EMF Dangers – What Scientists, Physicians, Health Policy Experts say

With the proliferation of cell phones, wireless Internet, and personal electronic devices, the ill effects of electromagnetic radiation are a huge concern.

As the discussion surrounding the dangers of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has become heated, Scientists, Physicians, Health Policy Experts & Others around the world out loud their voices about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation.

Martin Blank, Ph.D., of Columbia University

“International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect  the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA.  The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue.
We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.”

LINK: http://www.physiology.columbia.edu/MartinBlank.html

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., of University of California, Berkeley

“ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds.
These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today.  Scientists signing the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect
the global human population and wildlife from EMF exposures.”

LINK: http://sph.berkeley.edu/joel-moskowitz

Lee Cowden, MD, MD(H). Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board and Professor of the Academy of Comprehensive Integrative Medicine

We can’t see it, but it (EMF Radiation) may be having a more negative effect on our health than most other toxins. ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR) is produced mostly by the conveniences of the 21st century: electric appliances in our homes, overhead power lines, and Radio-Frequency devices like cellphones & cellphone towers, wireless internet, electric Smart Meters, etc.
The harmful effects from X-rays and ultraviolet light (forms of ionizing EMR that induce cancer) were discovered almost a century ago, but now there are studies that show non-ionizing EMR can produce cancer and other harmful effects.
Recently, the World Health Organization has classified Radio-Frequency (RF) emissions as a group 2 B carcinogen in the same class as the banned DDT pesticide and the heavy metal lead. This happened, in part, because a recent study has shown that the RF from cellphone use is associated with increased risk of developing malignant brain tumors
So we must try to protect ourselves.

 

William J. Rea, M.D, Founder of the Environmental Health Center Dallas (EHC-D)

“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century.
It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it.
The human health stakes are significant”.

President Bill Clinton
“…Sweden has concluded that EMF’s do lead to higher rates of cancer…I, frankly was somewhat impressed by the arguments
made by the Swedes.”

Olle Johansson, Ph.D. Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 

“It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system modulation,
are present in electrohypersensitive persons.
There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance,
indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons.
It is clear something serious has happened and is happening.
Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives,
including the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe,
permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage of the world’s population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical conditions.”

Magda Havas, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Environment & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada.

Expert in radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current.
“Radio frequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing guidelines. Science is one of the tools society uses to decide health policy. In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs, and portable phones, the science is being ignored. Current guidelines urgently need to be re-examined by government and reduced to reflect the state of the science. There is an emerging public health crisis at hand and time is of the essence.”

LINK: http://www.magdahavas.com/biography/

B. Blake Levitt. 

Former New York Times journalist and author of Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?

Ambient man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs), across a range of frequencies, are a serious environmental issue. Yet most environmentalists know little about it, perhaps because the subject has been the purview of physicists and engineers for so long that biologists have lost touch with electromagnetism’s fundamental inclusion in the biological paradigm. All living cells and indeed whole living beings, no matter what genus or species, are dynamic coherent electrical systems utterly reliant on bioelectricity for life’s most basic metabolic processes. It turns out that most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren’t “normal.” They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms, that don’t exist in nature. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways. Every aspect of the ecosystem may be affected, including all living species from animals, humans, plants and even microorganisms in water and soil. We are already seeing problems in sentinel species like birds, bats, and bees. Wildlife is known to abandon areas when cell towers are placed. Radiofrequency radiation (RF)—the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used in all-things-wireless today—is a known immune system suppressor, among other things. RF is a form of energetic air pollution and we need to understand it as such. Humans are not the only species being affected. The health of our planet may be in jeopardy from this newest environmental concern—added to all the others. Citizens need to call upon government to fund appropriate research and to get industry influence out of the dialogue. We ignore this at our own peril now.”

Link : http://www.blakelevitt.com/

Janet Newton President, The EMR Policy Institute

“The radiofrequency radiation safety policy in force in the United States fails to protect the public. Currently in the US there are more than 260 million wireless subscribers, the demand that drives the continuing build-out of antenna sites in residential and commercial neighborhoods, including near schools, daycare centers, and senior living centers and in the workplace. The January 2008 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences committee whose task was to examine the needs and gaps in the research on the biological effects of exposure to these antennas points out that the research studies to date do not adequately represent exposure realities. ”

LINK: www.EMRPolicy.org

David Carpenter, MD
Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University of Albany

Like second-hand smoke, EMF is a complex mixture, where different frequencies, intensities, durations of exposure(s), modulation, waveform and other factors are known to produce variable effects. Many years of scientific study has produced substantial evidence that EMF may be considered both carcinogenic and neurotoxic.
Sources of concern include, but are not limited to, power lines, cell and cordless phones, cell towers, Portland Public Schools’ WI-FI, WiMax and wireless internet.

LINK: http://www.albany.edu/news/experts/8212.php

Emf detector protection