Tag: tumori

Bring Heart To Life (2010), Hoping for their house to be free from mobile phone signals – 心をもって命にかえろうウォーク2010(前編)

[Elettrosensibilità: una malattia in crescita esponenziale in ogni parte del mondo, dovuta alla sempre più massiccia esposizione della popolazione ai Campi Elettromagnetici in Alta Frequenza, particolarmente intensi nei pressi delle Stazioni Radio Base.

Nel video viene raccontata una incredibile storia che arriva dal Giappone e rappresenta un magnifico esempio di resilienza.
Tutti i membri della famiglia Shiota hanno iniziato ad accusare i tipici sintomi della Elettrosensibilità (EHS) quando, nei pressi della loro casa, è stata installata una Stazione Radio Base.
La famiglia è stata costretta ad allontanarsi da quella abitazione e trasferirsi altrove, ma anche in quel luogo è stata installata una Stazione Radio Base.
Conseguentemente, il signore e la signora Shiota hanno preso la decisione di camminare per 215 Km da Nagano a Tokyo, per raggiungere la sede centrale del gestore dell’antenna e chiederne la disattivazione.
Nei 12 giorni del loro cammino, hanno incontrato persone che li hanno ospitati, sono diventate loro sostenitrici ed in alcuni casi li hanno seguiti nella loro impresa.
Questo lungo cammino è stata una occasione per fare nuovi incontri ed informare la gente riguardo al problema della Elettrosensibilità (EHS) e dei Campi Elettromagnetici.]

Caricato il 18 ago 2010




Mobilfunk: Brustkrebs, Impotenz und verkrüppelte Tiere

[Le terribili condizioni di vita degli abitanti di Volturino (FG) a causa dello spaventoso inquinamento elettromagnetico generato da una moltitudine di ripetitori siti in prossimità del paese, raccontate nel servizio di una tv tedesca.]

Caricato il 06 mar 2011

Bürgerinitiative in Italien in dem verstrahltesten Dorf Voltorino

Weitere Details zum Thema Mobilfunk unter http://www.ulrichweiner.de

Is cell phone radiation actually dangerous? We asked an expert

21 Aprile 2015 – “www.digitaltrends.com”, by Simon Hill

“It’s looking increasingly likely that cellular phones (mostly smartphones these days) are harmful in terms of cancer risk, particularly to the head and neck,” says Joel M. Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley. “A lot of scientists have come round to the view that radiofrequency radiation is probably carcinogenic because of new research that has emerged since 2011.”

That was the year the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” A panel of 31 expert scientists from 14 different countries concluded radiofrequency radiation, which is emitted by cell phones and other wireless communication devices should be placed in Group 2B alongside a fairly long list of other substances that includes lead, coffee, nickel, and gasoline.

But is it really so dangerous? Despite the passionate views espoused by many experts, others are confident that the risk is overblown, or at least reluctant to push for sweeping societal changes. So should you be afraid, or gab away as usual? We asked a few experts to find out the truth.

Independent studies are showing danger

Cell phone emissions were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” based on an increased risk of glioma, which is the most common form of brain cancer, but they were also strongly linked with another type of tumor, benign acoustic neuromas. A lot of the available evidence back in 2011 came from a series of studies known as the Interphone studies, which were partly funded by the wireless communications industry.

“I’ve been tracking the research for five years now and the evidence of the effect is growing stronger,” Moskowitz told Digital Trends. “This is perhaps in part because the new studies are independent, not funded by the wireless industry.”

Back in 2006, Henry Lai, a professor at the University of Washington analyzed all available studies on cell phone radiation from 1990 to 2006. He found that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation, but when he divided them into independently funded studies and those funded by the wireless industry he found the split was 70 – 30.

“Even if you accept all the industry studies, you still end up with 50-50,” Lai told Seattle Mag in 2011. “How could 50 percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement ‘hundreds of studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found’ — but this is a very misleading statement.”

Another potentially telling revelation is that the industry can’t get product liability insurance for mobile devices. Some people within the insurance industry feel that there’s a real risk of a wave of lawsuits related to brain tumors and other conditions caused by cell phones over the next couple of decades. Insurance giant the Swiss Re Group included “unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields” in its Emerging Risk Insights report.

“Governments are flying blind on this, they’re either ignorant or they’re in denial,” Moskowitz says. “In part it’s ignorance, but in part they’re getting pressure from an industry that dwarfs big tobacco. It’s just too profitable, about a sixth of your cell phone bill in the U.S. goes to government in fees or taxes.”

Do we all have our heads in the sand? This is a controversial topic and it’s hard to get definitive answers. We decided to speak to Dr. Kurt Straif, Head of the World Health Organization program that classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” back in 2011. And in Straif’s eyes, the situation is far muddier.

“We don’t know for sure if it’s causing cancer or not.”

“We’ve done almost 1,000 different agent assessments,” Dr. Straif told Digital Trends, “and this is probably the most heated controversy in terms of strong believers — scientists in the field that say we already know it’s causing cancer to the other extreme that says every additional cent spent on research is wasted because we know it can never cause cancer.”

The IARC Monographs program Straif headed up was formed with the backing of the World Health Organization and the United Nations, at the request of member states looking to identify substances and circumstances that are known to cause cancer in humans, and to make that information available for cancer prevention.

An independent advisory group suggests topics and the Monographs group decides what to pursue. It gathers all the published research, identifies the best experts in the world for each topic, and they draft working papers, and then there is an 8 day meeting to classify each possible carcinogen and create a volume of Monographs.

Dr. Kurt Straif, left, led the World Health Organization program that classified cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".
Dr. Kurt Straif, left, led the World Health Organization program that classified cell phone radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

“The Monographs are the most authoritative program in cancer-hazard identification, running for the longest time, looking at all types of environmental exposure, but also known for being the strongest program in terms of a very strict policy to exclude conflicts of interest,” Straif explains. “Scientists with a link to industry, or on the other hand, scientists with a very strong link to advocacy groups, would not be eligible to serve on the working group.”

He points out that, though the Interphone study was partly funded by industry, there was a very strict firewall in place overseen by the Union for International Cancer Control.

“I did not sense any strong orchestrated efforts by industry to influence the outcome of the 2011 meeting,” he told us.

We can safely say that the IARC group is impartial. It’s no stranger to controversy and it does not bend to big business. Take for example the recent classification of glyphosate — the main chemical in the pesticide Roundup — as “probably carcinogenic,” a move that incurred the wrath of Monsanto, the pesticide’s maker. Glyphosate is in group 2A, which is still one step down from Group 1, “carcinogenic to humans.” Radiofrequency EMF radiation was placed in Group 2B, largely based on cell phone studies. So what does the “possibly carcinogenic” classification actually mean?

The IARC, headquartered in Lyon, France, conducts reserach without funding form the wireless industry.
The IARC, headquartered in Lyon, France, conducts reserach without funding form the wireless industry.

“It means that there is scientific evidence, in this case limited evidence from the human studies, that it could cause cancer in humans,” says Straif. “There is also limited evidence from animal studies, and there is weak mechanistic data. These three things together result in the evaluation of possibly carcinogenic.”

There is currently no firm plan to reassess radiofrequency EMF radiation, but Dr. Straif says it is on the radar, and if important new evidence was to emerge, the IARC Monographs group could make it a priority.

“Knowing about the studies that have been published since 2011, I think that the epidemiological evidence is still limited,” says Straif, making it clear that this is his personal opinion and not that of the IARC group. “It has not changed in the one or the other direction. There are lots of different scientific groups out there. Some think with the new publications that the human evidence is now sufficient to result in a Group 1 classification as a known human carcinogen. I don’t think these studies would change the current overall evaluation of 2B.”

Articolo originale al seguente link:


Elettrosmog e disturbi cognitivi

[Video in Inglese con sottotitoli in Italiano non corretto ma comunque comprensibili.]

Pubblicato il 02 giu 2012

Intervista alla dott.ssa Adamantia F. Fragopoulou dell’Università di Atene sui suoi ultimi studi in merito agli effetti dei Campi Elettromagnetici.
La scienziata spiega come siano stati riscontrati disturbi nella memoria spaziale, di riconoscimento e di lavoro nei topi esposti alle microonde di cellulari, Wi-Fi, telefoni cordless e altre fonti di Elettrosmog.
La stessa scienziata consiglia di avere prudenza con queste tecnologie per evitare problemi di salute (disturbi di memoria, disturbi del sonno, cefalea, ecc. fino a danni organici seri come il cancro).
Viene anche segnalata la situazione di criticità per professioni a rischio come piloti di aereo e controllori aerei, che costituisce un pericolo nell’ambito delle operazioni aeree.

Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations

[Storica e fondamentale review che acclara il legame tra esposizione alle radiazioni emesse dalle stazioni radio-base di telefonia mobile e gli effetti biologico/sanitari sulla popolazione esposta, sino ad un raggio di 500 metri.
Elettrosensibilità e neoplasie sono le patologie correlate.]



Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching PubMed, we identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies of longterm mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more definitively understand its health impact. Key words: base stations; electromagnetic field (EMF); epidemiology; health effects; mobile phone; radiofrequency (RF); electromagnetic radiation.

Mobile phone base stations are now found ubiquitously in communities worldwide. They are frequently found near or on shops, homes, schools, daycare centers, and hospitals (Figure 1). The radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation from these base stations is regarded as being low power; however, their output is continuous. (1) This raises the question as to whether the health of people residing or working in close proximity to base stations is at any risk.

By searching PubMed and using keywords such as base station, mast, electromagnetic field (EMF), radiofrequency (RF), epidemiology, health effects, mobile phone, and cell phone, and by searching the references of primary sources, we were able to find only 10 human population studies from seven countries that examined the health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of the studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral symptoms via population-based questionnaires; the other three retrospectively explored the association between base station proximity and cancer via medical records. A meta-analysis based on this literature is not possible due to differences in study design, statistical measures/risk estimates, exposure categories, and endpoints/outcomes. The 10 studies are therefore summarized in chronological order (Table 1).

We found epidemiological studies pertaining to the health effects of mobile phone base station RF emissions to be quite consistent in pointing to a possible adverse health impact. Eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. The studies by Navarro et al., (2) Santini et al., (3) Gadzicka et al., (4) and Hutter et al. (5) reported differences in the distance-dependent prevalence of symptoms such as headache, impaired concentration, and irritability, while Abdel-Rassoul et al. (6) also found lower cognitive performance in individuals living ≤ 10 meters from base stations compared with the more distant control group. The studies by Eger et al. (7) and Wolf and Wolf (8) reported increased incidence of cancer in persons living for several years < 400 meters from base stations. By contrast, the large retrospective study by Meyer et al. (9) found no increased incidence of cancer near base stations in Bavaria. Blettner et al. (10) reported in Phase 1 of their study that more health problems were found closer to base stations, but in Phase 2 (11) concluded that measured EMF emissions were not related to adverse health effects (Table 1).
Each of the 10 studies reviewed by us had various strengths and limitations as summarized in Table 1. Pertaining to those base station studies in which EMF measurements were not carried out, (3,4,7,9) it should be noted that distance is not the most suitable classifier for exposure to RF-EMF. Antennae numbers and configurations, as well as the absorption and reflection of their fields by houses, trees, or other geographic hindrances may influence the exposure level. Further, self-estimation of distance to nearest base station is not the best predictor of exposure since the location of the closest base station is not always known. Such exposure misclassification inevitably biases any association towards null. Multiple testing might also produce spurious results if not adjusted for, (3,5) as might failure to adjust for participant age and gender. (7) Latency is also an important consideration in the context of cancer incidence following or during a putative environmental exposure. In this regard, the study by Meyer et al. (9) found no association between mobile phone base station exposure and cancer incidence, but had a relatively limited observation period of only two years. On the other hand, the studies by Eger et al. (7) and Wolf and Wolf8 found a significant association between mobile phone base station exposure and increased cancer incidence, although the approximate five-year latency between base station exposure and cancer diagnosis  Other problems in several population-based questionnaires are the potential for bias, especially selection (8) and participation (2,3,5,6,11) biases, and self-reporting of outcomes in combination with the exposure assessment methods used. For example, regarding limitations in exposure assessment, in a large two-phase base station study from Germany,(12,13) of the Phase 1 participants (n = 30,047), only 1326 (4.4%) participated with a single “spot” EMF measurement recorded in the bedroom for Phase 2. Further, health effect contributions from all relevant EMF sources and other non-EMF environmental sources need to be taken into account. (12) We acknowledgethat participant concern instead of exposure could be the triggering factor of adverse health effects, however this “nocebo effect” does not appear to fully explain the findings. (4,5) Further, the biological relevance of the overall adverse findings (Table 1) is supported by the fact that some of the symptoms in these base-station studies have also been reported among mobile phone users, such as headaches, concentration difficulties, and sleep disorders. (13,14) Finally, none of the studies that found adverse health effects of base stations reported RF exposures above accepted international guidelines, the implication being that if such findings continue to be reproduced, current exposure standards are inadequate in protecting human populations. (15)

Despite variations in the design, size and quality of these studies as summarized in Table 1, it is the consistency of the base-station epidemiological literature from several countries that we find striking. In particular, the increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations found in 80% of the available studies. It should be pointed out that the overall findings of health problems associated with base stations might be based on methodological weaknesses, especially since exposure to RF electromagnetic radiation was not always measured.
There are some proposed mechanisms via which low-intensity EMF might affect animal and human health, (16,17) but full comprehensive mechanisms still remain to be determined. (18,19) Despite this, the accumulating epidemiological literature pertaining to the health effects of mobile phones (13,20) and their base stations (Table 1) suggests that previous exposure standards based on the thermal effects of EMF should no longer be regarded as tenable. In August 2007, an international working group of scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals (the BioInitiative Working Group) released its report on EMF and health. (21) It raised evidence-based concerns about the safety of existing public limits that regulate how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cellular phones, base stations, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The BioInitiative Report (21) provided detailed scientific information on health impacts when people were exposed to electromagnetic radiation hundreds or even thousands of times below limits currently established by the FCC and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in Europe (ICNIRP). The authors reviewed more than 2000 scientific studies and reviews, and have concluded that: (1) the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health; and (2) from a public health policy standpoint, new public safety limits and limits on further deployment of risky technologies are warranted based on the total weight of evidence. (21) A precautionary limit of 1 mW/m2 (0.1 microW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m) was suggested in Section 17 of the BioInitiative Report to be adopted for outdoor, cumulative RF exposure. (21) This limit is a cautious approximation based on the results of several human RF-EMF studies in which no substantial adverse effects on well being were found at low exposures akin to power densities of less than 0.5 – 1 mW/m2.2,5,22–26 RF-EMF exposure at distances > 500 m from the types of mobile phone base stations reviewed herein should fall below the precautionary limit of 0.614 V/m.

(1) Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Cell phones and brain tumors: A review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol. 2009;72:205-214.
(2) Navarro EA, Segura J, Portolés M, Gómez-Perretta C. The microwave syndrome: A preliminary study in Spain. Electromag Biol Med. 2003;22:161–169.
(3) Santini R, Santini P, Le Ruz P, Danze JM, Seigne M. Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations. Electromag Biol Med. 2003;22:41-49.
(4) Gadzicka E, Bortkiewicz A, Zmyslony M, Szymczak W, Szyjkowska A. Assessment of subjective complaints reported by
people living near mobile phone base stations [Abstract]. Biuletyn PTZE Warszawa. 2006;14:23-26.
(5) Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in
subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:307-313.
(6) Abdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A, Farahat F, El-Batanouny M, Salem E. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology. 2007;28:434-440.
(7) Eger H, Hagen KU, Lucas B, Vogel P, Voit H. Einfluss der raumlichen nahe von mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die krebsinzidenz. [The influence of being physically near to a cell phone transmission mast on the incidence of cancer]. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft. 2004;17:326-332.
(8) Wolf R, Wolf D. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. Int J Cancer Prev. 2004;1:123-128.
(9) Meyer M, Gartig-Daugs A, Radespiel-Troger M. Cellular telephone relay stations and cancer incidence. Umweltmed Forsch Prax. 2006;11:89-97.
(10) Blettner M, Schlehofer B, Breckenkamp J, Kowall B, Schmiedel S, Reis U, Potthoff P, Schüz J, Berg-Beckhoff G. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: Phase 1 of a populationbased, cross-sectional study in Germany. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66:118-123.
(11) Berg-Beckhoff G, Blettner M, Kowall B, Breckenkamp J, Schlehofer B, Schmiedel S, Bornkessel C, Reis U, Potthoff P, Schüz J. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: Phase 2 of a cross-sectional study with measured radio
frequency electromagnetic fields. Occup Environ Med. 2009; 66:124-130.
(12) Neubauer G, Feychting M, Hamnerius Y, Kheifets L, Kuster N, Ruiz I, Schüz J, Uberbacher R, Wiart J, Röösli M. Feasibility of future epidemiological studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28:224-230.
(13) Khan MM. Adverse effects of excessive mobile phone us. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2008;21:289-293.
(14) Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Use of wireless telephones and self-reported health symptoms: A population-based study among Swedish adolescents aged 15-19 years. Environ Health 2008;7:18.
(15) Hardell L, Sage C. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmacother. 2008;62:104-109.
(16) Salford LG, Nittby H, Brun A, Grafström G, Malmgren L, Sommarin M, Eberhardt J, Widegren B, Persson BRR. The mammalian brain in the electromagnetic fields designed by man with special reference to blood-brain barrier function, neuronal damage and possible physical mechanisms. Prog Theor Phys Suppl. 2008;173:283-309.
(17) Sheppard AR, Swicord ML, Balzano Q. Quantitative evaluations of mechanisms of radiofrequency interactions with biological molecules and processes. Health Phys. 2008;95:365-396.
(18) Khurana VG. Cell phone and DNA story overlooked studies. Science. 2008;322:1325.
(19) Yang Y, Jin X, Yan C, Tian Y, Tang J, Shen X. Case-only study of interactions between DNA repair genes (hMLH1, APEX1, MGMT, XRCC1 and XPD) and low-frequency electromagnetic fields in childhood acute leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008; 49:2344-2350.
(20) Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson Mild K. Metaanalysis of long-term mobile phone users and the association with brain tumours. Int J Oncol. 2008;32:1097-1103.
(21) Sage C, Carpenter D, eds. BioInitiative Report: A rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF) [Internet]. 2007 [cited April 3, 2009]. Available from: http://www.bioinitiative.org.
(22) Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations – Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiol. 2009;16:123-35.
(23) Henrich S, Ossig A, Schlittmeier S, Hellbrück J. Elektromagnetische Felder einer UMTS-Mobilfunkbasisstation und
mögliche Auswirkungen auf die Befindlichkeit—eine experimentelle Felduntersuchung [Electromagnetic fields of a UMTS
mobile phone base station and possible effects on health – results from an experimental field study]. Umwelt Med Forsch Prax. 2007;12:171-180.
(24) Thomas S, Kühnlein A, Heinrich S, Praml G, Nowak D, von Kries R, Radon K. Personal exposure to mobile phone frequencies and well-being in adults: A cross-sectional study based on dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008;29:463-470.
(25) Zwamborn APM, Vossen SHJA, van Leersum BJAM, Ouwens MA, Makel WN. Effects of global communication system radiofrequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints. Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Physics and Electronics Laboratory: The Hague, Netherlands, 2003.
(26) Regel SJ, Negovetic S, Röösli M, Berdinas V, Schuderer J, Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, Achermann P. UMTS base station like exposure, well being and cognitive performance. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:1270-1275.

Versione PDF integrale scaricabile al seguente link:


The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Man

13 settembre 2015 – “Towards Better Health”

[Cenni storici…]

by Pierre Dubochet, Forum Sécurité, no.1, May 2015

(Translation by Meris Michaels – Sept. 13, 2015)

Forum_Securite_mai_2015Since the use of microwave emitters in the 1930’s, we have observed biological effects. In some cases, harmless, in others, dangerous.

At the end of the 1960’s, microwave experts from Eastern Europe produced a document showing that exposure of workers and members of the military to microwaves at non-thermal levels for many years results in, among others: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, change in heart rate, hypo- and hypertension, somnolence, insomnia, troubles concentrating, skin allergies, increase in numbers of lymphocytes, perturbation of the electroencephalogram, and damage to sense organs.

Exactly the afflictions a growing percentage of people are now complaining about! NASA translated this text under the title “Biological Effect of Microwaves in Occupational Hygiene” in 1970. With “Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation”, WHO took the same direction in 1973, emphasizing the cumulative nature of received doses. Science has proven that chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of microwaves below thermal thresholds leads to functional alterations, at times disabling, at times dangerous.

From the moon to the mobile phone

In 1969, Motorola, the American inventor of the transceiver and walkie-talkie, transmitted the voice of Neil Armstrong, walking on the moon. Its next objective was a GSM mobile phone network. More than 100 million dollars were invested before the commercialization of its radiotelephones in 1983. In the medium term, the mobile phone could well be a colossal financial manna provided that the countless reports signaling risks of exposure to EMF were stifled.

Thus, in 1974, experts like Tanner, Bigu del Blanco and Sierra observed that several minutes of exposure to EMF at 27 MHz emitted by a radio transmitter of 5 watts (a current mobile phone with G of 2 watts) is sufficient to cause a significant loss of myelin(1). This substance surrounds the nerve fiber and conducts nerve impulses. Research has shown that pulsed microwaves – this extremely low frequency (ELF) pulse which optimizes the signal and reduces the technology costs – generate more metabolic disturbances compared to a continuous signal at the same average power density.

We remember the affair at the American Embassy in Moscow disclosed by the press in 1976. The premises were irradiated by microwaves at around 6 V/m(2). Ambassador Stoessel suffered from ocular hemorrhages and a blood disorder. Three men died of cancer, five women underwent a mastectomy linked to cancer. Neither a hypothetical risk nor an abstract risk, exposure to microwave EMF is harmful at non-thermal levels. How does one develop wireless technologies in this context?

First, by taking the lead in legalizing what one calls indicative limit values in toxicology. Second, by replacing the precautionary principle, susceptible to restraining litigation, with the principle of technology watch, that is, observing the health impact over several decades while awaiting the development of scientific methods showing absolute proof of harm. This is the famous “we don’t know”. Two dominant organizations support these strategies: the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the EMF department at WHO.

Michael Repacholi chaired the study groups at WHO from 1978. He also belonged to a group which established ICNIRP in 1992. Repacholi presided over this commission which comprises twelve other member scientists, some of whom occupy top positions in the industry. Repacholi founded and headed the research department on the effects of EMF at WHO during the period when safety norms were established, between 1996 and 2006. Can we really believe the president of these institutions was actually defending public health?

Can we really imagine this man supporting citizens against aggressive industrialists?  It was the opposite, according to David Leloup of Mediattitudes(3). Repacholi was acting on behalf of the industry. In 1990, this man supported an Australian electricity company against landowners in New South Wales who were opposed to the installation of a high voltage power line (HT) on their property. In 1995, he assisted Bell South in installing a relay antenna near a nursery in Christchurch.

Later, by downplaying studies showing the increase in the risk of child leukemia near power lines, Repacholi supported the Connecticut Light and Power Co. On 3 August 2000, Michael Repacholi, the man who influenced all national radiation protection associations worldwide, admitted before the Court of the Australian Senate that limiting exposure to wireless radiation is not based on science. It was negotiated between trade unions (industrial) and the government of that period.

Anticipating the risk of legal action and buying time

ICNIRP found an approach to safeguard the industry which seemed scientific. A model filled with a homogenous fluid gel was subjected to EMF. At 61 V/m during six minutes, the heating of the gel was inferior to the regulatory thermal capacity of the human body. ICNIRP’s communication was clever: although not specifying any safety or health value, it was perceived as such. It was the tour de force wording of communication specialists destined to anticipate the risk of legal actions relating to products and services.

The numerous bias in the guide published by ICNIRP make this document irrelevant for evaluating realistic exposure limits, but who cares. It used all its influence, including its intimate connections with WHO. Objective: to have high thresholds of exposure accepted in a maximum number of countries. The EMF department at WHO retracted the former “unsafe” proclamations and reverted to the old theory of radiophobia.

In 1958, while the government was preparing the legal basis for nuclear electricity, WHO snubbed its foes in its report 151: The appearance of “a source of energy of such shattering possibilities as atomic power will cause strong psychological reactions, and… some of these will probably have to be considered as more or less pathological.” It repeated this credo with symptoms due to non-thermal exposure to EMF: There also exist certain elements indicating that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric disorders, as well as reactions to stress resulting from fear of eventual health effects.

Aware of the safety issues, European insurance companies excluded risks linked to EMF in their coverage. For our federal authorities, protection of health due to EMF is a challenge. In drafting the Ordinance on Protection Against Non-Ionizing Radiation (ORNI), Switzerland, neither exemplary nor rigorous, chose to base itself on the recommendations of ICNIRP. It legalized a density which could go up to 61 V/m for fixed installations emitting between 2 and 300 GHz. Mobile devices (smartphones, Wi-Fi etc.) are excluded from ORNI because “we must be sure not to create unacceptable obstructions to business.”

Science shows that the penetration of EMF is greater in children than in adults. Olsen(4) concluded that children exposed in utero or during the first seven years of their life to low doses of EMF have an 80% risk of behavioral disorders at age seven. Carlo(5) indicated a link between wireless technology and child autism, which is increasing rapidly.

The convenience of Wi-Fi is attractive, but it causes a significant addition of EMF, including to children and young people, fond of wireless. This pollution carries increased risk of neurological and cognitive disorders. We have seen pulsed microwave radiation impairing memory and attention. The risk of headaches and dizziness increases with irradiation. In addition, hyperactivity and chronic insomnia may occur. How to be successful in schooling and studies if the environment affects attention and memory? Can we take the risk of threatening the future of our children? Can we expose them to radiation with cumulative effects in order to avoid a few meters of wire?

Neuchâtel limits use of Wi-Fi in classrooms

The Neuchâtel authorities, as in other countries, have refused the risk of Wi-Fi. Pioneers in Switzerland, they have adopted an ordinance in 2010 whose article 7 stipulates that only wired networks (metallic cables or fiber optics) are authorized in classrooms in preschools, and primary schools. Article 8 authorizes wireless equipment under certain conditions in shared spaces. At the Association Romande Alerte (ARA), we wanted to know if the Ordinance was being adhered to. We have equally focused on nurseries where exposure of very young children to EMF is all the more ill-advised.

Another technician and I visited 18 preschool and primary school establishments (around 15% of the establishments in the canton), announcing ourselves to the officials on the day of evaluation. The doors to some schools and nurseries remained closed due to lack of an official request in writing. In spite of the Ordinance, Wi-Fi routers were irradiating classrooms in preschools and primary schools. Schools and nurseries taken together, we measured Wi-Fi in nearly three out of four locations. Sometimes, the Wi-Fi served to connect a computer and a printer only a few meters apart. In the nursery, four computers for very young children were connected to routers located a few dozen centimeters from their heads.  In addition, sometimes wireless DECT phones and cell phones were further increasing EMF exposure.

In its patent WO2004075583, Swisscom outlined various risks from electrosmog. At the international conference in Salzburg in 2002, eminent independent experts in building biology estimated that an exposure inferior to 0.06 V/m was acceptable long-term. In this regard, only one primary school, one preschool and one nursery school visited could be considered neutral in terms of EMF.

The personnel we met were of good faith but often ignorant about protective measures such as those proposed by the Federal Office for Public Health. Several kinds of confusion were observed. Certain users believed that it suffices to connect a cable to a device (for example, to connect the tablet to the mains) in order to avoid radiation. Others confound Wi-Fi with access to the Internet. There are still many challenges before awareness is raised among all concerned parties. Our investigations have however been fruitful: installations were taken away, and we have established useful contacts with the canton of Neuchâtel service of compulsory education.

Establishing a program of electromagnetic protection in schools is being considered. We hope that the scholastic officials of other cantons as well as business leaders will join us in this campaign.

(1) Science et vie, février 1974.
(2) OMS “La protection contre les rayonnements non ionisants”, 1985, p. 143.
(3) http://www.mediattitudes.info, Téléphonie mobile: trafic d’influence à l’OMS?, 23 janvier 2007.
(4) J. Olsen, L. Kheifets, C. Obel, H.A. “The prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children”, Epidemiology. 2008 Jul ; 19(4);523-9.
(5) 5 T.J. Mariea, G.L. Carlo. “Wireless radiation in the etiology and treatment of autism (…)”, Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, Vol.26, No.2, August 2007.

PIERRE DUBOCHET, engineer, is a pioneer at Neuchâtel radio where he became technical director of the station. In 1995, he set up a business specialized in multimedia whose products are distributed in more than 160 countries. He undertakes radiation measurements in private homes and conducts EMF audits in businesses in order to safeguard the health of employees and thus, productivity.

To view his site: http://www.pierredubochet.ch

Forum Sécurité

The only magazine dedicated to the theme of safety in French-speaking Switzerland

The Swiss magazine on safety – Forum Sécurité – is the only professional magazine in French-speaking Switzerland dedicated entirely to the theme of safety. It is the counterpart of the Swiss German magazine SicherheitsForum. The themes developed in Forum Sécurité are on organizational, physical, and technical safety, safety at work as well as information security. Subjects discussed include management of safety and risk, technical safety, business continuity, work safety, health protection and its promotion, information security, data protection and that linked to IT security as well as building safety in all its forms, from fire protection to building security in general.

Original article in French:


Wireless technology: Are we ignoring potential health risks?

2 settembre 2014 – “Astro Awani”

[Interessante articolo in Inglese proveniente dalla Malesia, il cui link potete trovare in fondo alla pagina.
E’ corredato di alcuni video che vale la pena vedere. ]

“EVER wondered if radiation coming from wireless devices like mobile phones and telecommunication towers is really harmful to us?

A small group of Malaysians claim to have found evidence that overexposure to these devices, which all emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR) waves, could lead to various health problems.

For several years now, members of this group have been campaigning against telco towers being too near our neighbourhoods and schools, most notably the 1BestariNet project to provide internet for students in classes.

Astro AWANI spoke to experts from this group who have recently broken significant ground in their research into the subject. We also interviewed activists as well as those who claim to be able to immediately feel the effects of EMR waves. Lastly, we asked the government (Education Ministry) how it plans to tackle this issue.

What did the experts say?

Having personally seen several patients with some inexplicable symptoms, Dr Adlina Suleiman, an associate professor from MARA University of Technology (UiTM) and Dr Thor Teong Gee, a general practitioner, has been conducting several independent studies on the subject of EMR from telco towers.

So far, their latest findings seem quite scary: Those who have been living near to telco towers indicated a higher chance of getting headaches, giddiness, insomnia, loss of memory, diarrhea, mental slowness, reduced reaction time and mood swings.

They also found that more cases of cancer happens to those who live less than a few hundred metres away from these towers, concluding that one would have a higher risk of developing cancer after being exposed to EMR for years.

Dr Adlina, who noted the 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) report in which radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, said they are heading to Johor next to collect more data after conducting three studies – namely in Subang, Perak, and Penang.

“Blood samples we took (in Penang) found that there is a 1.1% increased risk of DNA damage those who live nearer to towers, compared to those not in high power density areas,” said Dr Adlina. (Watch video of interview with Dr Adlina)

While she admitted that the scientific community worldwide has not conclusively found causal relationship between EMR and illnesses, she argued that it took scientists some 40 years to find evidence that smoking tobacco can cause cancer.

“If you want to wait for clear evidence on the negative effects of EMR that only you are able prove that EMR will definitely cause something bad then we will do something about telco towers, then it may already be too late. Some people already have (health) problems,” said the doctor, adding that definitive prove can be obtained as soon as animal tests were done.

A victim’s cautionary tale

There were others who shared the fears of Dr Adlina and Dr Thor over EMR, and one of them had a first-person experience from its ‘harmful’ effects.

Lily Law claimed that she and her son, Elton, 9, were considered ‘hypersensitive’ to electronics and would “immediately” feel the effects of EMR waves almost as soon as they go near them, regardless of whether it comes from wireless internet devices or telco lines.

Law’s skin gets highly irritated, red, and itchy when she gets near wireless or telco devices, while her son would become more hyperactive and in more severe cases, complain of headaches.

“Actually, the doctor also doesn’t know why my skin is like this. It’s very itchy sometimes. Every day, I need to take medicine to control my skin problem.

“After I use cable (services) to connect my computer, now it’s not so bad,” she said, claiming that the effects can be felt within five minutes of being in a room with high levels of EMR.

While the conditions she and her son have are only shared by a few others she knew, Law noted that some researchers believe that by 2017, 50% of the population worldwide could be ‘hypersensitive’ like her.

The ‘anti radiation’ campaign

Also on a mission to reach out to more Malaysians and get the authorities to act on this controversial issue is the Penang EMF (Electromagnetic Fields) Protection Alliance. The group, part of the national level Anti EMF Radiation Alliance as well as the International EMF Alliance, has been voicing out on the dangers of telco towers since 2008.

“We are not at all saying we have to avoid all these communication technologies, but we have to consider the safety and health of our beloved families first,” its secretary, Ong Bee Lay, said.

Ong’s group has asked for the government, especially the Education Ministry, to take them more seriously: they want the authorities to change things at the policy stage so that guidelines on protecting people against dangers of radiation are more stringent.

Policy researcher Lim Jit Lee told Astro AWANI that other countries have laws that cover public health issues but Malaysia was lacking in this regard.

“We don’t want to argue whether it is safe or not. Because, if you want to say that studies are not strong enough to prove direct effect, the thing is, nobody can guarantee that it is safe for our children either at this moment,” Lee argued.

She said given the evidence shown by the local studies so far, the burden of proof that EMR technologies are safe should fall on providers and producers, not on the consumers.

Teacher activist Mohd Nor Izzat Mohd Johari of Suara Guru Masyarakat Malaysia (SGMM) has also asked the government to review the 1BestariNet project, especially in terms of complaints on speed issues.

Mohd Nor Izzat questioned if it was ethical for the towers, built by YTL Communications, to also be providing Wi-Fi services for residents outside of school compounds.

What is the government’s stance?

The government is aware that it has come under scrutiny, especially after announcing its plan in 2012 to install 10,000 telco towers in schools nationwide under the 1BestariNet project.

Touted to enable “every child the opportunity to access quality education at any time, from anywhere and according to his or her own pace”, the project is supposed to provide schools with broadband internet connectivity and Virtual Learning Environment.

Education Ministry’s Educational Technology Division director, Rosnani Mohamed Ali, said the various agencies are constantly monitoring 1BestariNet and its safety is at the forefront.

“From the studies we’ve done, we want to assure the teachers, students and parents that these towers are not dangerous to health… we follow all specifications.

“It is actually no more dangerous for a child to be in school with a 1BestariNet tower than to be in a school that has TV and radio coverage,” Rosnani told Astro AWANI, stressing that the 1BestariNet towers emit lower waves than other telco towers around Malaysia.

However, she assured that the ministry will take into account independent studies that are being done, and will review its performance periodically in all aspects.

What have the other agencies said so far?

A 1996 study by an ad-hoc committee consisting of government agencies such as the Health Ministry and several universities had concluded that there were no concrete proof to show that exposure to EMR would have any health effects or defects.

Malaysian Nuclear Agency radiation safety and health division manager, Dr Wan Saffiey Wan Abdullah was reported to have said there was no proof that emission from telco towers, which he said were lower than mobile phones, could cause illness to people nearby.

“We did not carry out studies on the effect of electromagnetic radiation on people but we adopted data used in the United States, Europe and China,” he had said during a dialogue with residents in Muar.

However, Dr Wan Saffiey admitted that there were people who were “electro-sensitive” to radiation from mobile phones, towers and Wi-Fi who could become ill. But the number was very small.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) had also reportedly assured people that telco towers in Malaysia were well within international safety levels.

What’s next?

Although there has yet to be any conclusive, 100% proof linking EMR to health effects, the work from the Malaysian group who are using their own funds to study the subject seems to be getting somewhere.

Rightly, they should not be ignored.

The 1BestariNet project is of special concern as it involves the health of young, studying children, and the government is now expected to keep to its word that it would do further studies on its possible health risks.

But what if our worst fears were true, that it could really cause cancer?

There is nothing that the government, private entities and Malaysians would lose for finding out more through scientific studies. It would certainly only help us ensure that we could protect our next generation, one way or another.”

Link dell’articolo:


Malaysian Mother Describes Her “Allergy” to Wireless Radiation

Caricato il 10 agosto 2015

Testimonianza di una donna della Malesia, che descrive come le radiazioni emesse da laptop e ripetitori della telefonia mobile la facciano ammalare.
Lei è una dei tanti elettrosensibili che manifestano un caratteristico rash maculo-papulare molto pruriginoso a seguito della esposizione a tali radiazioni.

Nel link qui sotto potete leggere la versione in inglese dell’articolo di un giornale della Malesia che tratta del crescente problema dei CEM in alta frequenza e racconta la storia di questa donna:


Nel video qui sotto, invece, potete ascoltare la diretta testimonianza della donna:

Tumore all’orecchio, la Cassazione accorda la malattia professionale per l’uso del cellulare

22 ottobre 2012 – Guida al diritto de “Il Sole 24 Ore”

[Articolo datato sulla sentenza che facilita le altre cause su casi di tumore da esposizioni lavorative sia a CEM/ELF (linee elettriche ad alta tensione) che a radiofrequenze (non solo cellulari e cordless, ma anche radioemittenti e radar).
La rilevanza di tale sentenza deriva dal fatto che essa potrebbe anche aprire la strada al riconoscimento di patologie acute di varia natura dovute all’esposizione ai CEM, e persino a patologie imputabili ad altri agenti ambientali “non tabellati” dall’INAIL.]

“Riconosciuta la malattia professionale per un tumore insorto all’orecchio sinistro di un lavoratore dipendente che per 12 anni aveva utilizzato il cellulare ed il cordless per 5-6 ore al giorno. Anche se, come accertato in letteratura, il neuroma del Ganglio di Gasser colpisce soprattutto il nervo acustico e non il trigemino, la Cassazione, sentenza 17438/2012, ha ravvisato “almeno un ruolo concausale delle radiofrequenze nella genesi della neoplasia”, riconoscendo al lavoratore una invalidità dell’80% e la conseguente corresponsione dell’assegno a carico dell’Inail.

Il rischio aggiuntivo
La difesa del lavoratore aveva infatti prodotto una lunga documentazione scientifica, condivisa dal giudice di secondo grado, che se non permetteva un “giudizio esaustivo”, individuava “un rischio aggiuntivo per i tumori cerebrali”, ed in particolare per il neuroma, dopo l’esposizione per oltre 10 anni a radiofrequenze emesse da telefoni cellulari e portatili. Elementi ritenuti “molto rilevanti” in quanto ben rappresentavano il caso del lavoratore in questione.

Il rilevante grado di probabilità
Promosso, dunque, il ragionamento della Corte di appello di Brescia che aveva ravvisato la “probabilità qualificata” dell’esistenza di una relazione tra l’suo del telefono per motivi di lavoro e l’insorgenza della patologia. Infatti, nei casi di malattia professionale non tabellata, come anche in quelli di “malattia ad eziologia multifattoriale”, spiega la Suprema corte, “la prova della causa di lavoro, che grava sul lavoratore, deve essere valutata in termini di ragionevole certezza, nel senso che, esclusa la rilevanza della mera possibilità dell’origine professionale, questa può invece essere ravvisata in presenza di un rilevante grado di probabilità”.

In questo senso, il giudice deve consentire all’assicurato non solo di esperire i mezzi di prova ammissibili ma anche “valutare le conclusioni probabilistiche del consulente tecnico in tema di nesso causale”, alla luce delle caratteristiche in cui concretamente si svolgeva il lavoro. E dunque, i tempi, i macchinari utilizzati ecc.

La prova del vizio di motivazione
Non solo, proseguono i giudici, “nei giudizi in cui sia stata esperita una Ctu di tipo medico-legale, nel caso in cui il giudice del merito si basi sulle conclusioni dell’ausiliario giudiziale, affinché i lamentati errori e lacune determinino un vizio di motivazione denunciabile in cassazione, è necessario che i relativi vizi logico formali si concretino in una palese devianza dalle nozioni della scienza medica o si sostanzino in affermazioni illogiche o scientificamente errate”, da dimostrare con altrettante prove scientifiche. Mentre così non è stato. Infatti, l’Inail nel contestare l’esistenza di un legame tra il neuroma del nervo acustico e quello del trigemino non ha allegato alcuna ulteriore fonte scientifica.

Una valutazione a tutto tondo
Mentre “significativamente” la sentenza di appello seguendo le osservazioni contenute nella perizia tecnica “ha ritenuto di dover ritenere di particolare rilievo quegli studi che avevano preso in considerazione anche altri elementi, quali l’età dell’esposizione, l’ipsilateralità e il tempo di esposizione”, come visto, tutti fattori rilevanti in quanto presenti nel caso di specie. Non solo, la Cassazione ha accordato anche un credito in più agli studi citati dalla Ctu proprio perché indipendenti e non finanziati dalle aziende telefoniche.”