Health Canada is proposing to adopt a precautionary approach and guidelines for limited cell phone use. 

Canadians are being encouraged to limit cell phone call length and to text message or use a hands-free device whenever possible.

Other countries have already adopted this precautionary approach.

Russian officials have issued the recommendation that all children under the age of 18 should avoid using cell phones entirely.

The UK, Israel, Belgium, Germany, India and Finland also urge citizens to err on the side of caution with respect to their children's use of cell phones.

Last year, France set the following recommendations:

1) All cell phones must be sold with a device limiting head exposure to EMF.

2) Any advertising campaign promoting the use of cell phones by children below 14 years is banned.

3) Providing radio equipments designed for children under 6 may be banned by ministerial order.

4) In kindergarten, primary school and junior high, the use of cell phones is banned for kids during all teaching activities in locations listed in School rules.

5) For all cell phones sold on the French territory the SAR must be indicated clearly and in French.

Possible risks resulting from excessive use must also be mentioned.

Cell Phone Radiation Classified as 'Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans'

As the use of cell phones and other wireless technologies have exponentially exploded over the past couple of decades, concerns about the health effects of such technology has increased as well. Today, we're at a point of no turning back, as cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5 billion globally—that's the majority of people on the planet!

A growing body of researchers has spoken out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects. On May 31 this year, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Class 2B). The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.

According to the press release:

"Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting."

Many EMF Experts Adamantly Claim Harm is Being Done, and Effects are Provable

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there's virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.

One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explains why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.

As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self-symmetry.

These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it." I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.

An analysis of the range of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was published in November of last year in "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter."  Furthermore, the mobile industry's own research in the 13-country Interphone study showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent research has shown a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone use.

Famous Researcher Establishes Cell Phones Alter Brain Activity

Another study, published in JAMA earlier this year, may also have forever altered the landscape. It was led by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD, named one of "Top 100 People Who Shape Our World" in 2007 by Time Magazine, and the study in question was funded by the US government (the National Institutes of Health, NIH).

Volkow et.al. discovered that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity.  The exact health effects of that increased brain activity are as of yet unknown, but the study has effectively debunked the myth, in U.S. government research, that cell phone radiation at non-thermal levels is incapable of causing biological change. (The SAR exposure involved was only .901 W/Kg, which is well under the FCC limit of 1.6 W/Kg for cell phones.)

David Carpenter, MD, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany, has called the NIH study 'dynamite,' saying it will now be hard to deny that cell phones alter nervous system activity. While the study found proof of increased glucose metabolism in brain cells, which is an established marker of brain activity, the question remains whether or not non-ionizing radiation from cell phones might also impact neurotransmitters and other brain chemistry. Chronically elevated glucose levels in the brain are also of concern, and are being further investigated by Volkow.

According to Dr. Ronald Herberman, former Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute:

"We know that increased glucose also occurs with infections and other inflammatory processes, and leads to the production of potentially damaging reactive oxygen radicals that can alter the ways that cells and genes work.

This important finding should stimulate many biologists to perform in-depth studies to determine the consequences of such changes in nerve cells or other bodily cells in the region of the radiation. We need to develop a better understanding of how radiofrequency radiation might contribute to increased risk for brain tumors as well as other alterations in brain functions."

"Brain Tumor Pandemic" Predicted

Of great concern is the new analysis by Örjan Hallberg in Sweden , with L. Lloyd Morgan in the U.S., just published in Neurology & Neurophysiology, which projects a very large increase in brain cancer incidence resulting from widespread mobile phone use. beginning in approximately 15 years.   These projections are based on well-established effects of this radiation on DNA alone:that mobile phone use decreases the efficiency of the repair of mutated DNA and that mobile phone use increases the rate of DNA mutations.

For perspective, in 2002 there were about 200,000 brain cancers per year in the world.  If this were to increase 25-fold due to increasing the rate of DNA mutations from cell phone radiation, the total would be 5 million brain tumors per year. 

With the average cost of treating a brain tumor today being approximately $500,000, the cost of this increase in brain tumors might be $2.5 trillion per year worldwide. And there are other known mechanisms beyond DNA mutations as well, that could drive these numbers even higher. Not unlike lung cancer from smoking, this would continue for decades. But unfortunately, unless medical education is quite dramatically redirected, there certainly won't be an adequate supply of qualified neurosurgeons to begin to address this emerging epidemic.

L. Lloyd Morgan, one of the study's authors, says,

"What this analysis shows is that, unless mobile phone usage behavior patterns significantly change, we can reasonably expect a pandemic of brain tumors, for which we are ill-prepared, beginning approximately 15 years from now. Governments, as well as parents, physicians, schools and all citizens, would be well advised to educate all persons under their care or influence about the need to curtail the use of mobile phones and other radiation-emitting consumer devices."

Camilla Rees, MBA of ElectromagneticHealth.org and Campaign for Radiation Free Schools, reminds us though, that the risk is not only related to brain tumors.

"Microwave radiation from cell phone and wireless devices has been shown in numerous studies to impair cognitive function and to influence the brain function of children in schools, thus impacting the capacity to learn. I certainly hope we don't have to wait 15 years until this brain tumor pandemic begins, projected by the Hallberg and Morgan study, before we take steps to protect our brains and children's brains," she says. 

"As Dr. Thomas Rau of the renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland has said, it is our choice—choosing to expose our children to wireless radiation will result in 'Dumb Children'. "

Who's at Greatest Risk?

It's worth noting that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) safety guidelines for radiofrequency exposure do not differentiate between healthy individuals, children, people of different body sizes or those with brain disorders.  According to Volkow, different levels of protection may be advisable, all things considered. In a February 23 CNN article Volkow is quoted as saying:

"If someone already has brain damage and then stimulates it with electromagnetic exposure from a cell phone, it could trigger something dangerous. We cannot say with certainty that for a person with a vulnerability in the brain that radiation from a cell phone would not make it worse."

This is a very important issue, and research has already shown that children are FAR more susceptible to damage from cell phone use than adults, due to the fact that their skulls are both thinner and smaller in volume. Hence radiation penetrates far deeper into their brains. Their cells also divide at a faster rate, making the potential impact of cell phone radiation exponentially larger.

The common method of assessing the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) from cell phone use has in fact recently been shown to be vastly inferior to another also FCC approved method using computer simulation. This method shows children absorb 2x the radiation to the brain as adults, 3x the radiation to the hippocampus and hypothalamus, more radiation in the eyes, and 10x the radiation in the bone marrow.

How to Limit Your Exposure

All the evidence points to the fact that current safety standards are completely inadequate. Our rapidly expanding wireless technologies must be properly evaluated, but on an individual level we simply cannot afford to wait. While some countries are beginning to invoke the precautionary principle, each and every individual needs to take it upon themselves to do the same, rather than wait for an official statement.

While you can't completely avoid radiation in today's wireless world, you can at least minimize your exposure by heeding the following advice:

Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.

Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.

Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.

Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of ALL wireless devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.

If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.  Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call. Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed during the time your body needs to rest and repair.

You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility. (See ElectromagneticHealth.org's Letter to Parents on Fertility and Other Risks to Children from Wireless Technologies)

Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer Than Another. There's really no such thing as a "safe" cell phone.

Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area. But understand that there is research showing paradoxical effects, that is, that weaker exposures can increase certain kinds of biological effects, including neuron death and blood brain barrier permeability. So while you certainly want to minimize higher power exposures right near the body, you also want to be cognizant of the total body load of electromagnetic field exposures, even if they are weak and coming from several rooms away or across the street.

In fact, research shows both symptoms of electrosensitivity and increased risk of cancer within 1,500 feet (about ¼ mile) of a cell tower. We can not at this point be sure there are not risks at a farther distance from towers or antennas, but there are now several studies, from many countries, showing increased risk within this distance.

Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used.

If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.

Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.

Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

I strongly urge you to take the above precautions to reduce your risk and the risk to your children, who are even more vulnerable to long-term damage. I also invite you to help raise awareness by sharing this information with your loved ones.

More Information

For more information, I highly recommend listening to this excellent Media Teleclass on Cellphones and Brain Tumors. Listen for yourself to experts who are independent of the telecom industry and close to the science, as well as to the questions the media posed of them. Moderated by Camilla Rees, MBA of www.ElectromagneticHealth.org, the teleclass features Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, David Carpenter, MD, Lloyd Morgan, BS and Joel Moskowitz, PhD.

Over 5 billion people worldwide, about 80 percent of the world's population, now has a cell phone.

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determines maximum allowed exposures from cell phone radiation, a determination that has the potential to impact public health on a massive scale, especially in light of increasing evidence that exposure to such radiation may cause cancer, brain changes and other health problems.

That the FCC is in charge of this regulation is in and of itself perplexing, considering the FCC states:

" … the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters."

Well, according to a new report by Om Gandhi, PhD, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Utah and colleagues, "Exposure Limits: The Underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children," the FCC standards are based on a one-size-fits-all-model that seriously underestimates RF exposures to those most vulnerable, including children.

Children Using Cell Phones May be Exposed to Double the FCC's RF Exposure Limit

According to the new report, absorbed cell phone radiation is seriously underestimated, particularly in children. This is because the cell phone certification process uses a plastic model of the head called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM), representing the top 10% of U.S. military recruits, on which to base its measurements. Unfortunately, one mannequin head is not sufficient to represent an entire population, as obviously we all have different head sizes, especially children, and the model does not allow for variations in absorption among different tissues.

According to a press release about the study by one of the study's authors, Devra Davis, PhD of the Environmental Health Trust:

"The existing process is based on a large man whose 40 brain tissues are assumed to be exactly the same. A far better system relies on anatomically based models of people of various ages, including pregnant women, that can determine the absorbed radiation in all tissue types, and can account for the increased absorption in children. It allows for cell phones to be certified with the most vulnerable users in mind—children—consistent with the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) approach taken in setting standards for using radiological devices."

As you might suspect, a head mannequin based on an adult male is going to yield different results than one based on a child, and this is what is so concerning. As is the fact that the method is based on a plastic head when a better method that better simulates actual biology impact is available -- See discussion of the FDTD (Finite Difference Time Domain) SAR assessment methodology which uses MRI-scans of a set of real human beings in different body sizes to determine the amount of radiation absorbed in every tissue (not just the brain) when exposed to a given phone at ElectromagneticHealth.org.

According to the new report by Gandhi et al:

"The existing cell phone certification process … greatly underestimat[es] the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for typical mobile phone users, especially children. A superior computer simulation certification process has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) but is not employed to certify cell phones.

… Radiofrequency (RF) exposure to a head smaller than SAM will absorb a relatively higher SAR. Also, SAM uses a fluid having the average electrical properties of the head that cannot indicate differential absorption of specific brain tissue, nor absorption in children or smaller adults. The SAR for a 10-year-old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model. When electrical properties are considered, a child's head's absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull's bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults.

Therefore, a new certification process is needed that incorporates different modes of use, head sizes, and tissue properties. Anatomically based models should be employed in revising safety standards for these ubiquitous modern devices and standards should be set by accountable, independent groups."

Alvaro Augusto de Salles, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering Dept., Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil and one of the paper's authors, says:

"The higher risk of tissue damage from common cell phone use demonstrated in this study, using the computer simulation method of SAR assessment, suggests prudent public health policies, globally, would call for cell phones to be manufactured without the ability to use the phone against the head, nor with a speakerphone, but only allow communication with a wired headset. This would dramatically lower risk of biological, and genetic, damage to the population, and to children and other especially vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, by keeping the radiation, thereby, away from both the head and body."

In an interview with Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org, de Salles said the reason a headset is preferable to using a speaker phone is because the battery uses more power when in speakerphone mode, increasing exposure to the battery's magnetic fields.

Children Should Not Use Cell Phones

This new information reinforces the importance that children need to be protected from cell phones, not allowed to use them on a regular, or even limited, basis. If you are not yet aware of the increased risks to children from cell phones, I suggest viewing the following image, used with permission from the book Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution, which clearly shows the differences in depth of penetration between adults and young children.

This shows quite clearly that electromagnetic fields are likely to penetrate the brain far more deeply for children than adults. In fact, due to their thinner skulls, smaller brains and softer brain tissue, children are FAR more susceptible to damage from cell phone use than adults.

An excellent new report on risks to children was recently published by the Mobilewise charity in the UK, "Mobile Phone Health Risks: the case for action to protect children."  It includes a chart of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies from a range of research institutions that link mobiles to serious health problems. These include brain tumors and impact on fertility, genes, the blood-brain barrier and melatonin production, as well as other biological effects thought to have a role in the development of cancer. Endorsed by a number of prominent doctors and scientists, the Mobilewise report on the public health issue related to the impact on children highlights the body of evidence that has been "obscured in the debate over these risks," according to Vicky Fobel, Director of Mobilewise.

We encourage you to read this report, and to print the list of studies with summaries and links to the cited research, and to share these with your communities.

The powerful Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has also echoed the warning I have been making for years now and concluded that evidence is strong enough to warrant immediate action to protect children and others from the potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless devices:

"… non-ionizing frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.

One must respect the precautionary principle and revise the current threshold values; waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case in the past with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco."

The European Council has taken the exemplary step of recommending that mobile phones and wireless networks be banned in classrooms and schools. They note, correctly, that young people and children are most vulnerable to emissions of electromagnetic fields and suggest the following:

• " … develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves
• " …ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organizations"

Why You Need to be Careful With Your Cell Phone

I'm the first to acknowledge that the technology behind cell phones has changed the way many conduct business and interact with their friends and family on a daily basis. It's an incredibly convenient and useful technology, which is why it has exploded the way it has …But I'm also convinced, and suspect you'll agree, that these benefits are in no way worth it if they end up sacrificing your life or health to a brain tumor or other disorder!

Devra Davis, PhD of the Environmental Health Trust has written a new book - Disconnect - in which she exposes research showing that radiation from cell phones has been linked to:

Even more revealing in Davis' book is her assessment of the "dark side" of the cell phone industry, and their attempts to keep cell phone dangers quiet. As TIME magazine reported:

"As Davis argues in some of the best passages of Disconnect, it could be that we haven't established the dangers of cell phone use because we haven't asked the right questions—and that might be on purpose.

"If you don't want to know the answer," Davis says, "don't ask the question." Much of the research into the biological effects of cell phone radiation has been underwritten by the... cell phone industry, and you don't have to be a raging paranoiac to wonder whether that money might have an impact on the conclusions of those thousands of studies."

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to pedal their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.

TIME reported:

"Davis shows that independent studies on cell phone radiation found dangers at more than twice the rate of industry-funded studies—though because the cell phone industry is the source of much of the funding of cell phone studies, there are far more of the latter.

… Time and again, she [Davis] shows the way that industry has been able to twist science just enough to stave off the possibility of any regulation—and finds that researchers are afraid of challenging the status quo, lest they find themselves suddenly out of a job, denied the lifeblood of research money.

Most of the few brave researchers who challenge the prevailing wisdom on cell phone radiation—like the electrical engineer Om Gandhi or the bioengineer Henry Lai—are senior scientists, secure in their positions and their tenure. But a young researcher just starting out is far more vulnerable to industry pressure. Science isn't as pristine as we imagine it."

As Cell Phone Dangers Become Apparent, Warnings Have Already Been Issued

Despite what you may have heard, the link between cell phone use and brain tumors is well substantiated and backed by more than 100 scientific studies. In 2008, Dr. Vini Gautam Khurana, a Mayo Clinic-trained neurosurgeon with an advanced neurosurgery fellowship in cerebral vascular and tumor microsurgery, concluded:

"There is currently enough evidence and technology available to warrant industry and governments alike in taking immediate steps to reduce exposure of consumers to mobile phone-related electromagnetic radiation and to make consumers clearly aware of potential dangers and how to use this technology sensibly and safely."

Several countries, including Finland, Israel and France, have already issued guidelines for safer cell phone use. The FCC, while distancing itself from any claims that cell phones cause health problems, also recently released steps you can take to reduce your exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones. However, it is important to note the FCC has not updated its consumer advice since the World Health Organization classified the radiation as a Class 2B Possible Carcinogen in May 2011.

The FCC requires cell phone manuals to contain guidance on how far away a cell phone should be from your body so the phone's radiation does not exceed federal 'thermal' (only) safety limits. This guidance is in small print and little known. It will surprise most users of cell phones to know that cell phones should not touch your body, but should be held some distance away from your ear or other body parts.

In San Francisco, meanwhile a Fact Sheet at the point of sale, titled "You can limit exposure to Radio-frequency (RF) Energy from your cell phone" may be required.The Fact Sheet, which was approved in San Francisco but is now being contested in court by the CTIA, and under injunction, includes recommendations on:

1. Limiting cell phone use by children
2. Using a headset, speakerphone or text instead
3. Using belt clips and purses to keep distance between your phone and body
4. Avoiding cell phones in areas with weak signals (elevators, on transit etc.)
5. Reducing the number and length of calls

On October 4, 2011, however, the wireless industry association, the CTIA, filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the enforcement of San Francisco's "Cell Phone Right to Know" Ordinance, claiming the Ordinance "is barred under the First Amendment and conflicts with federal law governing the safety of wireless devicess" The City of San Francisco is now preparing to defend the legislation.

Andrea Boland, the Maine State Representative, also wanted warnings especially for children and pregnant women to keep cellular devices away from their head and body, but unfortunately a Maine legislative committee rejected her proposal, for now, citing "inconclusive studies" and a concern about "raising fear in people."

Boland said:

"Our cell phone warning label bill passed the Maine House of Representatives…

The Senate Majority Leader worked aggressively to defeat it, and succeeded … Clearly the choice was whether to protect the industry or the consumers."

The issue over what government agency truly has ultimate responsibility for assuring protective safety guidelines—the FCC or the FDA—is one that will surely come to a head, in due course. For now, what are known to be greatly inaccurate safety guidelines, based on the known biological effects, are what are being used to influence courts, at the expense of our health. 

Probing questions published by ElectromagneticHealth.org on this topic include:

• If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA, and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?
• Has responsibility for ascertaining consumer safety potentially fallen through the cracks between these two agencies, resulting in a situation were proper protection of consumer health interests is not taking place?
• On what basis does the FCC, a communications commission charged with regulating interstate and international communications, not a health agency, have authority to ascertain safety and establish safety guidelines, such as the SAR limit for cell phones, in the first place? On what basis has the FCC assumed this responsibility?
• If the SAR value is a measure of the power or heating effects from a phone, and is a physics measure unrelated to biology, what regulatory agency is looking at the biological effects? This would include biological effects from all forms of radiation being emitted by a cell phone, including 1) the heating effects (that the SAR attempts to reflect), 2) the non-heating effects from the frequencies and modulation, and 3) the low frequency (ELF) fields emitted by the devices.
• Why then do the present guidelines not address the non-thermal biological effects? Or the ELF Fields from the batteries?
• What public health expertise, if any, exists at the FCC and who specifically set the current standards and what was their background in biology?
• Research has shown source of scientific funding in this field influences outcomes. In determining SAR safety guidelines for cell phones, how much does the FCC rely on telecom industry funded science, as opposed to independent science where there would not be a commercial conflict of interest?
• Given evidence exists showing that in certain amplitude windows a lower SAR value can result in greater brain effects than a higher SAR value (increased neuron death and blood brain barrier permeability, for example), suggesting some biological effects do not occur in a linear, dose-response manner. Thus, the SAR may be a wholly inadequate measure of safety on these grounds. Given this, and the fact that the SAR does not reflect either the non-thermal biological effects, or the ELF effects, why is the SAR used as a measure of safety?
• Experts say a true biological standard for cell phone radiation exposure should be set, especially for children, elderly and vulnerable populations, instead of relying on estimates of safety based on a physics measure that only measures the heating effect. Is either the FCC or the FDA working on biologically based guidelines or even studying biological effects? What scientific experts with backgrounds in EMF effects on biology are Advisors to the FCC and FDA?
• How is it that the FCC can state, "There is no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss", when there is voluminous amounts of evidence showing that people are experiencing these problems as well as evidence of biological change at the molecular, cellular, organ, neurological and immunological levels? Is the FCC relying on telecom industry advisors in formulating the above statement who may perhaps have a commercial conflict of interest and not want the biological effects to be known?
• Have the economic benefits to the U.S. government, in the forms of telecom industry corporate income tax, user taxes and fees, employment and social security taxes, jobs and job growth, employee income taxes, income taxes from landlords agreeing to place antennas on their property, spectrum license fees and more, unduly influenced government officials such that they have sacrificed public health to give the appearance of a stronger economy, when in fact the health consequences from cell phones and wireless technologies may ultimately burden the economy more than the short-term economic benefits?

We join ElectromagneticHealth.org and many other advocacy groups in calling on Congress to delve into the issue of FCC/FDA responsibility and accountability on matters of cell phone safety and to act to protect the public's health.

Use a Cell Phone? Here's How to Stay Safe

All the evidence points to the fact that our current safety standards are completely inadequate, so it's up to you to take measures to protect yourself and your children. While you can't completely avoid radiation in today's wireless world, you can at least minimize your exposure by heeding the following advice:

Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.

Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.

Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.

Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.

If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.

Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call.

Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed.

You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.

Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility. (See ElectromagneticHealth.org's Letter to Parents on Fertility and Other Risks to Children from Wireless Technologies)

Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer Than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone.

Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.

Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used.

If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.

Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.

Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

I strongly urge you to take the above precautions to reduce your risk and the risk to your children, who are even more vulnerable to long-term damage. I also invite you to help raise awareness by sharing this information with your loved ones.

There are over 5 billion operating cell phones on the planet.

These phones exchange signals with millions of cell phone towers.

In your home, your favorite coffee shop, your local library and certainly in your office, you have WI-FI.

You probably also have a sprinkling of other wireless technologies, like a cordless phone, a wireless baby monitor or alarm system, or maybe even a USB-powered device that gives your cell phone Web access, which has been referred to as a "cell-phone tower for your pocket."

Even if you have opted out of such conveniences, there's a good chance your neighborhood has not.

This means that, essentially, your environment is saturated with wireless technologies and the frequencies they emit – and you're being impacted whether you realize it or not.

What Happens When Humans are Exposed to Man-Made Electromagnetic Fields, 24/7?

The simple answer to this question is, no one knows.

How could they? The technologies that have become so intertwined with what it means to live in the 21st century – cell phones, laptops, iPads, and so on – have never-before existed. And as a species, we have embraced them fully, without understanding what types of risks they may ultimately present.

As written in AlterNet: 

"We now live in a wireless-saturated normality that has never existed in the history of the human race.

It is unprecedented because of the complexity of the modulated frequencies that carry the increasingly complex information we transmit on our cell phones, smart phones and wi-fi systems. These EMFs [electromagnetic fields] are largely untested in their effects on human beings. Swedish neuroscientist Olle Johansson, who teaches at the world-renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, … [states] the mass saturation in electromagnetic fields raises terrible questions.

Humanity, he says, has embarked on the equivalent of "the largest full-scale experiment ever. What happens when, 24 hours around the clock, we allow ourselves and our children to be whole-body-irradiated by new, man-made electromagnetic fields for the entirety of our lives?"

There is reason for concern, not only because an outpouring of research is painting a very different picture about cell phone safety than the telecommunications industry would have you believe, but also because of a growing population of electrically sensitive individuals, the EMF canaries in the coal mine.

Do You Suffer from Unexplained Headaches, Fatigue, Insomnia or Muscle Aches?

It is estimated that 3-8 percent of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms, while 35 percent experience mild symptoms, according to Dr. Thomas Rau, medical director of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland. Dr. Rau also believes that 'electromagnetic loads' lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson's and even back pain.

You can listen to an audio interview with Dr. Rau on www.electromagnetichealth.org.

For people with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS), just walking into a coffee shop that is WI-FI equipped can be debilitating, triggering a wide array of symptoms including headache, fatigue, nausea, burning and itchy skin, and muscle aches. Some students have to drop out of school or are unable to continue on to graduate programs once they become electrically sensitive, irrespective of their intelligence and capabilities.

Even just briefly standing in line at the post office, or traveling on public transportation, can be a debilitating experience for some people, sometimes taking hours to restore balance. In this AlterNet article, you can read several examples from people who believe exposure to electromagnetic radio frequencies made them sick, including:

• The Rall family, whose farm animals became sick and developed tumors, and whose children suffered hyperactivity, skin rashes, and neurological problems, after a cell phone tower was put up 800 feet from their home.
• Michele Hertz, who experienced severe memory loss, inability to concentrate and other significant debilitating symptoms after a wireless "smart" meter was installed on her house.

The conventional medical establishment has yet to acknowledge electrohypersensitivity as a "real" health issue, but the number of people experiencing severe symptoms that clear up when exposure to EMFs is eliminated, makes it impossible to ignore.

Further, with the work of Magda Havas, PhD, of the Environmental & Resources Studies Department at Trent University, Canada and others, acceptance is slowly growing and the real health effects of EMF are becoming harder to deny.

For instance, research from Dr. Havas revealed that a cordless phone base station placed about two feet from your head and plugged in for three minutes at a time can significantly disrupt your heart rhythm, leading to increases in heart rate, arrhythmias and other disturbances in heart rate variability. This is among the most solid proof that the effects of EMF radiation are real, as are the symptoms that some people readily experience when they're around such microwave-emitting devices.

The biological effects on the heart in the Havas study were found at .3% of the FCC exposure limits.

Researchers have, in fact, found that there are a number of factors that influence the degree to which you may be affected by EMFs. For example, according to research by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, your physical body, such as your body weight, body-mass index, bone density, and water and electrolyte levels can alter the conductivity and biological reactivity to EMFs. Children are also particularly vulnerable.

Cell Phones Now Labeled a "Possible Carcinogen"

While some of the health effects of the wireless revolution are immediately apparent to sensitive populations, most people seemingly feel fine when using the technology. However, this should not be taken as guarantee of safety, as some health conditions take years, or even decades, of exposure to develop.

The perfect example? Cancer.

On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), also concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, just to name a few.

The group did not perform any new research; rather the decision is based on a review of the previously published evidence, including the Interphone study results published so far (about 50% have still not been released). This is the same evidence that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), among others, have previously waved aside, calling it "reassuring," and claiming it showed "no evidence" of harm.

The IARC decision came only days after the Council of Europe, elders from 47 European countries, called for a dramatic reduction in EMF exposure to humans from call phones and wireless technologies.

Some nations have already adopted the precautionary principle, and have previously issued precautionary advice to mobile phone users. Now that cell phone radiation has been classified as a "possible carcinogen," these messages can be strengthened in a meaningful way to reach more people, across the world.

EMFs May Damage Your DNA

Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University and one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S., gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org.

Dr. Blank spoke with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact of electromagnetic fields on cells and DNA, and explained why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds. As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self-symmetry.

These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern.

Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it."

Even barring all the scientific evidence, it simply makes sense that cell phones and wireless technology can impact the human body once you understand that your body is bioelectric. Your body contains electrons which keep an electrical current flowing, and inside every cell are mitochondria, the 'power plants' of the cell that respond to the body's natural electromagnetic fields.

As Dr. Maret explains in his interview with ElectromagneticHealth.org, your body is a complex communication system where cells, tissues, organs, and organisms "talk" -- it's a veritable "electronic symphony in your body." This communication includes finely tuned bio-electrical transmitters and receivers, which are tuned like tuning into a radio station.

And when you expose a radio antenna to a significant amount of external noise, you get static, and that is what is happening to your body in today's EMF-saturated environment.

Steps for Protecting Yourself from EMF

We're still in the infancy of EMF science as it relates to understanding the mechanism of the human health effects, but there is enough solid evidence to show that there are very real risks apparent. It is time to exercise the precautionary principle, but keep in mind that completely eliminating exposure is close to impossible.

Even if you don't use a cell phone and your home is wireless-free, you can be exposed to microwave radiation from your neighbor's wireless devices or while visiting "hot spots" or traveling near cell phone towers. That said, there's still plenty you can do to minimize your exposure and help safeguard your children's health:

• Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones, and still developing immune and neurological systems.
• Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
  
  Leave an outgoing message on your phone stating your cell phone policy so others know not to call you on it except in emergencies.
• Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
• Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.
  
  If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least some of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
  
  Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, it may not be as damaging to your health.
  
  Ideally it would be helpful to turn off or disconnect your base station every night before you go to bed. Levels of microwave radiation from portable phones can be extraordinarily high.
  
  You can find RF meters at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is labeled DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
• Limit Your Cell Phone Use to Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
  
  Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
• Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another. There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone, and do not rely on the SAR value to evaluate the safety of your phone. Always seek CDMA carriers over GSM as they have far lower radiation in their signaling technology. And remember, eliminating cell phone use, or greatly lowering cell phone use from phones of all kinds, is where true prevention begins.
• Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
• Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
• Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
  
  The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

Are You Electrically Sensitive?

To further avoid EMF exposure, or for those who are especially sensitive, it's especially to stay protected during the night when your body is trying to repair and rebuild:

• Turn off all the fuses at night that supply your bedroom. You can install a 'demand switch' at your bedside to make this very convenient.
• Shield your bed with a special metalized fabric canopy to protect yourself from harmful frequencies that can disrupt cellular communication.
• If you are constructing a new home or renovating one and the walls are being rebuilt you can install radiant barrier, which is a tough type of aluminum foil that will also very effectively screen out the EMF. This is what I did for my own bedroom.
• At minimum, move your bed so that your head is at least 3-6 feet from all electrical outlets. If you are constructing the walls you can put the wires inside pipes, which will virtually eliminate the fields that are generated in the room when the current runs through the wire.
• Turn off and unplug everything electrical in your sleeping area, including your computer, WI-FI, cell and portable phones.
• Sleep on a non-metal bed and mattress.
• Be aware that cell phones and WI-FI are not the only EMF sources you need to be cautious of. Essentially, most all electronics will generate EMFs, including the wiring in your home, electric alarm clocks, electric blankets, computers and lamps, just to mention a few.
• For best results, avoid using electric blankets and electric heating pads, and unplug all electrical appliances when not in use. Even better, at night, turn off the fuses directly.
• Protect yourself from cordless phones. If you want to avoid the radiation you should switch back to a wired landline and ditch your cordless phone entirely.
• If you must use a conventional cordless phone, be sure to keep the base station at least three rooms away from where everyone sleeps and where you spend the most time during the day. Or simply keep it off except in the limited circumstances when you feel you need to use it.
• The base station of a DECT phone always transmits at full power, so this is not a device you want sitting on your nightstand next to your bed, on your kitchen counter or even on at all if it is not necessary.

On November 14, 2011 the European Commission banned X-ray body scanners that use "backscatter" technology from airports.

The scanners, which are still in use in the United States, project X-ray beams onto your body using ionizing radiation to create a detailed reflection of your body that is displayed on a monitor viewed by a remotely located officer.

Ionizing radiation causes DNA damage that can lead to cancer, and its effects are cumulative.

This means that every time you pass through an X-ray scanner, your risk of developing cancer, and other unintended adverse effects, increases.

Ever since the machines were introduced, concerns over both privacy and public health have been voiced, which is why the European Commission's decision to take a proactive stance by using alternative scanners to protect their citizens' health is likely to bring the issue front and center once again.

Why Did Europe Ban X-Ray Body Scanners?

The European Commission did not give specifics, only noting:

"In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports."

Most likely, they decided that exposing millions of travelers to radiation for a non-medical reason is simply too big a risk to take, not to mention taboo in much of the world.

While the radiation levels used are reportedly very low, there is concern that the type of radiation used, namely, backscatter radiation, is uniquely toxic to the human body. 

Screening at an airport X-ray scanner reportedly produces .02 microsieverts of radiation. For comparison, you will be exposed to 20 microsieverts of radiation on a typical transcontinental flight at 30,000 feet.

The problem, however, is that we are comparing apples to oranges, and backscatter radiation – being manmade – may have adverse effects far beyond that of the natural background and cosmic radiation to which it is often compared -- as if to say "it's harmless," which it is not.  

There is also the problem that this calculation of radiation risk is based on the reported radiation levels. If we are being lied to then many will be exposing themselves to a health risk they might otherwise reconsider … and there are indications that there might be sound reason to question the reported radiation levels.

Are We Being Lied to About the Scanners' Radiation Levels?

A letter written by five professors revealed that there has not actually been any verifiable scientific testing of the safety of airport scanners -- and that the levels of radiation being used are likely much higher than the public has been led to believe.

These scientists believe that the high-quality images produced cannot possibly be obtained with the low levels of radiation described, and that the actual level may be 45 times higher than what the manufacturer is claiming.

The supposed "testing" of the Rapiscan Secure 1000, the most widely deployed X-ray scanner, was actually performed on a mock-up of spare parts "said to be similar to those that are parts of the Rapiscan system." In addition, none of these tests have ever been peer reviewed -- the data and even the names of the researchers who carried out the tests have been kept secret from the public.

Furthermore, as in so many other instances, our legal and civil rights are being willfully manipulated and trampled for the sake of private and corporate profits.

In this case, the former Homeland Security chief and co-author of the PATRIOT Act, Michael Chertoff, is now one of the primary promoters of full-body scanners, and is a paid consultant for the companies that sell them!

This is an issue that is still being unraveled, so it makes complete sense to use the precautionary approach. After all, we know there is no safe dose of X-ray radiation, and that every time you walk through an airport scanner, you're adding to your body's lifetime radiation load – a genetic time bomb that can detonate in the form of cancer, and other serious diseases, once the burden becomes too high. .

Radiation Technologies Can Malfunction

Even if we're not being lied to, common sense would dictate that we need to proceed with caution and not expose millions of travelers of all ages, and with any number of medical conditions, to unknown risks -- including risks from human error or technological malfunction.

The New York Times published an article in January 2010 about the alarming rise in radiation-related injuries and deaths. People know very little about the harm that can ensue when safety rules are violated and these powerful and technologically complex machines go awry.

For instance, the difference between a routine CT scan, which also uses ionizing radiation, and a debilitating injury is as simple as a computer error causing you to be blasted with errant beams of radiation, leaving you in unspeakable pain, or worse.

How can we be certain that similar errors will not occur with the X-ray scanners when malfunctions are always a risk of using technology? Furthermore, we must keep in mind that even CT scans were once deemed to have far lower levels of radiation than we know they have today.

As Dr. Russell Blaylock says:

"As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray.

Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high; it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays."

Indeed, a 2009 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that .4% of all cancers in the US may be attributable to the radiation from CT studies – confirming how profoundly inaccurate original safety assessments of this technology were, as well as how harmful X-ray-based diagnostic technologies really are.

These errors of the past should indeed serve as cautionary tales when making safety claims for brand new technologies. How many times will a belated "oops!" suffice before we demand the return of the precautionary principle, as is already being followed in Europe?

Radiation from Scanner Beams Concentrates on Your Skin

As summarized by WeWontFly.com, the dosage of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is absorbed almost entirely by your skin and the tissue right beneath it. Because of this, the normal way of understanding radiation risk by calculating the absorbed radiation dose across the volume of the entire body vs. the specific organs affected, will not provide an accurate picture of the real world risks involved.

Scientists from The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) have echoed these concerns. Because the radiation beam from the scanners concentrates on your skin, researchers believe the dose may be up to 20 times higher than is being estimated. Another potential outcome of such exposure is skin cancer.

Dr. Jane M. Orient, M.D. has also brought up this concern. In an article for The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), she details what the medical community considers to be the REAL health hazard of full-body scanners using low-energy backscatter technology.

Dr. Orient explains:

"They use an ingenious low-energy backscatter technique, which is apparently wonderful for identifying explosives in cargo. Since the radiation doesn't penetrate far, it wouldn't affect an unborn baby. But it does concentrate the dose in the skin.

Some scientists warn that this effect has not been properly studied, and one nuclear medicine expert told me that he is going to opt out of the scan. I think this much is clear: if you had a deadly disease, and the scanner were an FDA-regulated device that might save your life, your doctor wouldn't be allowed to use it, because of inadequate study."

Dr. Russell Blaylock has also published his viewpoints on this issue, warning that skin cancer is a very real health risk of these machines.

How to Identify the Two Types of Body Scanners

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began using advanced imaging technology (AIT) in airports nationwide in 2007. Today, there are about 510 AIT units at more than 90 U.S. airports that use one of two types of imaging technology: millimeter wave and backscatter.

Backscatter technology is the type noted above, which uses X-rays (ionizing radiation). This type of machine looks like two large blue boxes (you can view an image on the TSA's web site). The second type of technology, millimeter wave, uses electromagnetic waves to create a generic image of passengers. The millimeter wave unit looks more like a round booth and is subject to less controversy because it does not use ionizing radiation and therefore does not carry the same health risks.

Once you know what each type of machine looks like, you can opt-out accordingly or instead receive a manual pat-down. At this time, Scientific American reported that major airports like Los Angeles International, Chicago O'Hare and John F. Kennedy in New York (among others) use the backscatter machines, while airports in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas use millimeter wave technology.

Personally, as a very frequent air traveler, I ALWAYS opt-out of the x-ray scanner. Even if the radiation dose is minute (and that's a big IF), I'm not willing to risk my health by exposing my entire body to any avoidable dose on a regular basis.

Europe has already taken a strong stance against the use of these scanners, and in the United States if we have enough people objecting to this new technology we can get them to stop using it altogether. It is far too man-power intensive for agents to manually inspect everyone with the enhanced pat down.

In 2010, when massive numbers of people were planning on opting out in protest, they shut all the X-ray scanners off that day and ran people through the older ones. If 10 percent of us choose to opt out regularly, my guess is that they will shut the machines off permanently.

Currently the TSA reports that more than 99 percent of passengers choose to be screened by the x-ray scanners, so please remember you CAN make a difference by opting out.

Tips for Reducing Your Cumulative Radiation Load While Flying

If you're exposed to other forms of radiation through CT scans, mammograms and other medical procedures, your exposure could easily reach dangerous levels, and this is why it makes sense to avoid unnecessary radiation exposures as much as possible.

One way to reduce your radiation exposure by 99 percent while traveling by air is to fly at night. Just as it is impossible to get a suntan at night, you will avoid virtually all of the sun's radiation when you fly after sunset.

That's why I try to fly exclusively at night now, or as far away from noon as practically possible—in addition to opting out of the full-body scanner. I also take 8 mg of astaxanthin every day, which is believed to radically limit damage from ionizing radiation.

A new report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) claims to have found no association between long-term use of cell phones and brain or central nervous system tumors.

But like the Interphone study, which also initially reported no link between cell phones and brain cancer, this finding is seriously flawed and only adding to the false shroud of safety that the telecom industry is seeking to create.

As Devra Davis, PhD, cancer epidemiologist and president of the Environmental Health Trust, stated, the BMJ study results are "unsurprising, biased and misleading," and:

"From the way it was set up originally, this deeply flawed study was designed to fail to find an increased risk of brain tumors tied with cellphone use."

BMJ Study Excluded Heaviest Cell Phone Users from the Analysis

The BMJ study, "Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study," is a follow-up to an earlier Danish analysis of 358,403 mostly male cell phone subscribers over the age of 30 during the period 1990-2007. 

Unfortunately, the study simply extends the flaws found in the original study (which incidentally also found no cancer risk) by not only taking into account the fact that cell phone use and wireless exposure has changed dramatically even in the last few years, but also not including those most at risk of cell phone damage in the report: heavy business users.

Davis explains:

"In order for any study of a relatively rare disease like brain tumors to find a change in risk, millions must be followed for decades. By extending an earlier analysis on the same group of cellphone users this new report provides unsurprising, biased and misleading conclusions.

It uses no direct information on cell phone use, fails to consider recent and rapidly changing nature of and exposure to microwave radiation from cellphones, cordless phones and other growing sources, and excludes those who would have been the heaviest users—namely more than 300,000 business people in the 1990s who are known to have used phones four times as much as those in this study."

Conveniently, more than 300,000 business users were removed from the study, which represented nearly 30 percent of the original group. By excluding those who would have been the heaviest users, it is impossible to take the study results at face value, especially considering that a cell phone "user," as defined by the study, was anyone who made one call a week for 6 months.

Adding to this the fact that cell phone calls were more expensive to make several years ago, which means many likely kept their calls shorter than nowadays, when unlimited minutes are the norm, means that the group's average exposure was far less than what we're seeing today, and unlikely to provoke a noticeably increased risk during the study period.

There were other problems uncovered as well …

Seriously Understated Cell Phone Risks Skewed Study Findings

In order for a study to hold any scientific weight, it must compare its test group against a group of controls. In this case, the study compared cell phone subscribers to "non-subscribers," who therefore should have been unaffected by cell phone radiation in order to provide an accurate base-line against which the risks of cell phone use could be measured.

However, as a critique of the study released by ElectromagneticHealth.org reported, the non-subscribers became cell phone users later on -- a change that was not accounted for in the study.

" … the report analyzed the rates of brain tumors that occurred between 1990-2007 in those who began using cellphones after 1987, compared to those who were non-subscribers when the study started. This … understates risk, because most of those who began as 'non-subscribers' to cell phone service (i.e. the 'controls' at the time the cohort was collected) became cell phone users later on, and accumulated almost as many years (on average per person) as the 'exposed' subscribers.

Hence, the comparison to the population not contained in the subscriber sample is a comparison between two exposed groups.

Cell phone users who began using cell phones after 1995 and those under the age of 30 were not considered 'subscribers' in the study (as with the business users and pay-as-you go users), thus significantly diluting the results and underestimating the risk."

When this flaw was mathematically corrected by Michael Kundi and colleagues from the Medical University of Vienna in the earlier Danish study, they actually found a significantly increased risk for brain tumors! Davis also points out that the current study also found increased risks that are not being recognized by the researchers or reported by the media as such.

Davis states:

"Statistical significance tests are tools used in science to help understand the chance that a finding is real. In fact, the article reports a significant increased risk of a very rare form of glioma of the cerebral ventricle based on eight cases but the authors chose to make no mention of this significant finding. In this instance despite the small number the finding is significant.

Statistical analyses provide tools, but do not provide rules, for interpreting evidence. This means that findings can be important even when they do not reach significance statistically.  

In this report, the authors reject all other findings of borderline significance completely.  In a study of relatively rare diseases such as brain tumor, the failure to obtain statistical significance should not be confused with a lack of public health importance. In fact, most of the reported numbers of brain tumors in this article give estimated risks where the result goes from below 1 (a negative result meaning no increased risk), to above 1 (a positive result indicating in some instances a doubled or greater risk).

All of the few well-designed case-control studies of this issue have found significantly increased risk. Thus, these borderline findings of increased risk may well signal an important association."

Cell Phone Safety Spin is Ongoing

You simply cannot take the word of the CTIA (the wireless industry trade group) for granted when it states that "no research has found cell phones to be a danger to health." They misinterpret and misrepresent certain studies while ignoring a large portion of the published research showing harm!

Stating that cell phones "are not a danger to health" is an utter farce—which some would call a fraud—being perpetrated on the American people, and all other citizens of the world.

According to Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org,

"It highlights the lack of integrity in governments, which more and more are turning a blind eye to public health while supporting commercial interests."

I wrote about the serious flaws of the Interphone study when it was first released. The massive Interphone study, which was meant to finally provide definitive evidence on the safety, or lack thereof, of cell phones cost more than $30 million (funded in part by the mobile phone industry) to carry out, and involved at least 50 scientists from 13 countries. But the International EMF Collaborative found that the study seriously underestimates the brain cancer risk from cell phone use.

Some of the key design flaws of the Interphone study mirror those in the current BMJ study, such as leaving out key groups of study participants and using exposed subjects as a "control" group. For example, flaws of the Interphone study include:

• Results were only provided for brain cancers (gliomas) and meningiomas, but not tumors within the 20 percent of the brain's volume irradiated by cell phones
• The 5-year-old results are woefully inadequate as a gauge of risk today, as adults and children now speak on cell phones many hours a day compared to only 2 to 2.5 hours a month at the time the study was conducted
• Categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones) as 'unexposed', thus comparing subjects who were actually 'exposed' with others who were 'exposed' as a means to gauge risk
• Excluding people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor
• Excluding children and young adults, who are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation and who now use cell phones heavily

The Cell Phone Cancer Risk is Real

The Interphone Study Group did eventually acknowledge that "heavy users" of cell phones—which is MOST people today, including children and teens—had an approximately doubled risk of glioma, a life threatening and often-fatal brain tumor, after 10 years of cell phone use. This should be a wake-up call for all except those in deepest denial.

And here's the most shocking piece of evidence of this risk: their definition of a "heavy user" was someone using a cell phone for about two hours per month! So how could any rational objective scientist claim that this study proved cell phones safe, when you double your risk of a fatal brain tumor after using your cell phone for just two hours a month for 10 years?

For more information about the Interphone study, I recommend reading the report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone." After closely reviewing the facts and the flaws of the Interphone study, the report concluded:

• There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use
• Telecom-funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors
• Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors

On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), also concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, just to name a few.

The group did not perform any new research; rather the decision is based on a review of the previously published evidence, including the Interphone study results published so far (about 50% have still not been released). This is the same evidence that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), among others, have previously waved aside, calling it "reassuring," and claiming it showed "no evidence" of harm.

Camilla Rees, MBA, founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org, actually believes that the new BMJ study was released specifically to counter the IARC cancer classification, and also points out similarities between the BMJ study spin and a previously released, and also heavily misleading, study that claimed children have no brain tumor risk from cell phones – which incidentally was conducted by some of the same researchers as the BMJ study.

Rees notes:

"This churning of the handicapped Danish cohort study is likely intended to counter the recent WHO IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a Class 2B 'Possible Carcinogen.' The misrepresentation to the media evidenced here parallels the recent misleading CEFALO brain tumor study that purported to show that there is no higher risk of brain cancer in children. 

In fact, that study did find increased risk of brain tumors in children that the authors dismissed. But, experts in pediatric oncology understand that brain tumors in children could well occur in shorter time periods than in adults. The overlap in investigators in these two studies should also be noted."

So please understand that cell phone radiation has the potential to harm your health, just like DDT or lead, which is what experts in the field have been saying for years. That doesn't mean that every person exposed to those substances will get cancer.

But it raises your overall risk, depending on a number of other factors, such as your general state of health, which in part is dependent on exposure to other toxins through food, air, and water, just to name a few. 

And I believe it's important to remember that when we're talking about toxins in general, it's your accumulated toxic load that matters most. So in that sense, heavy users of cell phones and other wireless gadgets, as well as children, are at exponentially increased risk, and should at the very least be warned so that they can make educated decisions about their self-imposed level of exposure.

Reducing Your Risk of Health Damage from Cell Phone Use

While the IARC panel, being a science not policy organization, did not make many specific recommendations to consumers, IARC Director Christopher Wild did take it upon himself to publicly state:

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting."

These are sensible solutions, but keep in mind that completely eliminating exposure is close to impossible. Even if you don't use a cell phone and your home is wireless-free, you can be exposed to microwave radiation from your neighbor's wireless devices or while visiting "hot spots" or traveling near cell phone towers. That said, there's still plenty you can do to minimize your exposure and help safeguard your children's health:

• Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones, and still developing immune and neurological systems.
• Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
  
  Leave an outgoing message on your phone stating your cell phone policy so others know not to call you on it except in emergencies.
• Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
• Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.
  
  If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least some of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
  
  Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, it may not be as damaging to your health.
  
  Ideally it would be helpful to turn off or disconnect your base station every night before you go to bed. Levels of microwave radiation from portable phones can be extraordinarily high, according to Camilla Rees.
  

  "Portable phone radiation can be as high or higher than a wireless router, though most people would have no idea that this common device at their bedside could be harmful."

  You can find RF meters at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is labeled DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
• Limit Your Cell Phone Use to Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
  
  Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
• Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another. There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone, and do not rely on the SAR value to evaluate the safety of your phone. Always seek CDMA carriers over GSM as they have far lower radiation in their signaling technology. And remember, eliminating cell phone use, or greatly lowering cell phone use from phones of all kinds, is where true prevention begins.
• Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
• Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
• Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
  
  The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

To learn more about this extremely important issue, please see my dedicated EMF site. I also highly recommend setting aside an hour to listen to ElectromagneticHealth.org founder Camilla Rees' interview with Karl Maret, MD. With an extensive background in medicine, electrical engineering, and biomedical engineering, Dr. Maret is uniquely qualified to speak on the topic of electromagnetic fields, and he shares some of the most compelling arguments to date on why you must use extreme caution when it comes to not only cell phones but also cordless phones, smart meters and other forms of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

You can also listen to an important 20-minute speech by Martin Blank, PhD, who spoke at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. Dr. Blank speaks with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact on cells and DNA from electromagnetic fields, and explains why your DNA is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.

Click to listen: 55:42
Karl Maret, MD on Biological Effects of Cell Phones and Wireless Technologies

By Dr. Mercola

In 1993, talk-show host Larry King had an unexpected guest on his program -- David Reynard, who argued that radiation from a cell phone caused or accelerated the growth of a brain tumor in his wife. Susan Reynard died in 1992, just short of her 34th birthday.

The Florida Circuit Court that heard Reynard's case rejected it on the grounds that too little was known about a potential link between cell phones and cancer. What was needed, the court said, was much deeper and more comprehensive knowledge about the subject. The New York Times article linked below, though riddled with errors and omissions about the cell phones’ link with cancer (see electromagnetichealth.org’s rebuttal here) examines the following question:  Now, nineteen years later, if Reynard were to reappear in court, what is known about a possible cell phone/cancer link?

According to the New York Times:

"It is possible, of course, that even ... sophisticated experiments will be unable to determine the risk. The lag time of cancer development with phone use may be 50 or 70 years -- and cellphones have been around for only three decades or so."

No one wants to hear that a largely "indispensable" item they rely on daily might cause serious harm to your health, but that's exactly what we're faced with when it comes to cell phones and the potential for them to cause all manner of health problems, from headaches and brittle bones to infertility and brain tumors.

In fact, studies have shown increased risk of many forms of cancer from long-term cell phone use, including gliomas (brain cancer), acoustic neuromas (tumor on the acoustic nerve), meningiomas (tumor of the meninges), salivary gland cancers (parotid gland in the cheek), eye cancers, testicular cancers and leukemia.

One of the reasons I started this newsletter was to decrease the time it takes for important public health information to become widely accepted in the conventional media.

My intention is to give you a huge head start with this information, frequently years or decades prior to this knowledge becoming known, so you can prevent serious damage to your health that would otherwise occur from behaviors you didn't realize were harmful until it was too late. There's no doubt in my mind that we will eventually see an explosion of brain tumors, attributable to excessive cell phone use.

But why wait until it's self-evident and undeniable? By then you or your child might be part of the collateral damage of this ongoing live experiment, that is if you have not been affected already.

And although Reynard's case, discussed in the featured New York Times article, could be easily dismissed as a grieving man grasping for straws as he tried to figure out WHAT caused his wife's lethal tumor, I believe science will in time tease out all the precise mechanisms of harm.

In fact, they've already identified numerous such mechanisms, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA—a fact that Siddhartha Mukherjee, an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University fails to mention in his article.

An analysis of the mechanisms of action was published last November in "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter."

The Difficulty of Assessing Risk Factors for Cancer

Mukherjee claims that determining the carcinogenic potential of cell phone radiation is difficult and troublesome for a number of reasons, and he may have a point, but primarily because it's near impossible to find a control group today.

That the telecom industry will not readily release cell phone usage data, so cell phone radiation exposures and incidence of disease can be directly compared, is another reason.

So, as was the case with smoking and lung cancer, the statistical link between the carcinogen, which was pervasive, and the disease, which was prevalent, seemed to "vanish." But, as history has since shown us, that didn't mean the association between smoking and lung cancer wasn't real…

So, when it comes to cell phone radiation exposure and cancer, while many claim it's impossible to untangle cause from coincidence, many qualified experts now disagree, stating there's "irrefutable evidence" that electromagnetic fields and microwave radiation from cell phones do indeed cause biological changes, and that these alterations can lead to cancer and other health problems.

In fact, the industry's own research in the 13-country Interphone study showed an 82 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent research has shown a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone use.

It is worth noting that at the time that the Interphone study and some of the early Hardell research was conducted, in the early 2000s, only about 50 percent of people used cell phones, setting up an almost ideal circumstance for risk analysis, compared to today when cell phone use is pervasive and it is difficult to find a control group.

Both of these studies, when there was a ready control group available, showed increased risk of brain tumors, "beyond a shadow of a doubt", according to brain tumor analyst L. Lloyd Morgan.

Additionally, you have to remember that cancer may not appear until you've been repeatedly exposed for several decades. For example, a review of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies published in the journal Surgical Neurology two years ago revealed that using a cell phone for 10 years or longer approximately doubles your risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.

Professor Mild, lead researcher of that particular study, cautioned that the danger may be even greater than what they found because cancers need a minimum of 10 years to develop.

This places the primary cancer concern on our children, as they're now exposed to cell phones on a regular basis straight from birth.

In essence, our children are the unwitting guinea pigs while researchers struggle to come to a consensus on the dangers. That means it's your job to decide which side you want to err on—the side of caution, or the side of trust in an industry that has everything to lose by admitting their products are a danger to human health…

From my perspective, mounting evidence clearly indicates that we MUST invoke the precautionary principle with regards to cell phone use, as well as other wireless technologies.

We must also insist on the release of cell phone usage data to independent researchers so society can accelerate its understanding of the link between cell phone usage and brain tumors, and other health conditions, as well. So far, this information has not been forthcoming from the telecom industry and remains a major reason why the carcinogenicity of cell phones is not more clearly understood today.

Several groups, including the International EMF Collaborative, have proposed that if cell phone usage records were released combined with a $1/year tax per cell phone to fund a major quarter billion dollar annual research program comparing actual usage with various diseases and cancers, the answers about cell phone risks would become very clear, very quickly.

What the Research Says about Cancer Risk from Cell Phone Use

Although the New York Times ran with the "inconclusive evidence" angle, many prominent and qualified experts vehemently disagree with this, including one expert with whom its author reportedly consulted for hours, yet the NYT article still omitted to mention the many studies showing risk of brain tumors that they had discussed.

(Serious omissions and errors in the Mukherjee New York Times article are outlined in a detailed rebuttal by Lloyd Morgan, found at ElectromagneticHealth.org.)

Another such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, also of Columbia University and one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. (credentials which the New York Times author, Siddhartha Mukherjee—while an award-winning non-fiction writer, but with no background in electromagnetic fields—does not hold).

Dr. Blank gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. Dr. Blank speaks with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact of electromagnetic fields on cells and DNA, and explains why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds. As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self-symmetry.

These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern.

Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it."

I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.

Dr. Karl Maret, M.D. is another uniquely well-qualified expert on this topic, as his background includes medicine, electrical engineering, and biomedical engineering. He has recently begun educating physician groups specifically on the biological impacts of communication technologies, such as cell phones and wireless technologies.

In a recent interview (featured above) with ElectromagneticHealth.org founder Camilla Rees, Dr. Maret shared some of the most compelling arguments to date on why you must use extreme caution when it comes to cell phones, cordless phones, smart meters, and other forms of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

I highly recommend setting aside an hour to listen to this informative interview as well.

The Flawed Research Behind the Cell Phone Safety Spin

As the New York Times accurately points out, trials like the international Interphone study have tried to "cleanse the field of doubts," but rather than lay all questions to rest, they've actually stirred up more questions and doubt about the safety of cell phones.

This is why you simply cannot take the word of the CTIA (the wireless industry trade group) for granted when it states that "no research has found cell phones to be a danger to health." They misinterpret and misrepresent certain studies while ignoring a large portion of the published research showing harm!

Stating that cell phones "are not a danger to health" is an utter farce—which some would call a fraud—being perpetrated on the American people, and all other citizens of the world. According to Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org,

"It highlights the lack of integrity in governments, which more and more are turning a blind eye to public health while supporting commercial interests."I wrote about the serious flaws of the Interphone study when it was first released. The International EMF Collaborative found that the study seriously underestimates the brain cancer risk from cell phone use. For example, some of the key design flaws of this study include:

• Results were only provided for brain cancers (gliomas) and meningiomas, but not tumors within the 20 percent of the brain's volume irradiated by cell phones
• The 5-year old results are woefully inadequate as a gauge of risk today, as adults and children now speak on cell phones many hours a day compared to only 2 to 2 ½ hours a month at the time the study was conducted
• Categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones) as 'unexposed', thus comparing subjects who were actually 'exposed' with others who were 'exposed' as a means to gauge risk
• Excluding people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed as a consequence of their brain tumor
• Excluding children and young adults, who are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation and who now use cell phones heavily

Today, Virtually Everyone is a "Heavy User," which is a Definite Risk Factor

Another fact conveniently ignored by both the CTIA and the media is the fact that the Interphone Study Group did eventually acknowledge that "heavy users" of cell phones—which is MOST people today, including children and teens—had an approximately doubled risk of glioma, a life threatening and often-fatal brain tumor, after 10 years of cell phone use. This should be a wake-up call for all except those in deepest denial.

And here's the most shocking piece of evidence of this risk: their definition of a "heavy user" was someone using a cell phone for about two hours per month!

So how could any rational objective scientist claim that this study proved cell phones safe, when you double your risk of a fatal brain tumor after using your cell phone for just two hours a month for 10 years?

For more information about the Interphone study, I recommend reading the report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone." After closely reviewing the facts and the flaws of the Interphone study, the report concluded:

• There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use
• Telecom-funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors
• Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors

World-Class Scientists Set Record Straight on Cancer Risk

I also recommend reading through the editorial published January 24, 2011 in the U.K. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine by the lead scientist on the Interphone study, Elizabeth Cardis, and Siegal Sadetzki. (Sadetzki led the Israeli component of the study, which found that regular users, as well as heavy users, in rural areas showed increased risk of salivary gland tumors, due to higher levels of exposure.)

In their editorial, they clarify the Interphone study results, stating that the cell phone-brain tumor data is indeed troubling.

They further advise:

"Simple and low-cost measures, such as the use of text messages, hands-free kits and/or the loudspeaker mode of the phone could substantially reduce exposure to the brain from mobile phones.

"Therefore, until definitive scientific answers are available, the adoption of such precautions, particularly among young people, is advisable.

"While more studies are needed, indications of an increased risk (of gliomas - a particularly dangerous form of brain tumor) in high and long-term users from Interphone and other studies are of concern. ... Even a small risk at the individual level could eventually result in a considerable number of tumors and become an important public-health issue."

According to Camilla Rees of www.ElectromagneticHealth.org :

"It is very important these two scientists are now independently and personally taking such a strong stand, particularly in light of the Interphone study group's own Press Release, which avoided highlighting the risks of brain tumors the study indeed did find. This gives us faith more scientists may inform the public about what the science is really telling us on this very important public health issue, even in circumstances where their opinions may have initially been suppressed."

New Chinese Study Shows Dramatic Increase in Risk for Parotid Gland Tumors

As recently as last month, a Chinese study showed that long-term, heavy cell phone use may also raise your risk of malignant parotid gland tumors (tumor of the salivary gland) anywhere from seven to 13 times!

This is a major risk that needs to be taken very seriously. As Microwave News reported:

"The raw data -- that is, before being adjusted for other possible risk factors like sex, age, income, smoking status and the like -- point to cancer risks that are elevated 10-fold, 20-fold, and even 30-fold, depending on the type of tumor and how heavy cell phone use is defined …

For instance, those who had used mobile phones for over 10 years had more than 10 times the rate of epithelial parotid gland malignancies, the dominant type of cancer of parotid gland. The risk rose to 20 times that of controls for mucoepidermoid carcinoma, the primary subtype of parotid gland cancer.

Those who used a cell phone for more than two-and-a-half hours a day had a more than 15-to-30 fold elevated cancer risk. Previous studies have rarely pointed to a risk that is more than double or triple the expected rate."

More Evidence of Biological Effect on Brain from Cell Phone Use

Another important study, funded by the US government, was published in JAMA in February of this year. Using a specialized brain scanner capable of detecting alterations in glucose, the researchers were able to determine that cell phone radiation triggers your brain cells to metabolize glucose at an increased rate.

As reported by CNN:

"The findings of the study, which examined the subjects during just one 50-minute exposure, raise a key question, the researchers said: What, if any, are the long-term consequences of repeated increased brain activity due to exposure to cell phone radiation?

"We need to rule out that there is a not long-lasting effect in healthy people," Volkow said. "We don't know what repeated exposure and artificial activation of the glucose will have on the brain."

We know that glucose metabolism equates to cell activation. So the findings indicate that radiation from your cell phone clearly has a well-defined measureable influence on your brain. Essentially, each time you put a cell phone up to your ear, you're artificially activating your brain cells.

That much is clear.

But whether or not this excess glucose production is harmful, or can cause a cascade of problems down the line, is still unknown. Dr. Michael Kundi, at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, however, in response to these findings said,

"At present I can only think of an influence on tumor growth. Since a brain tumor utilizes excessive amounts of glucose, changes in glucose utilization may be a key mechanism to support tumor growth."

Remember, Children are Most at Risk!

It's obvious that since children today are using cell phones at an earlier age than any previous generation, their lifetime exposure will exceed that of an adult. This is extremely troublesome, because not only will they—and their DNA—be exposed for longer, their skulls are also far thinner than adults and their nervous systems are still developing, making them particularly vulnerable to damage.

Therefore, I strongly urge you to avoid using cell phones around children, and to not let your children play with or talk on a cell phone.

Remember, Your Body is a "Bioelectric Machine"

Barring all the scientific evidence, it simply makes sense that cell phones and wireless technology can impact the human body once you understand that your body is bioelectric. Your body contains electrons which keep an electrical current flowing, and inside every cell are mitochondria, the 'power plants' of the cell that respond to the body's natural electromagnetic fields.

As Dr. Maret explains in his interview with ElectromagneticHealth.org, your body is a complex communication system where cells, tissues, organs, and organisms "talk" -- it's a veritable "electronic symphony in your body." This communication includes finely tuned bio-electrical transmitters and receivers, which are tuned like tuning into a radio station.

And when you expose a radio antenna to a significant amount of external noise, you get static, and that is what is happening to your body in today's EMF-saturated environment.

Common-Sense Guidelines to Protect Your and Your Family's Health

There are few EMF-free zones left in the world today, so you can't completely avoid all radiation. If you're willing to give up your cell phone and return to using a land line, you can virtually eliminate one of the most immediate hazards to your brain and body. But if you're not prepared to take that step, you can at least minimize your exposure by heeding the following advice:

• Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones.
• Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
• Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
• Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.

If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least some of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made.

Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters wont help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.

Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health.

Ideally it would be helpful to turn off or disconnect your base station every night before you go to bed. Or better yet, keep it off except for the occasional circumstances where you need portability and a long phone cord will not do.

You can find RF meters at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is labeled DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.

• Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
  

  Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.

• Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another. There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone. SAR ratings ("Specific Absorption Rate") are used to rank phones safety and they simply are not useful at all. Unfortunately these widely publicized rankings mislead people into thinking that a low SAR phone is safe.
  

  The SAR level only measures the power density of a phone, estimating the radiation penetration into the head using a plexiglass head of a simulated 200 lb man. In the article "Top 'Safe' Cell Phones That Aren't Safe" , Camilla Rees explains that this is just an estimate, and it is only an estimate of one of the components of risk from cell phones. It does not gauge the risk from the frequencies of the cell phone, the pulsing and modulation of the signals, or the magnetic fields from batteries.

  The actual SAR exposure can also be greatly impacted by the manner in which you hold the phone, whether you use a headset, and your physical location in relation to nearby cell towers. The SAR has a very limited use, and only as a comparative measure between phones on this one risk variable, and is not in any way a measure of cell phone safety.

• Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
• Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. Electrosensitivity, in fact, struck Gro Harlem Brundtland, MD, MPH, Norway's former Prime Minister, when she headed the World Health Organization (WHO). Brundtland told the BBC she would not allow cell phones in her office due to her electrosensitivity.
  

  People are increasingly becoming electrosensitive throughout the developed world today, like Dr. Brundtland, making it extremely difficult for some people to cope in modern life. It is important that people hold others in these circumstances with compassion and be conscious of potential '2^nd hand radiation' effects on other people.

  If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.

• Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain.
  

  Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.

  The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.

In one publication, which identified studies documenting increase in cancers with microwave exposure, the authors claim no conflict of interest.

The other publication presents a conflict of interest statement that mentions they received funding from organizations that include the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum and the GSM Association, that they hold shares in the telecoms companies Cable and Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications, and many other similar conflicts -- and then they, likewise claim that they have no conflicts of interest!

It may come as no surprise that the second study finds that the evidence is against mobile phone use causing brain tumors.

According to Dr. Magda Havas:

"For someone who is intimately familiar with the studies they cite I find it fascinating how they skirt around the 'inconvenient' results that don't fit their conclusions ... The studies show that after 10 years of moderate cell phone use ... there is a statistically significant increase in ipsilateral gliomas ... So who do you believe? Those with a conflict of interest who claim not to have one or those without?"

Here's some news about cell phones and cancer which even the mainstream media has found impossible to ignore. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), has declared after a review of the research that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that cell phone use was linked to two types of tumors—brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.

Some scientists say the IARC classification is still not strong enough, and that cell phone radiation should have been classified as a "Probable Human Carcinogen" based on the existing science, but evidently there were not enough studies to classify it more strongly at this time.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. says,

"The existing science is very clear there is risk of cancer from cell phone use. The warning might have been 2A if there were a larger number of animal studies showing this, or if there were a larger number of up-to-date human studies. It's important to recognize the Interphone study on which the classification to a large extent relied was completed in 2004, and current studies reflecting usage patterns today would be far more damning, possibly earning a Class 1 "Human Carcinogen."

However, according to Electromagnetic Health:

"Nonetheless, the IARC opinion is a breath of fresh air to many, and restores some integrity to a badly tarnished IARC ... The IARC classification of cell phones as a 'possible human carcinogen' will now travel throughout the world, influencing governments far and wide, for the 1st time providing an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices."

Professor Dariusz Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, explains why this should probably be considered big news:

"... for the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF is possibly carcinogenic to humans. One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as 'gold standard' in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim."

WHO's Group 2 Classification of Cancer Risk

"This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data.

The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic."

So as you can see, while some journalists and scientists are now downplaying the IARC decision, saying the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic does not mean cell phones cause cancer, and even preposterously claiming that there is no evidence of this at all, there is no uncertainty that IARC, a highly respected scientific body, is now clearly saying there is evidence of carcinogenicity, otherwise they would not have classified in category 2B.

See Citizens for Health commentary on this, including comments on the 2B classification by 20+ year veteran of the IARC, Dr. Annie J. Sasco of Bordeaux Segalen University, France

Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org says,

"We expect to see continued spin from all directions, attempting to confuse the public and raise doubt, for some time to come. Thus it is especially important citizens be able to spot the misinformation and recognize there is an extraordinary propaganda machine in motion. We expect this will get LOUDER until industry is one day forced to cry 'Uncle" under the landslide pressure from expected lawsuits and governments."

Already, three senior members of Congress are calling on the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a "thorough review" of the science and "adequacy" of current FCC exposure guidelines. These include Representatives Ed Markey (MA), Henry Waxman (CA) and Anna Eshoo (CA). And Reuters reports the Supreme Court is considering the fate of existing cell phone safety litigation in light of the WHO classification.

The IARC decision came only days after the Council of Europe, elders from 47 European countries, has called for a dramatic reduction in EMF exposure to humans from call phones and wireless technologies.

It is important to realize, however, that cell phones may not all be the same. Although all cell phones emit radiation, CDMA cell phones, such as those used by Sprint and Verizon, do not pulse their signals like the GSM phones used by AT&T and T-Mobile. 

According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, "GSM phones emit about 28 times more radiation on average compared to CDMA phones according to one published study." Dr. Moskowitz recommends switching to a CDMA carrier if you want to reduce your radiation exposure.

Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University, Canada, agrees pulsed radiation is more dangerous:

"Pulsed radiation is much more harmful and the true intensity is not provided as it is "averaged" during a period of time (30 minutes for public exposure in US). The average of the pulse (maximum reading) and the minimum reading
gives a false low reading.  Engineers like to measure averages but living organisms react to extremes so these average readings under estimate the potential for harm if the radiation is pulsed."

In fact, technologists had given the same baby about 10 whole-body X-rays. And Dr. John Amodio, a pediatric radiologist, found that such full-body X-rays of premature babies had occurred often, that radiation levels had been set too high, and that babies had been poorly positioned.

Although Dr. Sclafani and Dr. Amodio stopped the practice, the hospital never reported the problems to state health officials as required.

The New York Times reports:

"The errors at Downstate raise broader questions about the competence, training and oversight of technologists who operate radiological equipment...  "With technologists in many states lightly regulated, or not at all, their own professional group is calling for greater oversight and standards...

"[But] Congress has yet to pass what has become known as the CARE bill because, supporters say, it lacks a powerful legislator to champion its cause."

The committee report argued that it was crucial to avoid repeating the mistakes made when public health officials failed to recognize the dangers of asbestos, tobacco smoking and lead.

According to the Telegraph:

“The report also highlighted the potential health risks of cordless telephones and baby monitors, which rely on similar technology ...  The Council of Europe ... is highly influential in policy-making and has often seen its decisions enacted through conventions and treaties.”

Magnetic fields can improve your memory and even control your behavior and sense of morality. This video shows just how strongly they can affect your brain. New Scientist editor Roger Highfield's recitation of "Humpty Dumpty" is interrupted by magnetic interference.

Neuroscientists have also revealed that administering electricity to the scalp -- powered by a 9-volt battery -- improves video game skills. Those who received 2 milliamps of electricity to the brain played twice as well as those who received a tinier jolt.

As Popsci reported:

"It's different from transcranial magnetic stimulation, in which a magnetic coil running at high voltage is positioned close to the head. The magnets stimulate electrical responses in the brain. Transcranial direct current stimulation is just what it sounds, applying the current directly to the brain."

Dr. Maret trained in both electrical and biomedical engineering before his medical studies. He has recently begun educating physician groups specifically on the biological impacts of communication technologies, such as cell phones and wireless technologies.

According to Electromagnetic Health, in this interview, Maret discusses:

"... the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. He offers especially valuable perspective given he has both an extensive medical background and a background in electrical engineering and biomedical engineering."

According to a new study, electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones may affect bone strength. Men who wear their cell phone on the right side of their belts were found to have reduced bone mineral content and bone mineral density in the right hip.

Researchers measured the bone strength at the left and right hip in two groups of healthy men, half of whom did not use cell phones and half of whom carried their cell phone in a belt pouch on the right side. Their hip bones were assessed using a test called dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

According to Newswise:

"... [M]en who did not use cell phones had higher [bone mineral content] in the right femoral neck (near the top of the thigh bone) ... The cell phone users also had reduced [bone mineral density] and [bone mineral content] at the right trochanter -- an area at the outside top of the thigh bone, close to where the phone would be worn on the belt."

Additionally, a separate U.S. government funded study by Nora Volkow et al published in JAMA unsettled many people when it reported that using a cell phone could alter brain activity, and do so at non-thermal levels of microwave radiation, levels which have long been argued by industry and regulatory bodies do not have enough intensity to create biological effects.

The report did not conclude whether the changes in glucose levels resulted in any negative, long-term health effect, but it had many people wondering what they can do to protect themselves, and also whether they can trust regulatory bodies setting exposure guidelines.

Dr. Michael Kundi, at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, commented:

"Since a brain tumor utilizes excessive amounts of glucose, changes in glucose utilization may be a key mechanism to support tumor growth."

The study's authors advise cell phone users to keep their phone at a distance by putting them on speaker mode or using a wired headset whenever possible. Even holding your phone farther away from your ear can make a difference, as the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance.

According to the New York Times:

"Many cellphones emit the most radiation when they initially establish contact with the cell tower, making their 'digital handshake.' To reduce exposure it's best to wait until after your call has been connected to put your cellphone next to your ear.

During the ensuing conversation, it's advisable to tilt the phone away from your ear when you are talking and only bring it in close to your ear when you are listening ... radiation is 'significantly less when a cellphone is receiving signals than when it is transmitting.'"

In addition, texting instead of talking might be safer.

And if the Volkow study demonstrating increased glucose levels in the brain from cell phone radiation raised major concerns about cell phone safety around the globe, stunning new research from China is following on its heels, waking up people further to the evident very serious risks from cell phones. 

The recent study, by Duan Y, et al , "Correlation between cellular phone use and epithelial parotid gland malignancies," published in the International Journal of Oral and Maxofacial Surgery, showed a dose-response relationship between cell phone use and parotid gland tumors, and as much as a 3,000% increased risk of parotid gland tumors with greater than 2.5 hours of cell phone use per day.

See ElectromagneticHealth.org post, "Important New Chinese Study Connecting Cell Phone Use with Parotid  Gland Tumors," and coverage by Microwave News, "Chinese Put Cancer of the Parotid Gland on Center Stage."

"The authors found general indications of a dose–response relationship between cellular phone use and parotid gland malignancy.

In particular, duration of use prior to diagnosis, average daily number of calls, average daily duration of cellular phone usage, number of calls since first use, and total time of usage were positively associated with parotid gland malignancy."

Brain tumor analyst L. Lloyd Morgan, B.S., who was lead author of the landmark report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern," says the risks of parotid gland tumors found in the Duan Y, et al parotid gland study were "as large, perhaps larger, than the risk of lung cancer from smoking."

Camilla Rees of www.ElectromagneticHealth.org says:

"It is not surprising we have never seen the full data set from the 13-country Interphone study, especially the data on parotid gland tumors and acoustic neuromas, tumors closest to where a cell phone is held against the head, despite the fact that the study was completed over six years ago.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the part of the World Health Organization responsible for the Interphone study, is planning to soon draw conclusions on risk of cancer from RF from cell phones based only on the 50% of Interphone results they have released to date,

Global scientists and activists are now actively protesting this decision and insisting it be held off until the full Interphone data set is released. The Duan Y, et al parotid gland study very strongly reemphasizes we must gain access to the full dataset of the Interphone study, and subject it to independent analysis."

Many doctors don't opt out of the scans. Dr. Drew Pinsky calls the amount of radiation "inconsequential." However, some researchers question whether the manufacturers' measurements are valid -- the exposure to radiation may actually be 10 times more than what the manufacturers claim.

And Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, takes a pat-down instead of going through a scanner when he travels. Brawley's deputy, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, has the same opinion.

According to CNN:

"Lichtenfeld says it doesn't necessarily give him great comfort that the TSA says the scans are safe. 'I can still remember getting my feet radiated as a child when I went to the shoe store and they had a machine which could see how my foot fit in the new shoes,' he says. 'We were told then that they were safe, and they were not.'"

Reports emerged in 2001 that electromagnetic radiation produced by Vatican Radio's transmitters near the town was above the legal limit. A health authority released a study claiming that children in the area were six times more likely to develop leukemia.

The 300-page report prepared by Italy's most prestigious cancer research hospital called the connection between Vatican antennas and childhood cancer "coherent and significant."

The Independent reports:

"Vatican Radio said it was disappointed by the ruling."