Photos on Cell Phone Lead to Drug Arrests
The Associated Press
Six teenagers were arrested on drug charges after a parent flipping through a cell phone found a text message and photo advertising a pound of marijuana for sale, police said.
Police said teens in Farmington would call teens in Shrewsbury, Mass., to arrange to buy drugs. The Massachusetts teens then allegedly used cell phones to take pictures of their merchandise and send them to Connecticut.
"They had a lot of proprietary enthusiasm," Sgt. Daniel Devine told The Herald of New Britain. "They would e-mail a picture of the drugs and a message to kids in town on their cell phone, and then the kids in Farmington would send the photo and message to all their friends to notify them of the upcoming sale."
A parent found one of the advertisements on a child's cell phone and called police. They obtained warrants to monitor additional calls and narrow down locations where the sale could take place, Devine said.
The teen whose parent found the advertisement was not involved in the sale and had simply received a text message about it, Devine said.
On Friday night, Farmington police stopped a car and arrested six teens. Devine said police found and seized less than a pound of marijuana, several hundred dollars, drug paraphernalia and cell phones.
Police charged three 15-year-olds from Farmington with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. A 15-year-old from Massachusetts was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell.
Their names were not released because they are juveniles. They were released into the custody of their parents and will be referred to juvenile authorities.
Police charged Errin Parsons, 18, of Shrewsbury with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. She was released on $1,000 bond and scheduled to appear Jan. 4 in Hartford Superior Court.
Zachary Brady, 16, of Shrewsbury was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell and conspiracy. He was released on $10,000 bond and is due back in court Jan. 3.
Devine said police believe Brady has ties to Farmington. Shrewsbury is just northeast of Worcester, Mass.
"These were affluent kids who were selling drugs to other affluent kids," Devine said. "They weren't trying to make a profit to support themselves or their family; they were doing it for fun."
Proof positive that crack doesn't smoke itself. Dumbasses.
Really, that stuff should be legal.
<---- Never tried it
damn, his parents posted the $10K bond to get him out? They must be rich
All that over a fucking weed God put here on this earth, which is useful in hundreds of ways.
What do you want to bet the parent does a 180 and defends their precious child?
So how much is a pound of weed?
I used to always tell the detectives before executing a dope warrant to be sure to go through the photo albums. An easy 60% of the time, we'd come up with a picture of the buffoon posing with his dope, cash, and/or guns - usually all three. The pot growers often had pictures of themselves standing next to gigantic MJ bushes, looking for all the world like deep-sea fishermen posing with a 700 lb sailfish.
It's a lot!
So its ok to sell pot if you are poor?
Anyways, I feel safer already.
What's that, $8,000-$10,000?
From what I remember $1600 and up. Mind you this was over 20 years ago.
Hey, the town I live in finally made the national news!!!
Depends on grade. Schwag=$100 oz, Kind=$100 quarter oz.
From $2700 to $3200 a pound.
Jebus, back in the day you could by an oz of the KGB for 100$
He put uranium here, too. Do you smoke that?
Were you a prosecutor?
Hell, my favorite response to finding MJ in a vehicle (after I had 15 plus years on the dept. and was no longer a fuxxing rookie, was to dump it out while the "owner" was watching. The looks on their faces was worth a hell of a lot more than arresting them and sending them to court.
Convicted criminals are stupid. They want to talk about it, photograph it, take notes about it, brag in general. That's how they wind up in prison. They are the bottom of the barrel mentally, and they are caught easily.
In my nieghborhood, "affluent kids" usually sold some higher pay grade dope to other "affluent kids."
Way to underachieve kids.
Yes, and I loved it - till the BS got too deep. I have never heard anybody in LE complain seriously about the job, but lots of good people quit over office politics and administrative crap.
i've never quite understood the "drug paraphernalia" laws. i have a friend who smokes tobacco out of a bong, because he likes the cooler smoke from the water filtration. could he get arrested for possession of "drug paraphernalia"?
I've met some of those types. They will gawk at a "High Times" magazine like it was a "Hustler".
"Goddamn yo, look at the size of those buds!"
IMO its a pretty shitty thing to do for a parent to call up the police over a childs use of drugs.
So now not only does the child have a drug problem but they also have a criminal record.
I can understand of the kid was a general fuck up and has done some fucked up things before, but if this was the first time, as the article leads me to believe then thats just stupid to go to the police first without even talking it over with your child.
I hope the dumbasses who turned thier kid in were the same ones who payed $10k to get thier kid out of jail.
Idiots. They called the cops? And to get a warrant to boot? And now presumably they pay through the nose for the kids'--who they narked on--defense.
+1. i would hope most parents would actually care about their children, rather than turning them in for "the system" to deal with, which does nothing except give them a record and lots of legal bills.
if your friend also has loose smoking tobacco and the bowl doesn't contain traces of marijuana then he's in the clear.
When you buy that quantity, usually for good stuff $2000-$3000. I dont know about Mexican, which is shittily produced and cheap. Canadians also grow a lot of dope for export, but their dope is good. Most people buy it by the 1/8 of an ounce, which goes for $40 which comes out to $5000 a pound.
Typically, the statutes are directed at items intended to be used for ingestion of illegal drugs. A bong with nicotine residue in the bowl is not paraphernalia; one with pot resin in the bowl is. A bong (or pack of cigarette papers, or briar pipe) in a box with a tin of Prince Albert is not paraphernalia; the same items in a box with a bag of weed are paraphernalia. Because there are legal items which can be consumed by smoking, design alone won't show the device to be contraband.
We used to bust head shops by sending in a scruffy-looking detective who would, for example, pick up a crack pipe and ask the proprietor "Hey, if I put a screen in here can I use it for weed, or is it strictly for crack?" Pretty much any answer but "That's a tobacco pipe, sir" proved that it was paraphernalia.
I send the to the DMV driver safety office for a re-exam. Way bigger headache than the $40.00 weed ticket. if they are stupid enough to admit regularly smoking weed to the hearing officer he will suspend their license for "disability"
In my state "paraphernalia" only aplies to items which have been used to smoke or inject a controlled substance (not weed). Meaning used meth pipes, crack pipes, and heroin syringes. Its a ticket punishable by a diversion class.
Applying California laws to your situation, no way.
To be drug paraphernalia, the item must have been used to ingest or process drugs.
I would assume that NY law is similar, otherwise it would have to require an appearance test, which would be hell to write into the law and harder to testify to as an expert.
Glad to hear you worked for the "team."
You're right about the office politics and administrative crap. I came from the corporate world, and I never thought I'd see the back-stabbing, posturing, and general ass-kissing in government service. Sadly, it may be worse here.
FWIW, too many reasons to list why Cell Phones are a bad thing and best left to sheeple......
Even the CIA agents have problems with their's as this article notes: www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122705M.shtml
Called on Their Errors
By John Crewdson
The Chicago Tribune
Tuesday 27 December 2005
CIA agents' use of cell phones during mission lets police in Italy identify them, spurring agency review.
Milan - The trick is known to just about every small-time crook in the cellular age: If you don't want police to know where you are, take the battery out of your cell phone when you're not using it.
Had that trick been taught at the CIA's rural Virginia training school for covert operatives, the Bush administration might have avoided much of the crisis in Europe over the practice the CIA calls "rendition."
When CIA operatives assembled here nearly three years ago to abduct an Egyptian-born Muslim preacher named Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, and "render" him to Cairo, they left their cell phone batteries in.
Even when not in use, a cell phone sends a periodic signal, enabling the worldwide cellular network to know where to look for it in case of an incoming call.
Those signals allowed Italian police investigating Abu Omar's disappearance to construct an almost minute-by-minute record of his abduction in February 2003, and to identify nearly two dozen people as his abductors.
CIA director Porter Goss, "horrified" at the sloppiness of the Milan rendition, has ordered a "top-down" review of the agency's "tradecraft," the nuts and bolts of the spy business.
So amateurish was the rendition that the Italian lawyer for Robert Seldon Lady, whom prosecutors identify as the former CIA chief in Milan, says Lady's primary defense will be that he was too good a spy to have been involved in anything so badly planned and carried out.
Lady, 51, who retired from the CIA two years ago, is believed to be living in Florida. If he or any of the 21 other CIA operatives charged in Abu Omar's abduction set foot in the European Union they are subject to arrest and extradition to Italy for trial.
Prosecutors say there is little doubt Lady was a key player in Abu Omar's kidnapping and his rendition to Egypt, where he claims to have been tortured.
Evidence seized by police last summer from Lady's Italian villa includes a surveillance photograph of Abu Omar walking from his apartment to a nearby mosque, at the precise spot where he was later seized and thrown into a van.
Although Abu Omar is not an Italian citizen, he obtained political asylum in 2001. In ordering further probes, Milan judge Chiara Nobili said it was necessary "to identify which agency is responsible for such a severe violation of international law as kidnapping a person legitimately living in Italy."
Should the CIA decide to teach its trainees how not to conduct a covert operation, it could find few better examples than the Milan rendition.
The list of mistakes made here begins with the operatives' indiscriminate use of their cell phones. One of the CIA's operatives made at least four calls to what appear to be friends and family in Texas, court records show. Another made a personal call to Greece. A man whose passport claims he was born in Tennessee made nine apparently personal calls, including one to a stockbroker in Kentucky.
Although the Milan operatives frequently changed hotels, the changes only made it easier for the police to identify them.
Officials involved with the case said police searched for the numbers of cell phones that had been close to the scene of the abduction at the moment it occurred. They found 19. Then they discovered that many of those phones had been in communication with one another, in most cases for short calls.
The phones turned up in Milan in the weeks before the abduction but stopped transmitting shortly after it was over, making it a good bet that they belonged to the kidnappers.
Police also noticed that each night, based on their positioning signals, the suspect phones had come to rest in particular Milan hotels. Dozens of Americans had been registered at those hotels, but after a few days or weeks at one hotel, many of the phones had moved to another hotel.
Checking registration records for guests who had changed hotels on the same days produced the names of Americans who had listed U.S. post office boxes as their addresses and nonexistent companies as their employers.
A few of the operatives actually put their cell phone numbers on their hotel registration cards. When one bought a cell phone in Milan, she registered it in what police believe is her real name. At least three other operatives used their own names when registering at hotels and renting cars, investigators say.
One operative made sure when checking into hotels to hand over her frequent flyer number, to get credit for her hotel stay.
ps - just say NO to cell phones, your brain cells will thank you.......
Oh my GOD, what a crock of shit. The fact that criminals and spooks have fucked up via cell phone means that law abiding citizens should avoid them? You need some serious logic repair there.
So... if you went into a six pack shop and asked the cashier, "Hey, if you drink this beer, kink the can and put a hole in it, could you use it to smoke MJ?" and if he said "I guess you could..." you could arrest him?
I need to let all the people at Radio Shack know that they better stick with the story that alligator clips are for holding wires ONLY.
where you getting it from? KB here costs a buck fifty an 8th
When I was in college it was about $450 CDN........
probably more now (my sister and various cousins were pot heads...... Now they seem to be becoming tweakers )
LOL.....stupid kids these days. I recently busted a bunch of kids on my street for hiding weed in the park? They were sending text messages on their cell phones as to the exact location. Unfortunately, my kid was one of the recipients. I went to the park, found it, and
This is what I was referring to above......., which falls more under the heading of HEALTH risks associate with cell phone use.
Cell Phone Convenience or 21st Century Plague?
Compiled by Dr. Nick Begich and James Roderick
Earthpulse Press has been following the development of new technologies over the last ten years. Our research efforts and publications have been focused on the impacts of new technology on both human health and the planet’s operating systems. The idea that both could be impacted in profound ways through the introduction of new energetic factors may well prove to be the environmental story of the 21st century. One of the leading new factors is cell phone technology that is predicted to have over 1.3 billion worldwide users by the year 2005.
Cell phones have been one of the fastest growing industries in modern history. The uses of electronic communications for average people began with the introduction of personal paging systems in the 1970’s - expanding into remote telephones and cell phones by the end of the century. Most people today have either portable phones in the home, cell phones for away-from-home use or both. These devices are connecting people in convenient ways as their cost continues to decline with expanded use. The cost of cell phones will continue to drop as the market increases in size and technologies become more capable and increasingly cheaper to operate. Soon Internet and other connections will be added to the remote world of the ethereal office space making us more productive, more connected and perhaps more unhealthy.
In the following article we attempt to bring together much of the research and reporting over the last ten years in the area of cell phone and home portable phones. Often in the debate the portable home phone is not mentioned; however, it should be kept in mind that many of these phones are no different in their potential impacts on our health.
The Health Effects Mount
The idea of health effects from cell phones or other devices is quickly becoming the focus of much research. The findings are confirming for many researchers the observations made over the years of the effects of very small energy sources on living things. It has been discovered that small amounts of energy when delivered in the right way can have the same effects as a massive dose of chemicals. The complexity of living creatures is being found to be influenced by the most delicate fields of electromagnetic energy.
It has long been known that the subtle effects of light and color when interpreted by the human eye results in sight or when a sound wave, which is just another form of energy, is transformed by the ear and brain into sound we can understand.
Other forms of energy are not well understood because their current form is a new addition to our environment by mankind.
The effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) continue to be reported worldwide. Tests were conducted in China at the Microwave Institute of Zhejiang Medical University which demonstrated the effects of exposure to environmental electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in 1170 subjects. Visual reaction time was prolonged and the scores of short-term memory tests were lower in some high-intensity exposure groups. They also found that these energy fields could affect the central nervous and immune systems in man. Their data indicated that chronic exposure to EMFs are associated with significant changes in some physiological parameters.1 In an American laboratory similar results have been reported. The impact on Calcium ions, which are important in maintaining normal health functions in brain tissues, was found in experiments. This may affect nervous system function. Test “results confirm that amplitude-modulated radiofrequency radiation can induce responses in cells of nervous tissue origin from widely different animal species, including humans.”2 This small effect has significant health ramifications for people.
Another area of concern is in prenatal development in mammals. “Pregnant women have been warned to be wary of using mobile phones after it was found radiation produced by the devices caused defects in chicken embryos...US scientists tested mobile phone-style radiation on more than 10,000 chicken embryos and as a result some researchers are urging pregnant women not to use the phones until the risks can be properly assessed. British mobile phone specialist Roger Coghill said the findings were ‘enormously worrying.’”3 “The possible effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation on prenatal development has been investigated in mice. This study consisted of RF level measurements and in vivo experiments at several places around an ‘antenna park.’ At these locations RF power densities between 168 nW/cm2 and 1053 nW/cm2 were measured. A progressive decrease in the number of newborns per dam was observed, which ended in irreversible infertility.”4
“Australian research has found one of the strongest links between cell phones and cancer. Over periods of 9 to 18 months, exposed mice had twice the tumor rate as unexposed mice. The mice were exposed to cell phone radiation. As reports linking cell phone use to adverse health conditions have been published, attempts ‘have been made by industry to hose down the findings with what is called ‘The Hockett Defense’ (named after the chief Tobacco Institute scientist) who advise his executives to repeat endlessly, ‘men aren’t rodents’. As one of the scientists commented to me; ‘but DNA is DNA’. At the level of normal cell growth processes, human and animal cells act very similar.”6
The body has to be seen in the context in which it operates. The body is not a closed system but, rather, an open one which exchanges energy with all of the forces around it. The human body seeks equilibrium or its own balance. Energy interaction requires a corresponding action from the body. On an energetic level this results in chemical changes, system stress and other interactions which can be either healthy or not so healthy. The “new techniques using low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields (e.g. digital telecommunication) have raised the question of interferences with the biological system of man. EEG-data of man sampled under the influence of these electromagnetic fields are altered extremely in the range of alpha-activity during as well as after exposure for some hours. This biological effect is induced by field intensities lower than the given international limiting values. Regarding these results there is the very important question of possible influences, injurious to health for people exposed to pulsating electromagnetic fields, especially by operating the new type of digital telecommunication networks (GSM-standard).”7 In each of these kinds of observation a very limited area is researched involving a few wave forms, frequencies and carrier modulations in a sea of possibilities. Each of these tests represents a look at the beach - a grain of sand at a time. Some energy fields are healthy and are being used to create solutions to many health issues while others are life threatening. The disconnect between technological fields of research will dissipate over time as communication increases between research areas.
There has been a great deal of laboratory research into the biological effects of EMFs in recent years. It has been shown that even fairly low levels of electromagnetic radiation can change the human body’s sleep rhythms, affect the body’s cancer-fighting capacity by harming the immune system, and change the nature of the electrical and chemical signals communicating between cells.8 The research has also shown that this energy may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease. “These results are consistent with previous findings regarding the hypothesis that electromagnetic field exposure is etiologically associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease.”9
Reports continue to amplify the same results which are being replicated now around the world. At the same time the industry is shifting the standards, changing cell phone designs and altering other factors which make evaluation of the effects even more difficult. “Existing data indicate that RFR of relatively low intensity (SAR < 2 W/kg) can affect the nervous system. Changes in blood-brain-barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and calcium efflux, and genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RFR. These changes can lead to functional changes in the nervous system. Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to RFR have been reported.”10, 11 New research indicates that exposure to cell phones’ radiation causes red blood cells to leak hemoglobin, the build up of which can cause heart disease and kidney stones. Scientists exposed samples of blood to microwave radiation and found that even at lower levels than those emitted by cell phones, the blood cells leaked hemoglobin. “Last month, scientists at Sweden Lund University found that two minutes of exposure to emissions from mobile phones can disable a safety barrier in the blood causing proteins and toxins to leak into the brain. This can cause the chances of developing diseases such as Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s. Symptoms reported by mobile phone users include fatigue, dizzy spells and memory loss.”12
British scientists are demanding that mobile telephones carry a health warning. “Amid an explosive growth of mobile communications, concerns are mounting about cellular telephones’ potential links to health problems ranging from headaches to brain tumors... Mobile telephones are arguably the most radiative appliance we have ever invented apart from the microwave oven and people are putting them by their heads - arguably the most sensitive part of the body,” bio-electromagnetics scientist Roger Coghill said. Cell phones emanate microwave radiation, and human brains may absorb up to 60 percent of that energy.” One engineer said he has suffered severe loss of short-term memory. He began suffering from twitching eyes and numbness of the head within months after using a digital mobile phone for up to six hours per day in 1995. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) sets the standards for exposure in Britain. “Recommended radiation limits are measured in ‘specific absorption rates’ - the amount of radiation averaged over one gram of tissue.” The NRPB recommends a limit of 10 milliwatts per gram, though proposed European guidelines are five times more restrictive.13
How much evidence on the risks of mobile phones must be shown before the industry admits to the risks? “Scientist Clas Tegenfeld who is writing a book on biological effects of electromagnetic fields is pessimistic: ‘Already there are at least 15,000 scientific reports on the subject. I am afraid the truth is that we don’t want to know.’”14 Children may be more sensitive to microwaves than adults says an Australian report indicating they absorb microwaves at 3.3 times the rate of adults. “For amplitude- or pulse-modulated RF fields, there is the implication that some form of envelope demodulation occurs in tissue recognition of ELF modulation components, but the tissue remains essentially transparent to the same signal as an unmodulated carrier.”15 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) signals have been reported to stimulate physiological responses in many experiments where in certain exposures there was an effect but in others not manipulated in the same way there was no effect at all. It could be compared to the dialing of a radio signal - if slightly off the signal is not clear. Someday it will be as well understood as radio science when dialing up the health of a person. Research is showing that the body can be both monitored and influenced by measuring signals from the body and conditioning signals entering the body. This area of science will also advance.
There have been reports of headaches caused by cell and portable phone use.16 Evidence from the 1960s and 70s supports the conclusion that cell phones cause headaches among some users. Cell phone “transmitting frequencies fall in the most sensitive band for the microwave hearing effect. The transmitting frequencies are also in the band that has maximal penetration into the head. Further, when the head is shielded from the microwave energy, the area of the head that needs to be exposed to the microwaves in order for people to perceive the effect is in proximity to the antenna of present day cellular telephones,” Frey wrote. The most important point that came out of his microwave research in the 1960s was that his human subjects were reporting headaches. 30 years ago he encountered and reported headaches from microwave energy exposure at approximately the same frequencies, modulations and incident energies that present day cellular telephones emit.17 Dr. Frey was involved in several research areas related to the concept of microwave hearing or the act of creating audible signals inside the head without a physical connection to a device. Perhaps this will one day lead to the development of new concepts of wireless communications. These types of communications have been researched and will likely emerge into the mix of new technologies in the coming decades.
Researchers have shown that low intensity microwave exposure opens up the blood/brain barrier, a biological effect which can allow the release of dangerous chemicals into the brain. The U.S. Department of Defense stopped open funding of blood/brain barrier experiments that used low intensity microwave energy, which is cause for concern. Recognition of low-intensity effects would greatly limit military exposures. Limiting the exposure of military personnel would have an impact on many of the national defense systems. The problem is the “head in the sand mentality.” This approach to “don’t know - don’t tell” has proven dangerous in the past to both civilians and military personnel. “New Swedish research shows that the radiation from mobile phones might make it easier for poison to penetrate into the brain. The findings could explain the diseases that American soldiers who have participated in high-tech warfare are suffering from. The unexplained symptoms of American soldiers of the Kuwait war are suspected to link to the medication they took against nerve gas. The microwaves surrounding soldiers in high-tech warfare could have opened the blood/brain-barrier, and the medication penetrated into the brain. The possibility is now being investigated by the US Air Force in co-operation with the Lund scientists.”18
“Data in the literature now indicates that the dopamine/opiate system may be involved in headaches and suggest that headaches may be due to cellular emissions...the energy used was approximately the same in frequencies, modulations, and incident energies as those emitted by present day cellular telephones. These current reports of headaches may be the canary in the coal mine, warning of biologically significant effects.”19 The early research by Dr. Frey was most revealing in that it was conducted before the advent of the cell phone. As a result, the research was done with limited, if any, economic impact on industry and the results were unchallenged.
“German investigators report that exposure to electromagnetic fields during mobile phone use may increase resting blood pressure. Exposure of the right hemisphere to a radio-frequency electromagnetic field for 35 minutes causes an increase in sympathetic efferent activity with increases in resting blood pressure between 5 and 10 mm Hg, most likely due to more pronounced vasoconstriction.”20
“Mobile phones can cause sudden confusion and short-term memory loss, according to worrying research by British military scientists. Signals from the phones disrupt part of the brain which controls memory and learning, researchers at the Defense Establishment Research Agency have discovered.” Project director Dr. Rick Hold said, “This is the first real evidence that these sort of radio waves do have an effect on the brain.” The researchers found that the “signals made no difference in their measurements for a short time, but then readings plunged off the graph. In a live rat, the effect would have caused sudden memory loss and confusion.”21
“Scientists from Colorado University have shown that frequent mobile users had significantly depressed melatonin - a vital cancer-preventing hormone. An Australian study has linked the phones to a higher rate of brain cancer while a Swedish survey suggested that using a mobile phone for more than 15 minutes could lead to headaches and fatigue.”22
The most difficult area of research is the complexity of interactions that are possible. Nevertheless a great deal can be gained by looking at the very specific sources of EMFs in determining both their effects and ways to limit human exposure. “It is difficult to deny that RFR at low intensity can affect the nervous system. However, data available suggest a complex reaction of the nervous system to RFR. Exposure to RFR does produce various effects on the central nervous system. The response is not likely to be linear with respect to the intensity of the radiation. Other parameters of RFR exposure, such as frequency, duration, waveform, frequency- and amplitude-modulation, etc, are important determinants of biological responses and affect the shape of the dose (intensity)-response relationship. In order to understand the possible health effects of exposure to RFR from mobile telephones, one needs first to understand the effects of these different parameters and how they interact with each other.”23 As we have increased our exposure to both chemicals and EMFs in the last three decades we have seen certain brain cancers increase in all age groups by 1% a year. Since 1980 those 65 and older have increased 2.5% a year. Among those over 85 the increase has been as much as 500% since 1973.24
Remote Home Portable Phones
Cell phones are not the only phones to cause concern about health problems. “Today’s high-frequency cordless phones may emit a level of electromagnetic radiation similar to cellphones. F reasons of health and privacy, a growing number of scientists and other experts are dead set against cellphones. They say a cancer risk is associated with signals that have a strong wattage and high frequency (short wavelength). First generation cordless phones operate at about 60 megahertz and the next ones ran at 900 megahertz - higher than 835MHz cellphones. The new 2.4 GHz is higher still and can transmit for several kilometers without fading.”25
“Two new studies have shown links between mobile phone usage and brain tumors. The studies are not absolutely conclusive but the American and Swedish authors have urged users to ration use of mobile phones until more is known. Dr. [Lennart] Hardel’s study, as yet unpublished, looked at brain tumor sufferers. It found a correlation between phone use and cancer. His study showed that mobile phone use, regardless which side of the head it was held against, increased the risk of a brain tumor by almost two and a half times.”26
Some of the leading researchers were contracted by Motorola to carry out some experiments. Two of the world’s leading radiation experts reported to The Express that multinational companies tried to influence the results of their research.
“Professor Ross Adey, a biologist, had his funding withdrawn by Motorola before completing research which showed that mobiles affected the number of brain tumors in animals. Dr. Henry Lai, who has been studying the biological effects of electromagnetic fields for 20 years, was asked three times to change findings on how they caused DNA breaks in rats.”27 Both of these scientists have been involved in academic, military and other research projects throughout their lives. In fact many of their observations on the health effects of EMFs have been used in increasing the military’s understanding of these potential weapons applications as reported in our earlier work.28
“Jerry Phillips, who has a doctorate in biochemistry, worked with U.C. Riverside’s [Ross] Adey on Motorola-funded research beginning in 1991.” He describes a pleasant relationship with them until studies linked exposure to changes in the incidence of brain tumors in rats. “Motorola was adamant that Adey never mention DNA damage and RF radiation in the same breath,” Phillips said.
“Motorola has been manipulative of research that we and others have reported to them,” said Adey. “Essentially they cut us off because we were too inquisitive.”
Adey found that some frequencies of RFR lessened the incidence of tumors in rats. Motorola was unwilling to recognize this test, not wanting to admit any biological effects of RFR whatsoever.
“Phillips, Adey, and others said they see a strong parallel between what’s happening now and the decades of denial by the tobacco industry...”
Though 40% of the energy radiated from cell phones is absorbed by the head, the amount is not significant enough to cause heating. Evidence points to DNA damage as a source of the health problems associated with cell phone use. It is suggested that RFR may hinder the ability of DNA to repair itself.29
“’For the first time in history, we are holding a high-powered transmitter against the head,’ said Ross Adey, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California, Riverside. When you talk on your mobile phone, your voice is transmitted from the antenna as radio frequency radiation (RFR) between 800MHz and 1,990MHz at a range that’s right in the middle of microwave territory. Not surprisingly, it now appears that exposure to this microwave RFR may have serious health consequences.”30
The research continues with another major study being conducted in Europe. “The biggest study to date into suspected links between mobile phones and cancer will begin this year. Nearly 9,000 cancer sufferers in 14 countries will be interviewed by scientists in a study funded by the European Commission. “Researchers want to establish once and for all if there is a link between mobile phones and brain tumors and other cancers.” Results of the study should be available by 2004.31
“Microwaves similar to those emitted by cell phones may effect long-term memory, according to a new study by a University of Washington researcher. Henry Lai, a research professor in the UW’s bioengineering department, has linked diminished long-term memory and navigating skills in rats with exposure to microwaves like those from cellular telephones.”32
“Public exposure to electromagnetic radiation (radiofrequency and microwave) is growing exponentially worldwide with the introduction and use of cordless phones, cellular phones, pagers and antennas in communities designed to transmit their RF signals. The virtual revolution in science taking place now is based on a growing recognition that non-thermal or low intensity RF exposure can be detected in living tissues and result in well defined bioeffects. Bioeffects that are reported to result from RF exposure include changes in cell membrane function, metabolism, cellular signal communication, activation of proto-oncogenes, and cell death. Resulting effects which are reported in the scientific literature include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, increased free radical production, cell stress and premature aging, changes in cell membrane function including memory loss, learning impairment, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, reductions in melatonin secretion, and cancer. The United States has a de facto policy of ‘post-sales surveillance’ with respect to cell phones. That means cell phones can be sold to the public, and only after years of use will there be studies to characterize what health consequences, if any, have arisen as a result.”33
Some scientists are even warning that constant cell phone use causes premature aging. “Low level radiation from the phone ‘heats up’ body cells, damaging skin and making the user look lined and haggard. The study by Nottingham University’s School of Biological Sciences is the latest research to raise concerns about the effect of mobile phones on health. Dr. David De Pomerai, who is in charge of the research team, said: ‘Gradually, cells don’t work properly, so the life process becomes less efficient.’ Dr. De Pomerai said that heavy mobile phone users were just like heavy smokers who constantly inhaled cell-damaging toxins without allowing the body time to repair the harm.”34
The Effect on Children
While some manufacturers target children for cell phone sales, experts point out that “cell phone radiation penetrates the skulls and brains of kids more deeply than adults, and that this radiation might cause tumors or otherwise affect a developing brain. Several brands of cell phones exceed the radiation limits specified in FCC guidelines, ABC News show 20/20 reported. Dr. Ross Adey, a widely published RF researcher stated that ‘Children categorically should not, be encouraged or allowed to use’ cell phones. ” 35
“Overall, the available data on EMF and cancer (especially leukemia, brain and breast cancer) are too inconsistent to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, but there is enough evidence of association to raise concern. As a matter of fact, epidemiology has seen a large number of examples where health hazards were initially described with unconvincing and sometimes inadequate experiments which demonstrated a weak association with a given environmental influence. Such associations were found between cholera and drinking water containing fecal contaminants, between smoking and lung cancer or between exposure to vinyl chloride and certain forms of liver cancer. All these associations were highly questioned in the past and are now well recognized.”36
Current Research on Cell Phones
Confirms Earlier Studies of Risk
Though 85 million Americans now use cell phones, Europeans began widespread use of them much earlier with many now reporting side effects from their use. Monica Sandstrom, of the Swedish National Institute for Working Life, unveiled data from her agency’s survey of cell phone users - 5,000 in Norway and 12,000 in Sweden. “One quarter of the Norwegian users, she noted, feel warmth on or behind the ear when they use their phones...20 percent also linked frequent headaches and recurring fatigue to cell-phone use. At least one of the symptoms noted, which include dizziness, concentration difficulties, memory loss, and a burning sensation, showed up in 47 percent of people who reported using these wireless devices an hour or more daily.” 37
“On March 9, the China Consumers Association (CCA) issued a ‘worrisome’ warning about Chinese cell phones’ electromagnetic radiation and how this might affect phone users, the March 10 Yangcheng Wanbao reported. According to the CCA, tests have found that some cell phones’ radiation was as high as 10,000 microwatts per square centimeter (1,550 mw per square inch).” The newspaper noted a study by China’s Northern Communications University which said that half of cell phone’s radiation is absorbed by the human body and another quarter by the brain.38
“Experts studying mobile phones are waiting to investigate new research from Poland which reportedly establishes a link between the devices and cancer. The Sunday Mirror newspaper said the 20-year study of servicemen had established ‘the strongest link yet’, showing a high cancer death rate among soldiers exposed to microwave radiation, ‘the same as that emitted by the phones.’”39
“Using a mobile phone could drastically reduce your sex drive, new research shows... Researchers tested rats and mice using microwave radiation at lower levels similar to those emitted by mobile phones. Scientists discovered that exposed rats had far less testosterone in their blood stream than those which remained unexposed. The higher the dose of radiation, the less testosterone was released by the body’s glands, resulting in diminished sexual activity.” The test results are being studied in Britain, where scientists are conducting similar research.40
“Current safety guidelines for cell phones assume no harmful effects, as long as the microwave radiation they emit does not cause heating of body tissue. Exposure limits are intended to protect us only from excessive temperatures caused by absorption of energy, a known danger linked to the intensity of radiofrequency microwaves.” But living cells respond in non-thermal ways to the fields produced by cell phones, and at intensities below the established safety threshold.41
“Ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for brain tumors. During recent years, microwave exposure from the use of cellular telephones has been discussed as a risk factor.” A case-control study was undertaken, with exposure assessed by questionnaires. It was determined that “Exposure to ionizing radiation, work in laboratories, and work in the chemical industry increased the risk of brain tumors. Use of a cellular telephone was associated with an increased risk in the anatomic area with highest exposure.”42
“In addition to extremely-low-frequency (ELF) electric power fields, many millions of mobile phone users worldwide are now also exposed daily to radiofrequency fields under near-field conditions. We may expect that these newly evolved behavioral patterns will be lifelong, with intermittent exposures at the phone user’s head making yet one more contribution to an already complex daily EMF exposure arising in an aggregate of multiple and disparate sources.”43
The cell phone industry continues to down-play the risk and defer to more research. We understand the stringent proofs required to change the foundations of the life sciences. This will occur when the impact of low intensity energy is understood. In the mean time waiting for the proof in after-the-fact studies does nor reassure the public. The precautionary principle is a good one for an age in which technology is doubling every few months and the impact of that technology may not be known for years after. We need to open the doors in this area and in the mean time, find ways to reduce risk and exposures for EMFs - particularly those created by home remote and cell phones.
Independent Research Funded by Industry
“Dr. George Carlo is Chairman of the Carlo Institute. He is a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology, and is a specialist in assessing and managing risks to public health. His work has included studies addressing risks from the environment and consumer products, as well as the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Carlo serves on the faculty of The George Washington University School of Medicine. Dr. Carlo has served in diverse scientific advisory capacities, including membership on the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment Agent Orange Advisory Panel, the chairmanship of Wireless Technology Research, LLC, and director of the Breast Implant Public Health Project, LLC.”44 This would be the person behind one of the most important cell phone studies of the last century and the precursor to the storm.
The industry has been involved in attempting to influence the research and has been required to pay for independent research. The companies involved have attempted to control the data flow to the public as information has become available. As far back as 1996 the issues began to surface with the following report. “Motorola Inc. planned two years ago how to collaborate with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. to downplay potentially damaging scientific findings on possible health risks from portable telephones, according to a Dec. 1994 internal Motorola memo.”45 The company the industry sought to collaborate with was the firm which eventually used over $27,000,000 industry dollars to research the risks of cell phones. In the body of that research several issues emerged creating additional studies.
The industry has continued to place a premium on information and continues to monitor what is developing in public debate with an eye to framing the debate. “The U.S. wireless industry, responding to the global proliferation of media coverage of mobile phone health concerns and to Internet-savvy activists, is leading an effort to create a worldwide information-sharing network to counter negative publicity. The Wireless Industry Global Information Network, or WIN, held its first meeting Dec. 10  in London.”46 This organization was set up interestingly enough in advance of the initial report of findings. The public relations plans began to unfold through a coordinated industry effort.
The story began to break. The head of the industry sponsored research issued his report of findings. Dr. Carlo took a conservative approach in his findings but his concerns were clear - precaution might be required. There may be a correlation between cell phone use and cancer, according to the director of the program. “The data, while ‘important’ only suggest that more research is necessary,’ said George Carlo, chairman of the industry-funded Wireless Technology Research group. ‘We’re now in a gray area that we’ve never been in before with this. When we’re in a gray area, the best thing to do is let the public know about the findings so that they can make their own judgment,” he said. WTR was formed by industry in 1993 and funded with $25 million to conduct independent studies. The studies put animal cells through 46 tests for cancer-inducing genetic damage. The research was conducted at Stanford University and Integrated Laboratory Systems in Research Triangle Park.47 “The close of the six-year, $27 million Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. program has re-energized a public debate about whether mobile telephones cause cancer or pose other health problems to the nation’s 70 million wireless subscribers. Indeed, WTR Chairman George Carlo claims new studies suggest a possible mobile phone-cancer link. While saying the results do not rise to the level of a public-health problem, Carlo insists the findings demand serious attention of the federal government and wireless industry.”48
“The cellular phone industry probably didn’t pay researchers US$27 million dollars hoping they’d produce bad news about the health effects of cell phones. Nonetheless, an industry-funded study has done just that. While the findings are far from conclusive, they are the first from an organization like the industry-supported Wireless Technology Research. ‘You would come to the [possible] conclusion that RF [radio frequencies] causes genetic damage,’ [Chairman George] Carlo said. ‘that is a huge surprise.’
‘The findings represent a need for coordinated public health action while there is more investigation into the hazards,’ he added. ‘When you have 200 million people who are being exposed to cell phones, you can’t wait around for the slow scientific process to work.’”49 Dr. Carlo’s initial reports were framed in the standard conservative approach at finding the facts which science demonstrates. His research indicated serious concerns based on the evidence but was not conclusive. He felt that industry should pay attention and pursue the research. “In an astonishing attack on the industry for which he once acted as a spokesman, he accused firms of not taking safety seriously. ‘The companies are now spending millions trying to discredit me because, basically, they didn’t like what I told them’, he revealed to The Express last night. ‘I feel angry and let down.’ After presenting its results to the phone companies in February, he claims they failed to take ‘the appropriate steps to protect consumers’. Dr. Carlo, a leading public health scientist based in Washington, said: ‘They have shown total disregard for mobile phone users.’”50
The project director did get the information to the right people in the hope that the public could be protected by the application of precaution for the consumer. “Dr. George Carlo, in his capacity as director of Wireless Technology Research wrote a letter to the CEO of AT&T which has serious legal implications for mobile phone manufacturers who have claimed that there is no evidence for adverse health effects from mobile phone use. With the letter widely circulated in the industry, making that claim now could possibly expose them to litigation in much the same way as what happened to the tobacco industry, where it was shown that industry assurances of no evidence of hazards from smoking was a complete fabrication.”51
Quoting from “Dr. George Carlo’s letter to Mr. C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman of AT&T Corporation the potential risks were presented:
‘* The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was higher than the rate of brain cancer death among those who used non-handheld phones that were away from their head;
* The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve that is well in the range of the radiation coming from a phone’s antenna, was fifty percent higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or more, moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumor appeared to follow a dose-response curve;
* The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use cell phones;
* There appeared to be some correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head;
* Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitely positive, and were following a dose-response relationship.
I also indicated that while our overall study of brain cancer occurrence did not show a correlation with cell phone use, the vast majority of the tumors that were studied, were well out of range of the radiation that one would expect from a cell phone’s antenna. Because of that distance, the finding of no effect was questionable.
Today I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety.
I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true consumer protection.
The most important measures of consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgment by consumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health.”52
On the program ABC 20/20™ Dr. Carlo continued expressing his concern and dismay in the way he was handled by the industry. “You can not guarantee that cell phones are safe. That’s absolutely true, but that has always been true.
[Brian] Ross: ...The cell phone transmits a microwave signal from an antenna to a base station or tower, often miles away. The farther from the tower, or if the phone is inside a building or a car, the more power this phone is told by the tower to send out to make or keep the connection. Depending on how close the cell phone antenna is, as much as 60 percent of the microwave radiation is absorbed by and actually penetrates the area around the head, some reaching an inch to an and a half into the brain.”53
On the same day Dr. Carlo was quoted by ABC News as saying, “‘The industry had come out and said that there were thousands of studies that proved that wireless phones are safe, and the fact was that there were no studies that were directly relevant, says Dr. George Carlo. ‘We’ve moved into an area where we now have some direct evidence of possible harm from cellular phones.’ The $200-billion-a-year cell phone industry maintains the devices are safe.”54
The FDA as a result of this research and others finally announced a study of their own. “Federal safety regulators are investigating whether microwave radiation from cell phones causes cancer or other diseases. The investigation was triggered by two industry-sponsored studies that the Food and Drug Administration said require additional research. The question of cell phone safety recently led Metrocall of Alexandria, Va., the nation’s third-largest pager company and a major seller of AT&T cellular phones to warn its sales staff that parents buying for a child or young adult should consider a pager instead of a cell phone ‘due to potential health risks. ’”55
Liability and Possible Claims
In the initial days of the controversy regarding cell phones the industry developed a huge public relations effort in the face of lawsuits and adverse press reports impacting the industry. Paul Staiano, President of Motorola General Systems stated, “Forty years of research and more than ten thousand studies have proved that cellular phones are safe.”56 This quote, from the industry, was an incredible exaggeration of the research as it related to cell phone risks. “Since then, however, the industry has largely put forth studies that looked at the effects of radio waves outside the cellular frequency, or at exposure levels that are different from those experienced by cellular phone users.”
“‘The industry hasn’t told the public the full story about how there has been very little research on biological effects at low level exposures, similar to those of handheld phones,’ says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, a New York newsletter and a frequent critic of the industry’s handling of the safety issue.”57 Very limited information has been available to the public about the risks of cell phones or various electromagnetic fields outside of some obscure research and academic circles. The fact is that increasing evidence has been mounting and the true risks of these energy fields are becoming well known.
The possibility of another tobacco-type of health scandal was perhaps in the offing when a closed Congressional hearing was held to develop regulations and recommend further studies of electromagnetic field (EMF) health effects. They suggested moderation in phone use until more is known while an FDA paper, dated Feb. 4, 1992, suggested: “those who spend long periods of time on their hand-held cellular phones could consider holding lengthy conversations on conventional phones and reserving the hand-held cellular models for shorter conversations...”58 Many studies have been sponsored by industry, academic institutions, government laboratories and by military research organizations into the effects of low levels of electromagnetic radiation. The constant problem in the debate of risks is the limited knowledge about the fact that very specific fields interacting with our bodies can in fact have significant effects on our health. These effects vary throughout populations with some effected to a greater degree than others. This is related to our physical and biochemical differences. The research which is being conducted by the industry is ignoring much of what has already appeared in the literature regarding risk factors.
The FDA concluded in a February 8, 2000 report that; “There is currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a risk to millions of users. A significant research effort, including well-planned animal experiments, is needed to provide the basis to assess the risk to human health of wireless communications devices.”59 The FDA has begun a three to five year study to look at some of these effects. This comes at the conclusion of the industry sponsored Carlo study which, together with other recent studies, show increasing risk to human health related to cell phone emissions.
Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 101-104, 110 Stat. 56(1996). “Section 704 of the act amends the Communications Act by providing federal preemption of state and local regulation of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of RF environmental effects.”60 In other words states and local communities may not adopt more stringent protections if the federal regulatory authorities fail to protect the public. This limitation on the rights of states or local governments essentially leaves any risk assessment and solution to the federal level regulatory authorities.
The FDA approach and the reluctance of the United States government to move on this issue is directly related to lobby efforts, public relations gimmicks and the manipulation of the facts behind what is a major concern to many. At present the evidence is causing some to follow the “precautionary principle “in dealing with the potential adverse health consequences of cell phones and other sources of radio frequency radiation. Other governments were taking a different approach. “The [Australian] Senate late yesterday agreed to a Senate inquiry into electromagnetic emissions (EME), particularly from mobile phones. Senator Allison said the inquiry is necessary because of the Federal Government’s ongoing failure to ensure that public health issues are properly considered in standard setting for mobile phone emissions. The Minister for Communications and the industry refuse to acknowledge what most Australians know intuitively; that it is not just the heat from mobile phones that is a potential health risk.”61
Studies to determine if there is a cancer-cell phone radio frequency (RF) EMF link are ongoing and others are planned. “A study funded by McCaw Cellular Communications will determine the amount of RF EMF given off by cellular phones and its pattern of absorption in the human head and brain.”62 This study was eventually completed leading to an additional study totaling about $27,000,000. The Carlo study, as an industry sponsored research effort, indicated serious concerns for the industry.
The risks associated with cell phones are being considered too risky even by the biggest risk takers in the insurance industry. “Concern about the safety of mobile phones has prompted a leading Lloyd’s underwriter to refuse to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users’ health...fears that mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer’s have prompted John Fenn, of underwriting group Stirling, to refuse to cover manufacturers against the risk of being sued if mobiles turn out to cause long-term damage.”63 Risk management and the kinds of legal concerns arising out of the tobacco lawsuit has turned insurers of product liability claims on their heads. Insurance underwriters investigate risk through the review of information available to them. The level of evidence they need to move in the direction of safety is less perhaps than is needed for a scientist to say “aha, this is a scientific fact.” But who is right and when is the public’s risk placed ahead of insurance risks? “Should it become clear that the digital pulsed modulation signal does have adverse effects - which may act as triggers to adverse health conditions, - then manufacturers could face massive legal claims for failing to provide any or adequate health warnings to mobile phone users. Lloyds of London has I understand refused to issue product liability cover for manufacturers and sellers on mobiles...”64 Employers may also be liable according to legal opinions. “Employers are usually required to provide a safe system of work. A number of employers expect their employees to carry out their duties and responsibilities using mobile phones for hours at a time. It could well turn out to be a non-safe system of work for which substantial damages may be awarded as a result of adverse health conditions. A number of cases have already been settled out of Court but again subject to confidentiality clauses.”65
Companies recognizing potential third party litigation have also been attempting to reduce their risk. Reasonable technological advances which could decrease risk are being put forward by employers who require cell phone use in the course of employee work. The risk of future litigation increases if the precaution is not taken to provide a safe workplace. “Europe’s third-largest manufacturer of electrical appliances, Merloni Elettrodomestici SpA, has decided to supply its employees with dual-band cell phones capable of operating with a microphone and headphones for safety reasons. The decision follows a major press campaign in Italy on the dangers of electromagnetic waves. [CEO Francesco] Caio is very sensitive to the problems of health and the environment and some of our employees had begun to express doubts and worries.”66 The other concern is that perhaps other risks are created in the solutions. As is described in the research the removal of the cell phone from the head is helpful to reducing exposure to the head but it can still expose the body to the effects of its radiation. Safety issues are an increasing concern but information has become fragmented and often quickly obsolete. The issues of safety precautions are discussed in more detail later.
Base-stations or cell phone towers may also pose risks. “The installation of base stations for mobile telephone systems has been delayed or has met opposition from the public because of concerns that the RF emissions from these base stations might cause cancer in children. In the United States, for example, 85% of the total number of base stations needed have yet to be constructed.67 The significant increase in these systems and their interactions with other energy fields in our homes, cars and work places may in fact be significantly increasing health risks.
International organizations are also looking at the risks because of increasing public concern, scientific evidence and industry concerns. “In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many member states over possible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched an international project to assess health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became known as the International EMF Project.”68 Other studies are already producing the evidence of biological effects. “Finally there was recently a study funded by the Bavarian State Government in Germany following reported adverse health effects in dairy cattle only after a Telecoms Mast had been erected. It was discovered after a period of time that the cause of the significant drop in the yield of that herd of cattle and Extraordinary Behavior Disorders in some of the cows related to the microwave transmissions from that mast. When the cattle were moved away from its vicinity after a period the milk yield and the behavior of that herd was restored to normal.”69
The research continues and the health effects mount. With over 1.3 billion people projected to be using these devices in the year 2005 the risks must be understood and addressed. Perhaps we will see the litigation of the 21st century overtake the incredible tobacco settlements as the record holder for “damage by industry when its’ head’s in the sand.”
Choosing on the Side of Safety
“On October 31st, 1996, the US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NAS/NRC) issued a review of the EMF literature: Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. The conclusions of this report are that ‘there is no conclusive and consistent evidence showing that exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields produces cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental defects’.
Of significant importance are the words, ‘conclusive and consistent’. Like the more familiar phrase in law, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, ‘conclusive and consistent’ implies a certain standard of evidence that warrants more serious action. Using that type of reasoning, the NRC Committee concluded that research results do not show that EMF exposure at a residential environmental level causes adverse health effects.”70
“The FDA advises persons concerned about exposure to cell phone radiation to take some simple steps to avoid exposure. Those persons who spend long periods of time on their hand-held mobile phones could consider holding lengthy conversations on conventional phones and reserving the hand-held models for shorter conversations. People who must conduct extended conversations in their cars every day could switch to a type of mobile phone that places more distance between their bodies and the source of RF, since the exposure level drops off dramatically with distance.”71 How cell phones might effect our health is compelling people to take heed of the warnings and find ways to reduce exposure without giving up the device. Some have resorted to earpieces and belt level phones. This may in fact prove to be even worse than head exposure because of the way in which the phone then operates. More power is required and exposure to softer tissue allows more energy to transfer into the body.
A European report reads as follows: “The ‘precautionary principle’ is recognized by European Governments in the Maastricht Treaty and forms the basis of both EU and UK regulation in this area. Under a strict application, it would not be possible to balance the risks of harm with the benefits of technological advances, since even a small degree of uncertainty or a suspicion of possible harm, no matter how ill-judged, would be enough to prohibit the introduction of a new technology. This interpretation is not, however, sustainable; it would preclude the application of almost any significant development as almost all innovations may have hidden or unknown risks. In practice, therefore, applying the precautionary principle means measures must be taken to minimize known risks and alertness to the emergence of unknown risks must be maintained.” 72
The report continues in discussing the use of cell phone use in vehicles. “Cars and other vehicles screen the microwave emissions from the mobile phone when in use and so act as a Faraday cage. GSM phones compensate for this by increasing the power output resulting in greater microwave absorption in the user.” 73
Hands-free kits are also discussed, revealing the hidden risks. “Currently, the cellular industry are encouraging the use of hands-free kits, but cite their only advantage as being to offer greater freedom of use to the user, nothing else. The fact is they know the real reason users are buying them is because they think these kits protect them from radiation exposure. Recent tests have shown that whilst exposure to the head is reduced by around 70 percent, all that is happening is the radiation is being transferred to another part of the body which is potentially more vulnerable because it does not have the thickness of the skull to protect itself eg the waist or chest areas.”74 “Commenting on the news in the British consumer magazine Which?, “theoretical physicist Dr. Zvi Weinberg said it’s probable that earpieces serve as antennae that direct more electromagnetic radiation into the ears. However, he said, phone models may differ in the degree to which their internal wires conduct electricity, and said he planned to calculate the various mechanisms involved during the next two weeks.”75 “It turns out that ‘hands-free’ cell phones may not save you from the Grim Reaper after all. Alarming claims surfaced last week in a research publication in the U.K. that not only are many hands-free devices useless in protecting wireless phone users from radiation that might cause tumors, these products may actually raise the amount of radiation being directed into the head by three times.” The report, by Antonia Chitty, appeared in Which? magazine, a 700,000-subscriber consumer report which does not accept advertising. The test results of the study, according to Which?, showed that the earplugs in the hands-free kit acted as aerials and channeled more radiation into the ear model than standard cell phones did. The earphones channel three times the dose of radiation into the ear that a regular cellular phone does.76
The UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) this month (August 2000) published a report which "confirms that hands-free kits reduce exposure for mobile phone users."90 In response to the DTI report Helen Parker, editor of Which? magazine, stated: "We think there are problems with current SAR testing for hands free kits and we are carrying out more research into this area. We stand by our original test results into hands-free sets published earlier this year. Consumers need to be aware that hands-free kits are no guarantee of lowering radiation emissions from mobile phones, and, in some cases, they actually increase it."91 Controvery reigns.
Using a mobile phone clipped to your waist results in a hotspot of radiation being pumped into the liver and kidneys. “There is concern that they may intensify radiation exposure to the ear canal. Using a hands-free kit and making a call with a mobile phone clipped to your belt also means the phone will generally be working at a higher power level. That’s because it is generally harder to transmit from waist-height than head height. But there’s a lot of body tissue in that area which has good conductivity and absorbs radiation more quickly than the head.” People think hands-free kits are safer, so tend to spend more time on the phone. The phone works harder to pick up a signal if it is down by the waist, where more radiation is absorbed than by the head.”77
Non-thermal verses thermal effects
Non-thermal verses thermal effects are also being considered by the Europeans in trying to establish increased margins of safety. “The NRPB and industry’s position that mobiles are safe, is based on the facts that all handsets comply with current recommended limits, which are based on thermal considerations only. As you had already probably already been made aware, the literature is full of published papers showing damage and biological effects at power levels which were set deliberately well below thermal thresholds and therefore by definition could not have been caused by thermal damage. Even if we assume the thermal only argument to be correct, there are circumstances which the group should be aware of, where exposure exceeds even the thermal limits.
Mobile users who wear metal rimmed glasses are intensifying the exposure to their eyes by 20 per cent and into the head by 6.3 per cent.
Using a mobile in a vehicle can accelerate radiation levels by up to 10-fold due to resonance effect.”78 These risks associated with remote telephone use can not be ignored. The maintenance of the official position that we are waiting “for the scientific proof” can not continue without corresponding increases in safety considerations rather than the current direction of increasing exposures and a lack of protection.
“Intelligence documents show that Western governments have know about Soviet experiments using mobile phone-type radiation to cause brain damage for more than 20 years. ‘The uncensored documents reveal that Soviet military scientists had successfully used microwaves of the type used by mobile phones to weaken the blood brain barrier. According to Dr. Louis Slesin...US Army scientists had succeeded in duplicating the Soviet experiments by 1977 - eight years before mobile phones became generally available in Britain.’”79 This work was done as a result of microwave bombardments of the United States Embassy in Moscow as well as reports about research by the Soviets. There was also the fact that at this particular time the safety standards for exposure to radio frequency radiation in the Soviet Union was significantly more stringent than United States standards by almost 1000 times. Russian and other East European countries’ exposure standards for radio frequency and microwave radiation are much stricter that in the U.S or Western Europe. “An attempt was made to resolve these differences at the 2nd International Conference on Problems of Electromagnetic Safety of the Human Being, held in Moscow in late 1999. Despite extensive discussions during this conference, the attempt to ‘harmonize’ RF/MW standards was unsuccessful with little chance of compromise in the near future. Western standard setting organizations have emphasized protection from RF/MW thermal effects...while Russia’s more restrictive standard also reflects a concern over non thermal effects and subjective symptoms.”80
“Biological studies of enzymes and human cells exposed in vitro to radiofrequency/microwave fields have shown a number of effects which cannot be explained simply by the heating effects of radiation on which our current standards are based. These include changes in cell membrane permeability to potassium, sodium and calcium; changes in the composition or behavior of blood-forming and immunological cells; alteration of calcium ion exchange in nerve tissue; changes in the firing patterns of neurons; and changes in levels of cancer related enzymes. A study in Belgium determined that ‘very close range exposure to microwaves from a cellular phone base station increased the effect of a chemical mutagen on human blood cells, leading to increased chromosomal aberrations.’”81 “High-frequency radiation such as that emitted by ultra-violet and x-rays can break molecular bonds and damage DNA. These are called ionizing radiation. Microwave radiation such as that emitted by cell phones doesn’t ionize, but can heat objects in its path.”82 The heat generated causes the body to begin to expend energy to cool the area and otherwise return to its state of equilibrium before it was irradiated by the device.
Europeans have again moved forward in this area ahead of the United States, where the greatest increase in usage is now taking place. “There is now some preliminary scientific evidence that exposures to radiofrequency (RF) radiation may cause subtle effects on biological functions, including those of the brain. This does not necessarily mean that health is affected but it is not possible to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects. The Expert Group has recommended that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until more detailed and scientifically robust information becomes available.”83 The standards for exposure are being developed along the lines of the precautionary approach which include the following sections:
“Standards. 1.27 We recommend that, as a precautionary approach, the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure be adopted for use in the UK rather than the NRPB guidelines.
1.29 It would be sensible, in line with the precautionary approach, to set in place a long-term follow-up of workers who are occupationally exposed to RF radiation at relatively high levels. We recommend that a register of occupationally exposed workers be established and that cancer risks and mortality be examined to determine whether there are any harmful effects.”
“Advice To Industry. 1.53 If there are currently unrecognized adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head, and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, at this time, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children.”84
The FDA is investigating whether mobile phones can cause cancer, based on two unpublished studies which show a link between cell phone use and cancer. “One study, by the American Health Foundation, in New York, found that mobile phone users had double the risk of developing a certain type of brain tumor than people who did not use them. The second study...found that DNA in human blood cells broke down when exposed to large doses of mobile-phone radiation, possibly laying the genetic groundwork for cancer. ‘We are not sure what this means,’ said Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who headed the research project from 1993 until last year. ‘This could be a colossal coincidence or the tip of the iceberg.’”85
The World Health Organization has identified research needs associated with exposure to RF radiation and makes some interesting observations, again with a great deal of care in implicating risks beyond those already acknowledged by industry:
“Most studies have examined the results of short-term, whole body exposure to RF fields at levels far higher than those normally associated with wireless communications. With the advent of such devices as walkie-talkies and mobile phones, it has become apparent that few studies address the consequences of localized exposures to RF fields to the head.
Cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers.
Other health risks: Scientists have reported other effects of using mobile phones including changes in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns.
Electromagnetic interference: When mobile phones are used close to some medical devices (including pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, and certain hearing aids) there is a possibility of causing interference. There is also the potential of interference between mobile phones and aircraft electronics.”86
It is interesting to note that interference with electronic circuits is acknowledged but discussion of the effects on the more sensitive instrument - the human body - is fought vigorously by many.
Reducing the Risk
“‘As the EMF/EMR health effects issue becomes more widely known, especially in relation to mobile phone use, there is a corresponding increasing number of so called EMF protective devices being advertised in health and alternative magazines as ‘cure-alls’ which apparently claim to provide complete protection from exposure to all forms of man made electromagnetic fields (EMF).’ There is a wide range of devices being offered that make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims.”87
Earthpulse researched the devices being offered and other solutions to the problems related to cell and home portable phone use. It is not realistic to assume that use can be or should be eliminated as these devices have revolutionized communication and will continue to contribute to change. However, reducing power and radio frequency emissions can also be achieved. Significant effort should be made to determine which emissions are harmful and which can be used to perhaps promote health. There may be carriers and better ways to move the mountains of communications and information now creating much of our trade and commerce. Some suggestions are as follows:
1. Reducing use is universally regarded as the best step. Use by children should be eliminated. Indoor use increases exposure significantly because the signal strength require to create a connection from inside a car or building is much greater. Home portable phones should be replaced with the old style hard wired phones and cell phone use significantly reduced.
2. If still using a cell phone or portable home phone keep the phone away from the body when in standby mode. When in use hold the phone as far away from the head as possible. Even three or four inches can significantly reduce the exposure because the energy density drops very rapidly with distance from the body. Keep the antenna away from the head and pointing away from the body.88 “Radiation from all sources obeys the inverse square law. That is, the further you are from the source the less intense your exposure to the radiation. In fact, it drops off with the square of your distance from the source. If you are twice as far from a fire you feel one-quarter of the radiant heat, but if you move four times as far away you only feel one-sixteenth of the heat.”89
3. Most of the devices on the market do not have any science behind them. None of the devices claiming to eliminate all emissions had any science behind them. We were able to find two systems which are supported by science and United States Patents. One of these devices is being marketed under Cell/Wave Guard™. We found that up to 61% of radio frequency emissions could be prevented from entering the body. While this represents a significant reduction it is not known if it is enough to guard against all potential effects. However, it is the best technology easily available today.
Cell/Wave Guard™ are available from Earthpulse Press Incorporated in cooperation with the Earthpulse Research Institute,
Earthpulse Press Incorporated
P. O. Box 201393
Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 99520
Phone: 1-907-249-9111 or 1-888-690-1277
1. Chiang et al. “Health Effects Of Environmental Electromagnetic Fields.” Journal of Bioelectricity. 8(1), 127-131 (1989). EPI2064
2. Dutta et al. “Radiofrequency Radiation-Induced Calcium Ion Efflux Enhancement From Human and Other Neuroblastoma Cells in Culture.” Bioelectromagnetics, 10: 197-202 (1989). EPI1864
3. AAP General News. “FED: Pregnant Women Warned To Be Wary Of Using Mobile Phones.” May 1, 1999. EPI1880
4. Dutta et al. “Radiofrequency Radiation-Induced Calcium Ion Efflux Enhancement From Human and Other Neuroblastoma Cells in Culture.” Bioelectromagnetics, 10: 197-202 (1989). EPI1864
5. Veyret et al. “Antibody Responses of Mice Exposed to Low-Power Microwaves Under Combined, Pulse-and-Amplitude Modulation.” Bioelectromagnetics, 12:47-56 (1991). EPI1855
6. Fist, Stewart. “Cell Phones And Cancer.” The Australian Newspaper, May 5, 1997. EPI1884
7. Klitzing, L. von. “Low-Frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields influence EEG of man.” Physica medica, April 28, 1995. EPI1863
8. ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs. “RF Radiation and Electromagnetic Field Safety.” 1996. EPI1980
9. Sobel et al. “Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Alzheimer’s Disease.” Neurology, Dec. 1996. EPI1800
10. Lai, Henry. “Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology.” Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Department of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Paper presented at the IBC-UK Conference: Mobile Phones - Is there a Health Risk? Sept. 16-17, 1997 in Brussels, Belgium. EPI1815
11. Phillips et al. “DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro.” Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, Jan. 9, 1998. EPI1854
12. Harris, Sarah. “Now Mobiles Give You Kidney Damage.” Daily Mail, Dec. 13, 1999. EPI1812
13. Ridley, Kirstin. “British Scientists Demand Cell Phone Warnings.” Reuters, Jan. 1, 1998. EPI1788
14. Frey, Allan H. “Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and What Are the Implications?” Environmental Health Perspectives, March 1998. EPI1803
15. Adey, Dr. W. Ross. “Cell And Molecular Biology Associated With Radiation Fields Of Mobile Telephones.” Dept. of Biochemistry, University of California, Riverside. EPI1857
16. Frey, Allan H. “Headaches From Cell Phones: Are They Real?” E-mail published on microwavenews.com. EPI1856
17. Frey, Allan H. “Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and What Are the Implications?” Environmental Health Perspectives, March 1998. EPI1803
18. Svenska Dagbladet. “Microwaves open up the Blood Brain Barrier.” Sept. 15, 1999. EPI1829
19. Frey, Allan H. “Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and What Are the Implications?” Environmental Health Perspectives, March 1998. EPI1803
20. Lancet. “Mobile Phone Electromagnetic Fields Increase Resting Blood Pressure.” June 20, 1998. EPI1823
21. Pryer, Nick. “Mobile Phones Can Affect Memory.” Associated Newspapers Ltd., July 16, 1998. EPI1882
22. Coghill, Roger. “Why I believe That All These Items Should Carry A Health Warning.” Daily Mail, July 17, 1998. EPI1890
23. “Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation.” Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, Dept. of Bioengineering, School of Medicine and College of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Paper presented to the Workshop on possible biological and health effects of RF electromagnetic fields. Mobile Phones and Health, Symposium, Oct. 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna, Austria. EPI1794
24. Burcum, Jill. “A Medical Enigma - A Rise in Brain Tumors Sets Off Search For A Reason.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 6, 1999. EPI1889
25. Ebden, Theresa. “Do convenient, Little phones Pose Risk?” Toronto Star, Jan. 28, 1999. EPI1877
26. Uhlig, Robert. “New studies link brain tumors to mobile phones.” Electronic Telegraph, May 24, 1999. EPI1824
27. Fleming et al. “Cover-up claims over mobile phone danger.” Express Newspapers, May 24, 1999. EPI1825
28. Earth Rising – The Revolution: Toward a Thousand Years of Peace. by Dr. Nick Begich and James Roderick, January 2000, Earthpulse Press Incorporated, ISBN 1-890693-43-X.
29. Bass, Gordon. “Is Your Cell Phone Killing You?” zdnet.com, Dec. 1999. EPI1792
30. Bass, Gordon. “Is your cell phone killing you.?” PC Computing Magazine, Nov. 30, 1999. EPI1813
31. Sunday Mirror. “World’s Biggest Probe into Mobile Phones And Cancer.” Oct. 24. 1999. EPI2061
32. University of Washington. “Rats exposed to cell phone microwaves suffer long-term memory loss, according to new study by a University of Washington researcher. “Press Release, Nov. 30, 1999. EPI1795
33. Sage, Cindy. Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA. Letter to the Clerk of the Transport and the Environment Committee, The Scottish Parliament. EPI1837
34. Daily Mail. “Using a mobile phone makes you age faster.” Oct. 18, 1999. EPI1814
35. Whittelsey, Frances. “Cell Phones and Kids: A Bad Call?” vote.com, 1999. EPI1791
36. Verschaeve, L. “Can non ionizing radiation induce cancer?” The Cancer Journal, Vol. 8, No. 5. EPI1797
37. Raloff, J. “Researchers Probe Cell-Phone Effects.” Science News, Feb. 12, 2000. EPI1872
38. Consumidor. “Consumer Group Says China Cell Radiation Levels Unsafe.” March 16, 2000. EPI1873
39. Reuters. “Mobile Phones Report Claims ‘Strongest Link Yet’ To Cancer.” March 27, 2000. EPI1870
40. Sunday Mirror. “Beware - Using A Mobile Can Ruin Your Sex Life.” April 16, 2000. EPI1871
41. MacArthur, John. “The Cell Phone Chronicles.” brain.com, April 25, 2000. EPI1845
42. Hardell et al. “Case-Control Study on Radiology Work, Medical X-ray Investigations, and Use of Cellular Telephones as Risk factors for Brain Tumors.”medscape.com, May 4, 2000. EPI1893
43. Adey, Dr. W. Ross. “Cell And Molecular Biology Associated With Radiation Fields Of Mobile Telephones.” Department of Biochemistry, University of California. EPI1799
44. electric-words.com. “Dr. George L Carlo et al. and the fiasco called Wireless Technology Research.” EPI1858
45. Silva, Jeffrey. “Motorola Memo Raises Questions About WTR Research.” RCR, March 3, 1997. EPI1820
46. Silva, Jeffrey. “Industry launches global effort to counter cancer claims.” RCR News, Jan. 25, 1999. EPI1822
47. Schwartz, John. “Cell Phones May Have Cancer Link.” Washington Post, May 22, 1999. EPI1785
48. Silva, Jeffrey. “Controversy follows WTR to the end.” June 4, 1999. EPI1821
49. Oakes, Chris. “Cell Study: Hazards Are Real.” Wired Magazine, June 21, 1999. EPI1805
50. Gallagher, Ian et al. “Mobile Phones Cover-Up.” The Express (UK), Oct. 16, 1999. EPI1808
51. Maisch, Don. “A Letter Bomb For The Mobile Phone Industry?” EMFacts Consultancy, Oct. 19, 1999. EPI1806
52. Carlo, George L. Letter to Mr. C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AT & T Corporation. EPI1807
53. 20/20 ABC TV. “Worried About Your Wireless?” Oct. 20, 1999. Unedited transcript. EPI1828
54. Ross, Brian. “Wireless Worries?” abcnews.com, Oct. 20, 1999. EPI1790
55. Rosenberg et al. “Cell-phone health risks need to be studied, FDA says.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. April 1, 2000. EPI1827
56. Goldberg, Robert B. “The Cellular Phone Controversy: Real or Contrived?” EMF Health Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993. EPI1793
57. Keller, John J. “Are They Safe?” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 1994. EPI1878
58. Goldberg, Robert B. “The Cellular Phone Controversy: Real or Contrived?” EMF Health Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993. EPI1793
59. “Nominations from FDA’s Center from Device and Radiological Health: Radio Frequency Radiation Emissions of Wireless Communication Devices (CDRH). Feb. 8, 2000. EPI1874
60. Federal Communications Commission. “Radiofrequency FAQs Page.” Office of Engineering and Technology. June 1, 1998. EPI2062
61. Allison, Senator Lyn. “Democrats Deliver Senate Inquiry On Mobile Phones.” Australian Democrats Spokeperson on Telecommunications, Dec. 9, 1999. EPI1885
62. Goldberg, Robert B. “The Cellular Phone Controversy: Real or Contrived?” EMF Health Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1993. EPI1793
63. Ryle, Sarah. “Insurers balk at risks of phones.” The London Observer, April 11, 1999. EPI1796
64. Meyer, Alan. Senior partner: Halsey Meyer Higgins, Solicitors, London. “Mobile Phones and Mobile Networks: Potential Litigation Or Law Suits.” EPI1850
65. Meyer, Alan. Senior partner: Halsey Meyer Higgins, Solicitors, London. “Mobile Phones and Mobile Networks: Potential Litigation Or Law Suits.” EPI1850
66. Willan, Philip. “Cell-phone safety at issue in Italy.” IDG News Service, May 20, 1999. EPI1798
67. World Health Organization. “Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health.” Fact Sheet N181. May 1998. EPI1787
68. World Health Organization. “Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health.” Fact Sheet N181. May 1998. EPI1787
69. Halsey Meyer Higgins, Solicitors, London. “Mobile Phones - Mobile Networks - Safety.” Sept. 10, 1995. EPI1849
70. Maisch et al. “Powerline Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health - Is it the time to end further research?” March 1998. EPI1819
71. FDA. “Consumer Update on Mobile Phones.” Center for Devices and Radiological Health.” Oct. 20, 1999. EPI1801
72. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and Technology Committee. “Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And Health. ” Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
73. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and Technology Committee. “Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And Health. ” Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
74. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and Technology Committee. “Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And Health. ” Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
75. Jerusalem Post. “Experts Debate Safety Of Earpieces For Cell Phone.” April 6, 2000. EPI1868
76. McGinity, Meg. “Yacking Yourself To Death?” zdnet.com, April 10, 2000. EPI1867
77. The Sunday Mirror. “Cell Phone On Your Belt Brings Radiation To Liver And Kidneys.” July 10, 1999. EPI1786
78. House of Commons, Great Britain. Third Report, The Science and Technology Committee. “Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones And Health. ” Sept. 22, 1999. EPI1895
79. Moran, Kathy. “Soviet Proof That Mobile Phones Do Cause Brain Damage.” Daily Express, Nov. 10, 1999.
80. Maisch, Don. “Setting radio frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) exposure guidelines to protect workers and the public: Russia and the West in major conflict.” Jan. 18, 2000. EPI1817
81. Democrats in Parliament. Australian Senate Hansard for Feb. 12, 1997. Mobile Phones. EPI1894
82. Wilson, Robert. “What’s Cooking?” The Australian, March 23, 1999. EPI1883
83. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. “Report on Mobile Phones and Health.” May 11, 2000. EPI1892
84. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. “Report on Mobile Phones and Health.” May 11, 2000. EPI1892
85. Smith, Karen. “New Evidence Links Mobiles To Cancer.” Wired, March 30, 2000. EPI1879
86. World Health Organization. “Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health.” Fact Sheet No. 193, revised June 2000. EPI2090
87. Maisch, Don. “Discussion Paper concerning the validity of the science, promotion and sales of EMR “Protective Devices.” Emfacts Consultancy. Nov. 21, 1999. EPI1802
88. Helin, Jan. “How Dangerous Is Your Mobile Phone?” Aftonbladet, Feb. 8, 1997. EPI1881
89. Wilson, Robert. “What’s Cooking?” The Australian, March 23, 1999. EPI1883
90. UK Department of Trade and Industry. “Mobile Phones - Hands Free Kit Reduces EMF Exposure." News Release, August 2000. EPI2241
91. Which?. “Which? stands by its original research on hands free kits." Press Release, August 8, 2000. EPI2242
(suggest ya cut and paste this out to a Word for printing and later perusal, for those interested)
So who's going to be the first person to quote that whole thing?
It would have been illegal for them to sell tobacco and alcohol as well fwiw.
couple weeks worth
i beleive it to be exactly 1lb
Whoa! KB here costs about fiddy for the same amount!
<---------Does not smoke