OF MASTS AND MEN -are masts and WiFi just simply too dangerous

MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES by Grahame Blackwell
With a background in mobile communications research & development, Dr Blackwell has for some years provided expert advice and support at a national level on phone and mast health issues (website: www.starweave.com).  His focus of research now is on radically new scientific concepts - see www.transfinitemind.com.

Mobile phone technology is the most popular innovation in the history of the human race.  The ubiquitous mobile is now woven inextricably into the social and commercial fabric of every nation, as is the cordless home/office phone, based on the same technology.  Another variant, WiFi (wireless broadband), is rapidly taking root in homes, schools, offices, even across whole cities.
mobile phone party poopers are now being backed up by establishment figures urging caution But it’s becoming increasingly apparent that there could be a serious down side to this wonderful enabling technology.  Those party-poopers who’ve been saying for years that mobile phones, and the masts that serve them, could pose a health hazard are now being backed up by establishment figures urging caution.  Reports of cancer clusters around masts are gaining credence and children are being warned not to use wireless laptops on their laps.
Why?  Hasn’t it been proved that the only possible health effects are heating effects, which can only occur at radiation levels way above official safety limits?
Well, actually, no.  Quite the contrary.  Though it’s not widely publicised, the Stewart Report for the government in 2000 and the follow-up NRPB Report in 2004 both warned of scientific evidence of “biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines” – i.e. the government ‘safety’ guidelines.
It’s for this reason that both reports advised a Precautionary Approach.  The government’s response  The ICNIRP guidelines offer no protection against potential long-term effectswas to adopt as their chosen ‘precaution’ exactly those guidelines whose reliability had been called into question.  The ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines, as used in Britain, themselves state that they protect only against shocks and short-term heating effects and offer no protection against potential long-term effects “such as an increased risk of cancer”.
But hasn’t the World Health Organisation given phones and masts a clean bill of health?
Depends what you mean.  Mike Repacholi, who was responsible for those reassurances, left the WHO last year after a major public outcry claiming serious industry-loaded bias in his interpretation of research findings.  The internationally respected journal Microwave News published industry disclosures of massive funding of his activities in WHO.  Dr Repacholi is understood to now act as a consultant for the mobile phone industry.

So what other effects might there be?

1.  Peer-reviewed replicated research shows that this type of radiation, below ICNIRP levels, significantly reduces the body’s production of melatonin, a sleep regulator and anti-cancer agent.  This would lead to sleep disorders and, in the longer term, increased incidence of cancer – both regularly reported by those living close to masts.


2. Research also shows weakening of the blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins to pass into brain cells.  This would lead to dizziness, headaches, disorientation, and in the longer term brain cell degeneration leading to Alzheimers, Parkinsons and Motor Neurone Disease – again, reported at significantly increased levels around telecommunications masts.


3. A 4-year EU-funded study by twelve partners in seven countries reported multiple replications of single and double-strand DNA breaks, of the sort that lead to cancer, at levels below ICNIRP.  Intermittent exposure (such as from a phone or mast) was shown to have a stronger effect than continuous exposure (such as from, for example, a TV transmitter).  A follow-up paper on their results states: “Therefore we conclude that the induced DNA damage cannot be based on thermal effects”.  One key conclusion of this Report is that “there exists no justification anymore to claim that we are not aware of any [biological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man.”  ; this specifically in respect of phone/mast radiation below official guidelines.

This last point is strongly backed up by Dr Andrew Goldsworthy, an honorary lecturer at Imperial College with many years of research experience.  In a paper, which can be seen at www.tinyurl.com/2nfujj, Goldsworthy gives comprehensive detail of likely effects of this type of radiation on living cells.
Another researcher, Dr John Walker, has correlated incidence of cancer clusters around masts with the projected directions of the main beams from those masts.  His findings are very graphic and disturbing in their consistency – three of his pictorial representations can be seen at www.starweave.com/gallery.
Of six research studies looking specifically at health effects of phone masts, every one found significant effects below international guidelines.  Half of them found significantly increased incidence of cancer in people living near a mast.
Two psychological studies have been mounted to test whether symptoms experienced by some people who consider themselves electro-sensitive may in fact be psychosomatic.  One, at Kings College, London, claims to have shown that electro-sensitivity is a psychological problem.  It has to be said, though, that many have serious reservations over the reliability of the test regimes used in these studies.  Also there is no attempt to identify the causal mechanism that produces very real and serious symptoms – the term ‘psychosomatic’ is considered self-explanatory, in marked contrast to the requirement that EMF-induced effects must be backed up by detailed causal mechanisms before being taken seriously.
It’s not only humans that are affected.  Recent studies have indicated that reported losses of 60-70% of commercial bee populations in some areas could be due to phone mast radiation, as also could the halving of the sparrow population.  Other studies on animal and bird behaviour support this view, including a Bavarian study showing various serious disorders in dairy cattle. Psychosomatic?It’s not only humans that are affected.
The crunch has come, though, with indications that the health of the nation’s children is possibly being put at risk.  Switch on an AcoustiCom (designed by Alasdair Philips of PowerWatch) in a WiFi-enabled classroom and it goes off like a machine-gun.  This tells us that the classroom, like those in a rapidly increasing number of primary and secondary schools across the UK, is seething with pulsed microwaves of the sort reckoned by many to lead to a wide range of adverse effects.  As well as cancer and other health disorders these include poor concentration, increased aggression and recurring low-level infection – all increasingly prevalent in the school environment.
Professors Denis Henshaw and Alan Preece, both of Bristol University and both world-class experts on health effects of electromagnetic waves, have both expressed serious concern over the indiscriminate rolling-out of this technology.  They have been joined by no less a person than Professor Lawrie Challis, head of the government’s Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme, who has advised that children shouldn’t use wireless laptops on their laps.
Given that WiFi transceivers in laptops emit radiation at levels well within government guidelines, with no possibility of thermal biological effects, one has to ask “Why?”  The answer can only be increasing concern over possible non-thermal effects – and for non-thermal effects all bets are off as to what constitutes a safe emission level, it’s totally unknown territory.
Dr George Carlo, Chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in the US, is proposing a radical Safe Wireless Initiative – a safer way of doing mobile communications.  Two things are certain: we can’t simply stick our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away; and we can’t roll the clock back to a world that didn’t depend on mobile communications for every aspect of daily life, from top-level business deals to picking the kids up from a party.
The future solution to this worldwide problem may be more radical than even George Carlo has in mind.