Thank you ‘The Doctors’ for reporting this important subject.
I suffer from this condition and I know of many other people who also suffer. Besides being called Electro Hyper-Sensitivity, it is also known as Radio Wave Sickness and Microwave Sickness and was first reported in a German Scientific Paper in 1929 when the exposure was from AM radio transmitters. The condition became more well known during the Second World War when aircraft radar technicians became ill from microwave radiation transmitted from the equipment that they were working on.
There are thousands of scientific papers which show that electro magnetic radiation causes serious biological effects and it is linked to many illnesses including several different cancers. A good place to learn more about the many adverse health effects can be found in the Bio Initiative Report www.bioinitiative.org This is a report by nineteen scientists and ten medical specialists who have researched masses of scientific reports.
[Ci ha lasciati un grande ricercatore, che con i suoi studi sulle Microonde (sia in ambito di ricerca militare che civile) ha contribuito ad evidenziarne gli effetti nocivi.]
An Insider Unafraid To Challenge the Microwave Orthodoxy
14 July 2016 – “Microwave News”
Steve Cleary, whose career in microwave research spanned from the military’s Tri-Service program in the late 1950s to the cell phone industry’s sham project in the 1990s, died at home on June 7 of a heart attack. He leaves his wife, Fran, four daughters and ten grandchildren. He was 79.
Cleary was a professor of biophysics at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) in Richmond from 1964 to 2002. Like many other radiobiologists of his generation, he was trained at the University of Rochester. He later got his PhD at New York University underMerril Eisenbud, a former senior health official at the Atomic Energy Commission. Cleary’s doctoral thesis was the first epidemiological study of the impact of microwaves on the eyes. He detected a significant increase in the incidence of defects in the lenses of military personnel who had long-term exposure, a rare published report of an adverse finding.
Cleary’s study was one of the last to escape the censorship that followed after the military services took absolute control of microwave health research in the early 1970s. One of the ironies of history is that the strongest objection to Cleary’s paper came from Milton Zaret, the ophthalmologist who would later become the fiercest critic of the microwave establishment, alleging that microwaves presented a serious and neglected cataract risk.
“Zaret was a great ophthalmologist, but he was no statistician,” Cleary told me in one of our many talks. Over the last few years, I interviewed Cleary numerous times as I pieced together the early history of microwave research for a planned book —an examination of how a cabal of military, industrial and academic officials took control of the field and propagated the view that it was all junk science. Cleary himself came to call this circle of interests the “microwave mafia.”
Meeting at the New York Academy of Sciences in 1979
I first met Cleary at the New York Academy of Sciences in March 1979 where he was giving a talk on the biological effects of microwave radiation. One of his conclusions was that, in most cases, microwave effects are “qualitatively and quantitatively different” from thermal stress. Back then, like today, scientists were loath to offer such an opinion in public, especially one that challenged the view that all effects are thermal. No one wanted to alienate the military services, the principal sources of funding. Cleary was one of the few willing to speak his mind and put science above politics.
The following month, we met again at the New York Academy of Medicine, which was hosting its own two-day symposium on the same topic. (Both events were prompted by Paul Brodeur’s 1977 book, The Zapping of America, which detailed the conspiracy to suppress microwave health research.) Back then, I was working for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and had been asked to join the committee tasked with planning the Academy of Medicine conference. My invitation was quietly withdrawn after the first planning meeting when the other members realized that I was not suitably contemptuous of Brodeur’s exposé. I did attend the symposium, a relatively small affair, to hear Cleary’s lecture and the other presentations. An NRDC attorney and I were sitting alone at lunch on the first day of the conference. Our outlook was no secret and hardly welcomed, but, Cleary, unfazed, brought his tray over and joined us. We stayed in touch over the next 37 years.
Bill Ham, a respected and well-connected professor of biophysics, who had worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II, recruited Cleary to join him at VCU. Together they organized the 1969 microwave symposium, the first major meeting since the end of the Tri-Service research program in 1960. Cleary’s career blossomed at VCU and he was awarded a series of research grants and in due course earned tenure. He became a leader in the field; he was one of the founding directors of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. Over the years, he served on a number of committees of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council and in 1979 was selected to serve on ERMAC, as had Ham and Eisenbud before him. The Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Council was an influential government panel that coordinated work on microwaves and other types of non-ionizing radiation.
Proliferation of Human Brain Tumor Cells
In 1990, Cleary published a paper in Radiation Research that would help shape the last years of his research career. He showed that microwaves modulated the growth of human brain tumor (glioma) cells. The results were provocative. At relatively low intensities (5 W/Kg) the tumor cells proliferated at a greater rate following a single two-hour exposure and they were still growing abnormally five days later. On the other hand, at higher intensities (25 W/Kg) cell growth was attenuated (see our news item, “RF/MW Stimulates & Suppresses Human Brain Tumor Cells”). Three years later this work drew national attention after David Reynard filed a lawsuit claiming that cell phone radiation had caused his wife’s brain tumor. Cleary’s experiment was cited as a possible mechanism, but it also begged the question: Could microwaves promote growth at the lower intensities associated with cell phone transmissions?
There were many other open issues. As Cleary told the New York Times in a follow-up story on the controversy that followed Reynard’s claim, “Our next question is, why are cells altering their rate of proliferation? What’s happening? That’s what we’re working on now. We’re trying to get to the bottom of this.”
The cell phone industry lobby group, CTIA, then led by Tom Wheeler, promised research to assuage concerns of tumor risks and delegated the responsibility to George Carlo. (Wheeler is now the chairman of the FCC.) Carlo in turn set up Wireless Technology Research (WTR) to carry out the CTIA mandate —or, as it became clear over time, to pretend to do so all the while funding as little science as possible.
“It Just Happens Again and Again”
To many observers, Cleary’s tumor cell proliferation study was an obvious candidate for follow-up funding, both for Cleary to extend and others to repeat. Carlo strung Cleary along, but he quickly wrote off the body of work on proliferation (Cleary’s as well that of others), as lacking coherence. By the summer of 1995, Cleary was angry and frustrated. “It’s so obvious what is going on,” he told me at the time. “If they cannot explain an effect, they ignore it. They just ignore anything of potential concern.” He added, “It’s been going on for 30 years. It just happens again and again.” Cleary then reeled off all the areas of research that Carlo’s WTR was conveniently ignoring.
Cleary asked that Microwave News not publish his comments about Carlo’s modus operandi (we didn’t). He explained that his chief lab assistant, who had been with him for over 20 years, had just found out that his wife was expecting twins and Cleary did not want to say anything on the record that might jeopardize funds that would allow him to keep the assistant on staff. In the end, it didn’t matter. Carlo never gave Cleary a dime for research. Motorola did ask someone to repeat the experiment, but nothing much came of it and the results were never published. To this day, the Cleary results stand untested.
Cleary retired from VCU in 2002. He walked away from microwave research and never looked back.
[Purtroppo il titolo dell’articolo ed anche il suo corpo contengono un piccolo errore riguardo alla tipologia di schermatura eseguita, forse per la scarsa conoscenza della materia. Però è certamente degno di nota il fatto che si sia tenuto conto delle esigenze di un bambino Elettrosensibile, consentendogli di continuare a frequentare le lezioni con i compagni.
Complimenti a chi si è adoperato a tal fine.]
5 giugno 2016 – “La Repubblica”, di Gabriele Cereda
[La seguente è la versione digitale dell’articolo]
5 Giugno 2016 – “La Repubblica”, di Gabriele Cereda
Bambino disturbato dalle lavagne hi-tech il sindaco gli insonorizza l’aula
IL CASO/A CAVENAGO BRIANZA, IL PICCOLO È NON UDENTE
IL MAL di testa era così insopportabile che non riusciva più a mettere piede in classe e quelle poche volte in cui era presente gli impulsi elettromagnetici delle lavagne elettroniche finivano per mandarlo al tappeto. Impossibile seguire le lezioni per un bambino di 10 anni della scuola elementare Ada Negri, di Cavenago Brianza. Il suo impianto cocleare, un apparecchio che serve a sostituire le funzioni dell’orecchio stimolando la parte più profonda del cervello, andava sempre in tilt. Spegnere la lavagna elettronica della sua classe non era bastato, le onde di quelle utilizzate nelle altre sezioni attraversavano i muri. Nelle ultime settimane al dolore si era unita la frustrazione per non poter più sedere vicino ai compagni.
Con le speranze ridotte al lumicino, i genitori del piccolo studente si sono rivolti direttamente al sindaco della città brianzola, Francesco Seghi. «Ho subito mosso gli uffici dell’amministrazione per individuare degli esperti che risolvessero la situazione », racconta. Una squadra di specialisti ha completamente schermato l’aula con materiali fonoassorbenti, in grado di diminuire di mille volte il segnale delle onde radio.
«Come ogni amministrazione, di questi tempi siamo costretti a tirare la cinghia, ma volevamo che i lavori venissero eseguiti con la massima serietà. Non potevamo permettere che un ragazzino della nostra comunità rimanesse escluso dalla scuola», spiega il sindaco. L’azienda che ha vinto l’appalto in meno di una settimana ha realizzato l’intervento, costato 6.500 euro.
Dall’inizio della settimana il piccolo studente è potuto tornare sui banchi. Qualche giorno dopo il rientro, accompagnato dai genitori, ha chiesto di poter conoscere Seghi. «Non me lo aspettavo — racconta il sindaco — mi hanno detto che mi voleva incontrare e quando ci siamo visti, come un vero uomo, mi ha voluto stringere la mano per ringraziarmi».
Cavenago, ha speso
6.500 euro per
aiutare lo scolaro
[Ottima, minuziosa e dettagliata replica, da parte di ricercatori indipendenti di fama nel settore dei CEM, ad un articolo negazionista (assolutamente capzioso nei contenuti) sull’impatto ambientale delle radiazioni elettromagnetiche emesse dalle Stazioni Radio Base della telefonia mobile.
L’autore dell’articolo negazionista, Luc Verschaeve, è un membro della IARC. Questo porta inevitabilmente a chiedersi quale possa essere la affidabilità della attuale classificazione IARC dei CEM in Alta Frequenza, che li vede inseriti fra i cancerogeni di Classe 2B. Sorge infatti il dubbio che il loro potenziale cancerogeno sia stato ampiamente sottostimato!]
19 July 2016 – “Omega News”
Scientists unite to protect Alarming EMF-effects Findings against Offense
“Comments on Environmental Impact of Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations” by Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Daniel Favre, and Alfonso Balmori, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 46(9), 885-903.
The article is a response to the review paper: Verschaeve L, (2014), Environmental Impact of Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 44:1313–1369.
In this review paper the author (L. Verschaeve, member of IARC committee) tried to reject every study that shows alarming effects of microwave radiation on living organisms. His conclusions are not supported by scientific data and are mostly based on his claims for “inaccurate” dosimetry in the reviewed studies. This issue is not the case, especially in studies employing real and not simulated exposures by mobile telephony (and related technologies) antennas, since this type of radiation is of highly varying nature, and its levels – regardless of any dosimetry – are simply those exposing daily billions of users.
The author of the review criticized exclusively those studies that find adverse biological effects instead of recognizing the fact that these results are corroborating each other and would thus be most unlikely to be wrong. The author attempted to minimize the importance of these studies by “discovering” “shortcomings” in each and every one of them. Most of the “discovered” “shortcomings” were related with the “accurate” evaluation of the exposure dosimetry. The author claimed that the measurements “are not correct”, and “for this reason these studies do not provide any evidence that observed biological effects are associated with exposure to the electromagnetic fields”. In this way Dr. Verschaeve systematically attempted to discredit practically all studies showing a variety of alarming effects related to animal/human health and the natural environment.
The four scientists demolish one by one Verschaeve’s arguments against the alarming findings. In their paper they write:
“It is as if we are observing a huge tidal wave coming upon a city on a shore and just because we are not able to measure by our instruments its exact height (e.g. whether it is 80 or 90 m), we claim that once we can not measure it exactly, we cannot draw conclusions for any adverse effects that it may cause!… That – of course – would be absolutely absurd, unscientific and catastrophic. Although the example with the tidal wave is an extreme one, phenomena such as the observed disappearance of bees (which is explained by induced cell death in the gonads as found in Drosophila studies) or birds may have tremendous adverse effects on our societies.
In this case, we have already hundreds of studies performed on a variety of organisms in many different laboratories around the world, all pointing at the same direction: This radiation at many different exposure levels is responsible for a variety of adverse biological effects ranging from simple alterations in different biological rates, loss of orientation, or retardation of growth, to DNA damage, protein damage, or cell death, transient or permanent infertility, or even the organisms’ death in extreme cases. But according to Dr Verschaeve, it doesn’t matter… Since there are other studies that do not show effects, and since we cannot estimate accurately the radiation level, there is “no overall evidence” and thus no precaution should be taken! In other words, according to Dr Verschaeve’s reasoning, the effects do not exist, or they are totally negligible!”
“It is most strange to us that such reasoning as that of Dr Verschaeve which is evident throughout his review paper is considered scientific and is published in a peer review scientific journal. It is also most strange that a scientist with such logic is a member of decision making health organizations such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (IARC 2013).
The practice of not recognizing the “tidal wave” because of lack of “accurate dosimetry” is not only unscientific but in addition catastrophic for public health in case that those who support and promote it are members of decision making health organizations.”
In the meanwhile Luc Verschaeve continues his work, this time on ELF studies that show alarming effects …
L’articolo è una risposta al lavoro di recensione “Environmental Impact of Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology” [“Impatto Ambientale dei Campi Elettromagnetici in Radiofrequenza da Stazioni Radio Base della Telefonia Mobile, Recensioni Critiche in Environmental Science and Technology”] (2014) di Verschaeve L., 44: 1313-1369.
In questo lavoro di recensione l’autore (L. Verschaeve, membro del comitato IARC) ha cercato di respingere ogni studio che mostrasse effetti allarmanti della radiazione in Radiofrequenza/Microonde sugli organismi viventi.
Le sue conclusioni non sono supportate da dati scientifici e si basano principalmente sulle sue affermazioni riguardo a dosimetrie “imprecise” negli studi esaminati. Ma non è questo il caso, specialmente negli studi che impiegano esposizioni da antenne di telefonia mobile (e tecnologie correlate) reali e non simulate, dal momento che questo tipo di radiazione è di natura altamente variabile, ed i suoi livelli – indipendentemente da qualsiasi dosimetria – sono semplicemente quelli che espongono quotidianamente miliardi di utenti.
L’autore ha tentato di minimizzare l’importanza di quegli studi “scoprendo” “carenze” in ognuno di questi.
La maggior parte delle “carenze” “scoperte”, erano correlate con la “accurata” valutazione della dosimetria di esposizione. L’autore ha affermato che le misure “non sono corrette”, e “per questo motivo questi studi non forniscono alcuna prova che gli effetti biologici osservati siano associati all’esposizione ai campi elettromagnetici”.
In questo modo il Dott. Verschaeve ha sistematicamente tentato di screditare praticamente tutti gli studi che mostravano una varietà di effetti allarmanti relativi ad animali/ salute umana e ambiente naturale.
I quattro scienziati demoliscono uno per uno gli argomenti di Verschaeve contro i risultati allarmanti. Nel loro documento scrivono:
“È come se stessimo osservando su una riva una grande onda di marea in arrivo su di una città e solo perché non siamo in grado di misurare con i nostri strumenti la sua esatta altezza (ad esempio se è di 80 o 90 m), si afferma che poihé non possiamo misurarla esattamente, non possiamo trarre conclusioni su tutti gli effetti negativi che essa può causare … Cosa che – ovviamente – sarebbe assolutamente assurda, non scientifica e catastrofica. Anche se l’esempio dell’onda di marea è un estremo, fenomeni come la osservata scomparsa delle api (che si spiega con la morte cellulare indotta nelle gonadi, come trovato negli studi su Drosophila) o degli uccelli possono avere effetti negativi enormi sulle nostre società.
In questo caso, abbiamo già centinaia di studi effettuati su una varietà di organismi in molti diversi laboratori in tutto il mondo, che puntano tutti nella stessa direzione:
Questa radiazione, a livelli di esposizione molto differenti, è responsabile di una serie di effetti biologici avversi che vanno da semplici alterazioni di diversi parametri biologici, perdita di orientamento, o ritardo di crescita, fino a danno al DNA, danno alle proteine, o morte cellulare, infertilità transitoria o permanente, o addirittura in casi estremi morte degli organismi.
Ma secondo il dottor Verschaeve, non importa… Dato che ci sono altri studi che non mostrano effetti, e dal momento che non siamo in grado di stimare con precisione il livello di radiazione, non vi è “globalmente alcuna prova”, e quindi nessuna precauzione dovrebbe essere presa! In altre parole, secondo il ragionamento del dottor Verschaeve, gli effetti non esistono, o sono totalmente trascurabili!”
“E ‘molto strano per noi che un ragionamento come quello del Dott. Verschaeve, che è evidente in tutto il suo lavoro di recensione, sia considerato scientifico e sia pubblicato in una rivista scientifica peer-review. E ‘anche più strano che uno scienziato con una tale logica sia un membro di organizzazioni sanitarie con poteri decisionali come l’Agenzia Internazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro (IARC) (IARC 2013).
La pratica di non riconoscere la “onda di marea” a causa della mancanza di “dosimetria precisa” non solo è poco scientifico, ma in aggiunta catastrofico per la salute pubblica nel caso in cui quelli che la sostengono e promuovono fanno parte di organizzazioni sanitarie con poteri decisionali.”
Nel frattempo Luc Verschaeve continua il suo lavoro, questa volta in studi sugli ELF che mostrano effetti allarmanti …
CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2016, VOL. 46, NO. 9, 885–903
“Comments on Environmental Impact of Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phone Base Stations”
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos (a, b, c), Marie-Claire Cammaerts (d), Daniel Favre (e),
and Alfonso Balmori (f)
(a) Laboratory of Health Physics, Radiobiology & Cytogenetics, Institute of Nuclear & Radiological Sciences & Technology, Energy & Safety, National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Athens, Greece;
(b) Department of Biology, University of Athens, Athens, Greece;
(c) Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece;
(d) DBO, Facultedes Sciences, UniversiteLibre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium;
(e) Association Romande Alerte (A.R.A.), Morges, Switzerland;
(f) Consejerıa de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y Leon, Valladolid, Spain
Published in 2016
Keywords Electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency fields, mobile phone radiation, base stations, environmental impact, biological effects, health effects
This article is an answer to the review paper from Verschaeve (2014). This review paper attempted to dismiss every study that shows negative effects of microwave radiation on living organisms. His conclusions are not supported by scientific data and are mostly based on his claims for “inaccurate” dosimetry. This issue is not the case, especially in studies employing real and not simulated exposures by mobile telephony (and related technologies) antennas, since this type of radiation is of highly varying nature, and its levels – regardless of any dosimetry – are simply the same with those exposing daily billions of users.
“Comments on environmental impact of radiofrequency fields from mobile phone base stations” by Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Daniel Favre and Alfonso Balmori Full-text available here/testo completo disponibile qui:
[Questo studio dimostra che le emissioni in Radiofrequenza degli smartphone (nello specifico a 900 MHz) inducono una significativa perturbazione della struttura e della funzione delle piastrine, fornendo così ulteriore sostegno alle preoccupazioni riguardo l’uso eccessivo dei telefoni cellulari.
Attenzione dovrebbe anche essere posta nei confronti dei prodotti del sangue contenenti piastrine, che dovrebbero essere tenuti lontani da telefoni cellulari e smartphone in tutta la sequenza di produzione e nel periodo di conservazione.]
Blood Transfus. 2016 May 6:1-5. doi: 10.2450/2016.0327-15. [Epub ahead of print]
1Section of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Published in Blood Transfusion (“www.bloodtransfusion.it”), May 2016
Keywords mobile phone, radiofrequency, platelets, PFA-100
BACKGROUND: Significant concerns are now regularly raised about the safety of excessive mobile phone use. This study was aimed to assess the acute effects of radiofrequency waves emitted by a commercial smartphone on platelet function.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two sequential citrated blood samples were collected from 16 healthy volunteers recruited from laboratory staff. The first sample was placed in a plastic rack, 1 cm distant from a commercial smartphone receiving a 30-min call and emitting 900 MHz radiofrequency waves. The second sample was placed in another plastic rack, isolated from radiofrequency wave sources, for the same period. The platelet count and the mean platelet volume were then assessed in all blood samples, whereas platelet function was evaluated using the platelet function analyser-100 (PFA-100).
RESULTS: A 30-min exposure of citrated blood to smartphone radiofrequency waves induced significant prolongation of collagen-epinephrine aggregation (median increase, 10%) and a considerable increase of mean platelet volume (median increase, 5%), whereas collagen-adenosine diphosphate aggregation and platelet count remained unchanged.
DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that smartphone radiofrequency waves induce significant perturbation of platelet structure and function, thus providing further support to concerns regarding excessive use of mobile phones. Caution should also be taken with regards to blood products containing platelets, which should be kept far away from mobile phones and smartphones throughout the production pipeline and storage period.
An enormous growth in the telecommunication industry has led to an increase in the usage of a number of wireless
devices. The impact of working in an environment saturated with wireless radiation needs to be exploreed.
A questionnaire was prepared based on 18 non-specific health symptoms and medical conditions. It was circulated among professionals (n=200) in the Information Technology (IT) companies and the data was statistically analyzed.
Both male and female IT professionals possessed cell phones (100%), 19.66% used cordless phones and 2.25% of them used the landline telephones. When compared to the males, it was found that 80.4% of the females used wireless computer networks (p>0.01), 27.2% used the microwave ovens (p>0.01) and 47.8% used Bluetooth devices (p>0.001).
Significant non-specific symptoms (p>0. 001) seen in females were headaches, tremors, depression, blurred vision, irritability,
difficulty concentrating, chronic pain, pain in teeth and deteriorated fillings, and dryness of lips, tongue, mouth and eyes.
The males had poor short-term memory, difficulty sleeping and fatigue. Significant medical conditions noted in the females were allergies and asthma at 18.5% (p>0.001) and skin problems at 26.1% (p>0.01), and in the males were eye-related problems at 21.1% (p>0.01).
Non-thermal effects of wireless radiationneed to be investigated globally in the coming years.