MP says no proof on health scare (From Stourbridge News)

It is a pity that the Stourbridge MP did not see fit to attend the Radiation Research conference at the Royal Society last week
There he would have heard much evidence for adverse health effects from the radiation emitted from phone masts and other wireless devices.
It is rather worrying that he is a science minister but chooses to sing to the phone industry tune.
THe only scientists who say there are not many effects are those paid for by government and indsutry to do so.
All indepednetly funded scientists are saying the opposite.
THe scientific evidence bears out what they are saying.
However here we have people who are sick around the phone mast. This pattern is repeated around every phone mast after 10 years exposure, but the government refuses to investigate since they know what they will find.
Perhaps MP's who do not truely represent their constituents have no place in parliament.
Please see
www.mastsanity,org for more information.

Just demolish the tower and the issue will be resolved in the short-term. In the long-term, what really are the medical implications?

"all independently funded scientists ares saying the opposite"
Err, no. I'm a neurologist and treat people with brain tumours and other neurological disorders. I also use a mobile phone daily++. You work it out....its safe, you can just never prove a negative, ie I can no more prove that little green men live in the centre of the earth....but it seems highly unlikely. Dr Carlo appears to be a quack out to make a quick buck.

When I said independently funded scientists, I meant those actually doing the research in Universities.
I presume you have not seen the Hardell studies on brain tumour incidence and mobile phone and cordless phone use, nor critically looked at the Interphone studies?

I have been reading the research and talking to these scientists for years. I have worked it out thanks.

By the way, the BMJ only follow the government research so you probably have never heard of the Hardell studies nor the REFLEX report showing double strand DNA breaks in human cells? This was only the largest piece of European research there has been involving 7 countries.

Please see Dr Khurana's (neurosurgeon) web site detailing some of the evidence.
http://www.brain-sur
gery.us/mobilephone.
html

It is absolutely disgraceful that Dudley MP Ian Pearson should take such a cavalier attitude with his constituent’s health. Over 2000 independent studies, linking phone mast electro magnetic radiation with serious ill health including cancer, confirm that phone masts should not be sited within 350 metres of schools or housing. Numerous studies have proved that melatonin, the cancer fighting hormone, is suppressed by this pulsing radiation. That's why the cancer clusters continue to increase in the vicinity of phone masts. Phone operators dismiss such research, alleging that their own studies suggest no health risk. However last year the national press revealed that a phone operator covered up the damaging results of their own research. The Ecolog Institute, a research organisation which examines the health effects of mobile phones, was commissioned to investigate the possible health risks of mobile phone masts. The 2003 Ecolog report confirmed:

'Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer. This is particularly notable for tumours of the central nervous system.'

The idea that unelected bodies (the mobile phone companies) have a right to expose people to the very real harm caused by phone mast electro magnetic radiation, amounts to enrolling the population in a giant biological experiment without their consent. Considering that children, the most vulnerable of all, are included in this experiment, it is shameful that their interests are disregarded so cynically in the pursuit of profit. Perhaps it's the £20 billion received in tax revenue per annum from this industry that persuades Mr Pearson's government to help their phone operator friends to irradiate the nation.

What a worrying situation that it is not compulsory for young brain tumour patients to be given advice to refrain from mobile phone use. This is despite the official DOH leaflet "Mobile Phones & Health" advising that children (presumably fit and health ones!) should not use mobile phones for anything other than emergencies. Surely this advice should be crucial for children who are already ill? Clear official advice to health professionals is obviously long overdue.

Here's how "safe" they are...

Cross Currents by Dr. Robert O. Becker (pages 194-197)

In the early 1980's, the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine funded a very large, very expensive study at the University of Washington, under the direction of Dr. Arthur W. Guy. In this study, rats were continuously exposed to high frequency microwaves of 2.45 gigahertz (with one gigahertz equaling one billion hertz) at approximately 0.5mW/cm2, twenty times lower than the "safe" thermal level. The exposures lasted for as long as 25 months, and 155 different measures of health and behavior were collected.

This appeared to be a well-designed study that would finally answer the question of whether there were any potential hazards to human beings from chronic exposure to microwave radiation. According to Guy, "The results revealed few differences between the exposed and control rats, and those differences for the most part were either not statistically significant or came and went, suggesting that they may be due to chance."

However, one striking observation was noted: "Primary malignant tumors developed in eighteen of the exposed animals but in only 5 of the controls." Guy hastened to explain that the incidence of cancers even in the experimental group was actually lower than normally expected for the strain of rat used in the experiment. He suggested that no hasty conclusions should be drawn, and that a "consensus among most investigators that the only strong evidence for the hazards of microwaves is found at high levels of exposure" was still valid.

The project was wide reported in the press and discussed in scientific meetings, and it was the subject of a major article in the September 1986 issue of Scientific American (from which the quotes have been drawn). A significant aspect of the experiment was not reported either in that article or in the popular press - but at the scientific meeting at which the results of the study were first reported, it was revealed that all of the animals used, both experimental and control were gnotobiotic (a term meaning germ and virus free). This circumstance alone was responsible for a major part of the $5 million cost of the project.

To produce gnotobiotic animals, the young must be delivered by cesarean section under the strictest possible sterile operating-room conditions (much more stringent than those in use in operating or delivery rooms for people). Following delivery, the animals must be raised and then housed in totally sterile environments for the entire duration of the experiment. This type of environment is akin to the decontamination rooms used to house the astronauts after they returned from the moon, or the "bubbles" within which children born without immune systems are housed.

The use of gnotobiotic animals seems to be not only totally unnecessary, but undesirable as well. Neither we nor the laboratory rat normally live in a sterile world, devoid of bacteria or viruses. On the contrary, we live surrounded by uncountable numbers of organisms. We generally do not get sick unless we are injured and bacteria enter the body through the wound, or unless our immunity is inadequate and we get a communicable disease or infection. An experiment on germ- and virus-free animals has no relevance to the real world.

The point becomes even more apparent when two established facts are considered. First, present evidence shows that at least 20% of human cancers are caused by viral infection, and the percentage is considerably higher in animals. Therefore, animals that are maintained in a germ- and virus-free state have an incidence of cancer that is much lower than expected. Second, it is well-established that exposure to any abnormal electromagnetic field produces a stress response. If the exposure is prolonged, the stress-response system becomes exhausted, and the competency of the immune system declines to below normal. In such a state, animals and humans are more susceptible to cancer and infectious diseases.

One can only conclude that the experiment at Washington was deliberately designed to sharply reduce the incidence of cancer and infectious diseases in the exposed animals. There can be no other reason for the requirement that the animals be gnotobiotic.

Therefore, if we knew the facts in advance, and we wanted to set up a "scientific" project to expose animals to microwaves for a long time but were required to get negative results, we would have only one choice - to use germ- and virus-free test animals. Being gnotobiotic, both the unexposed control animals and the exposed experimental animals would be protected against the usual dangers of infection and cancer. In Guy's study, the fact that the experimental animals had a lower-than-normal incidence of cancer was totally expected. What was unexpected and highly significant was that even with this protection, the cancer incidence in the animals exposed to microwaves was four times that in the control animals.

The well-designed experiment that should have "proved" that microwaves are safe fell into a trap, and the nature of the trap is revealed by the types of cancer that occurred in the experimental group. These were mainly limited to cancers of the pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands; these cancers were accompanied by a significant number of pheochromocytomas, which are benign tumors of the adrenal glands. There were no significant cancers of any of the usual tissues.

The experiment was designed to prevent the results of stress, but the planners forgot that it would produce stress. Because stress resistance is mediated chiefly through the three glands just mentioned, we must conclude that the microwave exposure produced an extremely high level of stress - so much so that the resultant prolonged hyperactivity of these glands led to their becoming cancerous. Considering the extreme stress experienced by the exposed animals, if the animals had been normal (rather than gnotobiotic) the entire experimental group would have died of infection or cancer before the close of the experiment.

Some of the 155 biochemical determinations done by Guy in the course of the experiment confirm this interpretation. Plasma cortisol is one of the chemical substances produced by the adrenal glands under conditions of stress, and it was one of the substances measured in the experiment. At the start, the plasma cortisol was equal in both the control and experimental groups; in the early months of microwave exposure, however, cortisol in the experimental group was elevated above that in the control group, indicating that the experimental animals were reacting to stress. By the latter phase of the experiment, the plasma cortisol of the exposed animals was depressed below that of the controls, indicating that the stress response systems of the experimental animals had become exhausted. This result is exactly as expected for a condition of chronic stress.

These data, which are buried in a multivolume official Air Force report of the project, were first published in the July-August 1984 issue of Microwave News. The experiment was planned cleverly, but not cleverly enough. It clearly indicated that chronic exposure to microwaves at levels 20 times below the established safe thermal level, produced profound stress and ultimately exhaustion of the stress-response system. Because the experiment involved gnotobiotic animals, this resulted only in an increase in cancers of the stress-response glands. Had the experiment been performed under real world conditions, the result would have been catastrophic for the exposed group of animals.

Whew, that really puts my mind at ease, and yours?

I write in support of 'blaze Kutsdown' and J Elliot of Bristol above. I add my appreciation of the pioneering work of Dr Robert O Becker. He was a doctor of medicine (twice nominated for the Nobel Prize) whose researches on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation are still at the forefront of knowledge on the issue.
He said about the health issue our group is dealing with at www.electrosensitivi
ty-support.com where we have a page of his work under
ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY SYNDROME
(also in 'Cross Currents')

"When I first acquired some public notoriety as a researcher in the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, I began receiving a trickle of letters from persons who insisted that they were highly “allergic” to such fields. Some said they had even moved to remote rural areas that are free of most electromagnetic fields. I must admit that for the first few years I was highly sceptical of such claims and thought that the conditions must be purely psychological in origin. But during the past five or six years, the trickle of letters has turned into a flood that I can no longer ignore. Fortunately, other medical scientists have become interested in this specific condition and involved in establishing its diagnosis."

Indeed they have, and Dr Carlo, another medical doctor is pursuing the biological and clinical linking mechanisms with our help, which the industry deny exist today of course. As said above by others, they shelter a giant global multi-billion industry behind the figleaf of budget limited compromised regulatory bodies part-funded and staffed by the industry anyway.

Dr Carlo was boss of their own industry $25 million safety research which said there were real hazards, and was suppressed. They have no proof of safety of their own, just ask for their studies, we have, they do not exist.
The MOA and Mike Dolan use huge budgets, bluster and blag on the hugest scale, one of the big lies that is difficult to see.

The extra-sensitive suffer first and most grievously. I have personally spoken and listened to them in their hundreds while manager of charity 1103018 ElectroSensitivity UK, probably more than anyone else in the UK. The rest of us are also being impacted, especially via our immune systems as membrane sensitivity causes failures of inter-cellular communications. Exactly as Dr Carlo clinically shows.
Rod Read M.Phil (Cantab), Dip Psych Couns, Cert.Ed.

Becker also says:

“I have no doubt in my mind, that at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the Earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale than warming and the increase in chemical elements in the environment.”