 45.

With the expansion of the mobile phone usage the number of towers island wide also has to be increased to provide the customers a quality service. “Currently there are approximately 4,500 telecommunication towers island wide,” Palpita said.However, he said that the senior engineers of the TRC are of the view that lightning accidents could be minimised if the proper guidelines are followed when setting up telephone connections. “If the survey results reveal any problems concerning the set guidelines, the guidelines in the national policy will be altered in order to overcome the situation,” Palpita said.

He added that the survey results will be submitted to a special committee and further steps will be taken depending on their observations.

April 15, 2011, 5:44 pm

By Pabodha Hettige

The Island

Dr. Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies at Trent University where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of environmental contaminants. Dr. Havas received her Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, completed Post-Doctoral research at Cornell University, and taught at the University of Toronto before going to Trent University in Peterborough, Canada.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is considered one of the most influential publications used by the health industries to disseminate information to doctors. Many years ago, it had been used to advertise that cigarets were safe. Pictures of doctors where shown smoking and they often endorsed certain brands.

So when doctors read about a National Institutes of Health cell phone study in that AMA journal, and it shows 50 minutes of cell phone radiation increases metabolic activity in the brain – it’s a big red flag and an unlucky strike against the wireless industry.

No longer can Health Canada or the wireless industry scientists provide the disinformation that ”non-thermal, non-ionizing microwave radiation has no biological effect on the human body”! Instead, they now say “there are no health effects”, which is equally false (see study on brain tumors and mobile phones).

Now, when a patient asks their doctor, “Doctor, is it safe to use my cell phone? Can I give one to my child?” The doctor now has a green light to say,” Well, I just read a study in a very prestigious medical journal that shows cell phones do affect the brain. We don’t yet know if this effect is harmful or not, so, until we do, I suggest that you use a cell phone with caution and as something that could be dangerous. And I certainly would encourage young people to avoid cell phones except for emergencies.”

So now the doctor is off the hook. “They” have warned us.

What few people realize is that it takes two to tango. If a cell phone alters your brain, what is the radiation from a nearby cell phone base station antenna doing to your body? The cell phone and the antenna mounted on towers and building rooftops use the same frequencies to communicate. The major difference is that if you live near a cell phone tower with multiple antennas, your entire body (and not just your head) is going to be exposed to this radiation. AND that exposure is for a much longer period than a single 50-minute exposure as in the JAMA study mentioned above.

I certainly would not want to live on the upper floors of a high rise building, in a city like Toronto, facing the CN Tower or facing a nearby building with multiple antennas on the roof. It is unlikely that this long-term, cumulative exposure to microwave radiation is going to be benign. Indeed people who live within 400 meters of these antennas often complain of ill health.

The Israel Health and Environment Ministries will ban new cell towers

The potential dangers of microwave radiation from cell phone towers is finally being announced to the general public by health authorities. Another red flag to the wireless industry was recently raised by the government of Israel.

The director general of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Att. Alona Sheafer (Karo), and the director general of the Ministry of Health, Dr. Ronni Gamzu, have called on Communications Ministry director general Eden Bar-Tal to meet and discuss the implications of the move toward fourth generation (4G) mobile use, which necessitates the expansion of the mobile infrastructure.

The directors general went on to say that they will oppose any intention to expand the mobile infrastructure to accommodate 4G phones until such time that the need and justification for such a move are examined in depth and in coordination with the two ministries. Click HERE to read the story.

As the United States attempts to rollout the new true high speed 4G phones and towers capable of sending and receiving true 1GBps, Israel is putting on the brakes. This is good news for activists who are attempting to slow down the widespread adoption of this technology. It seems that the message from activists is getting wide recognition.

The cell phone companies are now worried about this negative publicity. Instead of putting up new true high powered 4G towers that could be potentially dangerous, they have decided to rename the existing 3G HSPA wireless network to 4G! This has caused massive confusion for the public that is wanting and waiting to upgrade to the latest and greatest digital wireless device. Wireless hardware manufacturers are lost in a sea of confusion. Investors are worried about the future. Read about it HERE

Clearly, something is going on behind the scenes . . . the wireless industry is on the run.

magdahavas.com

Some studies have suggested a link between cellphone use and cancer, lower bone density and infertility in men. But other studies show no effect at all.

In a culture where people cradle their cellphones next to their heads with the same constancy and affection that toddlers hold their security blankets, it was unsettling last month when a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that doing so could alter brain activity.

The report said it was unclear whether the changes in the brain — an increase in glucose metabolism after using the phone for less than an hour — had any negative health or behavioral effects. But it has many people wondering what they can do to protect themselves short of (gasp) using a landline.

“Cellphones are fantastic and have done much to increase productivity,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, the lead investigator of the study and director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health. “I’d never tell people to stop using them entirely.”

Yet, in light of her findings, she advises users to keep cellphones at a distance by putting them on speaker mode or using a wired headset whenever possible. The next best option is a wireless Bluetooth headset or earpiece, which emit radiation at far lower levels. If a headset isn’t feasible, holding your phone just slightly away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance. “Every millimeter counts,” said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an online newsletter covering health and safety issues related to exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

So crushing your cellphone into your ear to hear better in a crowded bar is probably a bad idea. Go outside if you have to take or make a call. And you might not want to put your cellphone in your breast or pants pocket either, because that also puts it right up against your body. Carry it in a purse or briefcase or get a nonmetallic belt clip that orients it away from your body.

Some studies have suggested a link between cellphone use and cancer, lower bone density and infertility in men. But other studies show no effect at all. Given the mixed messages and continuing research, Robert Kenny, a Federal Communications Commission spokesman, said in an e-mail, “As always, we will continue to study this issue and coordinate with our federal partners.”

The phone used in Dr. Volkow’s study was a Samsung Knack, model SCH-U310, a flip phone that was in wide use when she began planning her experiments two and half years ago. But today’s ubiquitous smartphones emit even more radiation as they transmit more, and more complex, data.

You can get an idea of the relative amounts of radiation various cellphone models emit by looking at their SAR, or specific absorption rate. This number indicates how much radiation is absorbed by the body when using the handset at maximum power. A cellphone cannot be sold in the United States unless an F.C.C.-approved laboratory says its SAR is below 1.6 watts per kilogram. In Europe, the maximum is 2 watts per kilogram.

The SAR number is not displayed when you compare cellphones at your local wireless store, and trying to find it in the fine print of your user manual is an exercise in frustration. The F.C.C. maintains that SAR values “do not provide sufficient information” to reliably compare cellphone radiation emissions because certain phones might rarely operate at maximum power. Still, the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization, has a comprehensive list of the SAR values for most cellphones available from major carriers on its Web site. (For instance, the Apple iPhone 4 is listed at 1.17 watts per kilogram, the Motorola Droid at 1.5 and the LG Quantum at 0.35.)

But more important than looking for a low-SAR phone is how you use it. Many cellphones emit the most radiation when they initially establish contact with the cell tower, making their “digital handshake.” To reduce exposure it’s best to wait until after your call has been connected to put your cellphone next to your ear.

During the ensuing conversation, it’s advisable to tilt the phone away from your ear when you are talking and only bring it in close to your ear when you are listening. That bit of teeter-totter works because the emission of radiation is “significantly less when a cellphone is receiving signals than when it is transmitting,” said Lin Zhong, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Rice University in Houston.

Moreover, your cellphone emits less when you are stationary because when you are moving rapidly — say, in a car or train — it must repeatedly issue little bursts of radiation to make digital handshakes with different towers as it moves in and out of range. (More cause to hang up when you buckle up.)

Want another reason to complain about your carrier’s poor coverage? Any situation where your cellphone has a weak signal indicates it has to work harder and thus will emit more radiation. “Fewer bars means more radiation,” said Om Gandhi, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Inside buildings and elevators, in rural areas, the Grand Canyon — these are not good places to make a call if you’re trying to reduce your exposure to radiation.

Of course, parents using their iPhones to pacify cranky kids might want to reconsider rattles. Children’s developing brains and tissues are thought to be most vulnerable to cellphone radiation. Health authorities in Britain, France, Germany and Russia have all issued warnings against allowing small children to use cellphones for extended periods, if at all.

There are cellphone attachments that purport to shield users from radiation, and most are “hoaxes,” said Mr. Gandhi. Beware of pendants that sellers claim snatch radiation from the air. Pong Research offers a cellphone case for iPhones and BlackBerrys that it says has been shown by an F.C.C.-approved testing lab to redirect radiation from the phone’s antenna away from the head.

While the manufacturer says it reduces radiation more than 60 percent, some electrical engineering experts question whether the case may have the opposite effect at orientations where your head is in the way of the cell tower because your phone may have to increase its transmission strength somewhat to compensate for the redirected signal. The company disputes this. Nevertheless, the net effect of using the device throughout the course of the day may be a reduction in total exposure.

Texting, instead of talking, might be safer. “The whole trend toward texting instead of talking on cellphones is probably a good thing,” said Mr. Slesin at Microwave News.

That is, if you don’t rest your cellphone against your body while typing out your message.

By KATE MURPHY
Published: March 30, 2011

New York Times

Dr. Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies at Trent University where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of environmental contaminants. Dr. Havas received her Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, completed Post-Doctoral research at Cornell University, and taught at the University of Toronto before going to Trent University in Peterborough, Canada.

In December 2009 an array of cell phone antennas was placed on an apartment building at 2 Regal Rd. in downtown Toronto, much to the surprise of the residents who first became aware of this construction as the cranes moved in. Watch the video and listen to what Veronica Ciandre experienced.

Within two months, those who lived on the top floor of this apartment building began to feel ill. Nausea, dizziness, buzzing in the ears, headaches, head pressure, difficulty sleeping, brain fog, skin rash, burning sensation in the skin, and a metallic taste in the mouth were just some of the symptoms. One woman and her daughter became so sick, they could no longer stay in their apartment and moved in with friends. The antennas were close enough to be touched by a broom from the top floor balcony.

Click HERE to listen to a CBC radio documentary about Veronica’s experience with cell these cell towers.

Click HERE to view a PDF of Veronica Ciandre’s story – My Life 6ft Under Cell Towers.

On February 13, 2010, the tenants asked us to visit their building and measure the radiation in their penthouse apartment and on their balcony. Levels of radiation were among the highest we’ve ever measured and we used several meters that all gave similar readings.

In Canada, Industry Canada approves the location of antennas on roofs. Indeed some believe that the lowest levels of radiation are immediately below the antennas so putting them on school rooftops, hotels, or apartment buildings is safe. This is wrong. Some of the highest readings we recorded were immediately below the antennas in the various bedrooms.

One of our more expensive meters stopped working when we tried to measured the exposure on the balcony and later learned this meter was programmed with a safety feature that turned itself off, to protect the electronics, when exposed to high levels of radiation.

You might expect levels this high to exceed Health Canada’s guideline for microwave exposure. This was not the case. Safety Code 6 states that if the power density, averaged over 6 minutes, is below a certain value (1000 micro Watts per square centimetre for cell phone frequencies) it will not heat your tissue and is considered safe. This guideline may be appropriate for cell phones where the user talks for, at most, a few hours, but for antennas on top of your bedroom, where you spend a third of your life sleeping, an exposure guideline of 6 minutes is grossly inadequate.

Let’s use cooking as the analogy for this thermal guideline. If it takes 6 minutes to cook a potato in a microwave oven set at high power, then we may assume that cooking the potato twice as long may require half the power. We can extend this cooking analogy to an 8-hour period during sleep or possibly a 24-hour period for those who are home all day. Based on this type of calculation the residents in the penthouse apartment of this building are “cooked” within one week. In other words, if exposures were weighted for time, the Safety Code 6 Guideline would be exceeded within one week.

Epidemiologists have found high cancer rates on the upper floors and residents have successfully removed cell phone antennas from apartment buildings, but only after years of struggle because of long-term, iron clad contracts that are highly profitable to landlords.

If landlords knew that these microwave transmitters affected the health of their tenants and of those in nearby apartment building, and if they knew that they might be legally liable for health claims attributed to these antennas they might not be so quick to sign these lucrative deals. The woman in this case has hired an attorney and is suing her landlord.

As awareness increases, occupants are likely to move out of these “sick” buildings resulting in vacant apartment complexes that are “condemned” by the neighbourhood. This type of action will surely send a strong signal to landlords and developers who think of roof-top towers as vertical realestate for cell phone antennas.

I’m not against cell phone antennas being placed on towers far from human habitation. However, these antennas should not be placed on top of or near apartment buildings, hotels, office buildings, schools, hospitals and fire halls, in other words, where people spend more than a third of their life. No amount of concealment will reduce the radiation from these antennas.

The media has started to bring attention to this issue. They need to investigate the microwave dangers lurking on the roof especially in large urban centres where roof-top antennas are the norm.

Posted February 2010.

are-cell-phone-antennas-on-apartment-buildings-safe?