Cell Phones Everywhere

Wherever we go nowadays — in restaurants, cafes, shopping malls, on public transportation, on the street, in their cars, and even on T.V. — we see people engaged, often obsessively, with their wireless devices.

These devices that have made our lives so convenient have, to say the least, indeed also drastically changed our lifestyles, how we interact with each other, and how we behave in public. So if everyone is so utterly engrossed with his or her individual wireless devices without any seemingly overt problems, shouldn’t we not just chalk it up to normal behavior of the modern 21st century? And since our governmental organizations have seamlessly approved the use of these wireless devices, then they must also be safe, right? Well, hold your horses on those two beliefs, as it may very well be way too early to jump the gun on either of these particular conclusions.

After all, fifty years ago, it was quite common — and “normal” — to see people smoking cigarettes in all the places where it is perfectly acceptable for people to be using their wireless devices today. Nowadays, most people would throw a fit if someone invaded their space with second-hand cigarette smoke, but seemingly don’t think twice if someone invades their space with what might be regarded as second-hand electromagnetic radiation.

 

What Is Officialdom Telling Us?

While there is a lot of contradictory information out there about whether the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by our wireless devices are actually harmful or not, for years now officialdom has been giving us the impression that they have been in fact safe.

For example, the FDA presently states on its website that

“The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from a cell phone and health problems.” [1]

And the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also states that

“There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss.” [1]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) further states that

“At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use.” [1]

And according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 

“Current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.” [1]

Finally, even the National Cancer Institute (NCI) tells us that

“Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck.” [1]

 

Is History Repeating Itself?

We can find similar statements from the 1950s and 1960s by officials regarding cigarette smoking as we are hearing today from officials with regards to wireless radiation. For example, The New York Times published, on April 14, 1954, a number of quotations — made public by the Tobacco Industry Research Committee — by a number of distinguished cancer authorities, all of them denying there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. For instance, Dr. R.H. Rigdon, Director of Laboratory of Experimental Pathology at the University of Texas, stated that

“In our opinion the data available today do not justify the conclusions that the increase in the frequency of cancer of the lung is the result of cigarette smoking.” [2]

Dr. W. C. Heuper of the National Cancer Institute asserted

“If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one, if judged by the evidence on hand.” [2]

And Dr. Max Cutler, cancer surgeon of Chicago, declared

“I feel strongly that the blanket statements which appeared in the press that there is a direct and causative relationship between smoking and cigarettes, and the number of cigarettes smoked, to cancer of the lung is an absolutely unwarranted conclusion.” [2]

And Sir Charles Ellis, Senior Scientist at British American Tobacco Company stated in 1962 that

“It is my conviction that nicotine is a very remarkable, beneficent drug that both helps the body to resist external stress and can as a result show a pronounced tranquillizing effect.” [3]

And then Dr. Ian MacDonald, a Los Angeles surgeon is quoted in Newsweek (November 18, 1963) declared that

“For the majority of people, smoking has a beneficial effect.” [4]

And we mustn’t forget about the West German drug thalidomide, which caused terrible birth defects in the babies of women — throughout the world in the late 1950s and early 1960s — who had taken it primarily as anti-nausea medication for morning sickness while pregnant (and now, ironically, being used as a chemotherapy drug for multiple myeloma, a form of immune cell cancer). At the time, it was not believed that pharmaceuticals taken by pregnant women could pass through the placenta barrier and cause harm to a developing fetus — probably in the same way that many misguidedly believe that “non-ionizing radiation” is harmless today.

For example, it was stated by a William S. Merrell pharmaceutical company executive on October 25, 1960, at a special conference held to present its introductory marketing plan for thalidomide to its sales force that 

“We have firmly established the safety, dosage and usefulness of Kevadon [brand name for thalidomide] by both foreign and U.S. laboratory and clinical studies.” [5]

  Further, it was written in a letter to the FDA by a physician participating in the “clinical investigation” program for the new sleeping pill that Kevadon [thalidomide] was

“An outstandingly safe medication.” [6]

German philosopher Friedrich Hegel was correct when he stated that 

“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”

Electromagnetics 101

 

Natural EMFs

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs), (often used interchangeably with electromagnetic radiation [EMR] — [and though some might argue technical differences]), are real and have always been present on our planet. The Sun, the Earth, the Moon, the planets, and the stars all emit EMR or EMFs. EMFs have been essential for the development of life on this planet and we would not be here without them. The Earth emits its own frequency of 7.83 hertz (Hz), known as the Schumann Resonance, and there is scientific evidence to support the claim that this particular frequency is therapeutic [7].

 

Artificial EMFs

However, having said that, the artificial manmade electromagnetic radiation that we are all presently being exposed to on a daily basis from all our wireless devices and the towers that power them has been estimated to be between one quadrillion (10¹⁵) to one quintillion (10¹⁸) times what we would get from natural background sources [8]. And the fact that doctors use electroencephalograms (EEGs) and electrocardiograms (EKGs) to measure the electrical activity of the brain and heart, respectively, should make any average Joe with an inkling of critical thinking skills consider the possibility that we are all indeed electromagnetic beings capable of being affected by all this electromagnetic pollution in our environments.

 

Non-ionizing and Ionizing Radiation

The electromagnetic spectrum can be divided into what has been described as lower frequency non-ionizing radiation and the higher frequency ionizing radiation and ranges from extremely low frequency (ELF) in the non-ionizing range to gamma rays in the ionizing range. Ionizing radiation is called such because it carries enough energy giving it the ability to free ions from atoms and molecules.

 

Power Frequency and Radiofrequency

In the non-ionizing range, EMFs can be further divided into what have been described as power frequency (3 Hz to 3000Hz), and radiofrequency (RF) (3 kHz to 300 GHz). Power-frequency waves are designated as being from extremely-low-frequency (ELF) to ultra-low-frequency (ULF) waves of alternating current traveling on the electric lines and wires that power our electrical appliances. Radiofrequency (RF) waves are, on the other hand, designated as being from very-low-frequency (VLF) to extremely-high-frequency (EHF) EMFs and are mainly used for telecommunications and radar and are what allow us to listen to the radio, watch TV, use cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless devices.

Thousands of Research Studies Showing Biological Effects

There are thousands of research studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic field exposures [9-14], with many of these “unclassified” studies conducted by the military going back to the 1940s, intensifying in the 1960s, and extending into the 1980s [15].

Industry-funded Researcher Bias

There are also, paralleling the rise of the wireless industry, however, numerous more recent studies showing no biological effects. Interestingly, it has been the industry-sponsored researchers who have conducted the good majority of these later studies — and often seemingly in response to studies by independent researchers that have shown some kind of adverse biological effect.

In analysis conducted by Henry Lai, Ph.D. at the University of Washington [16], it was found that of 326 studies on the biological effect of radiofrequency radiation performed between 1990s and 2006 that 50% found biological effects and 50% did not. However, when Lai took a closer look at who sponsored the studies, he discovered that only 30% of industry-funded studies found an effect, whereas a whopping 70% of the independently funded research studies found biological effect. Perhaps if some reporters — who prematurely claim that the evidence is “inconclusive” — were to look a little more deeply down the rabbit hole, they might be able to relay some sounder information. Hence, it is important for us — in examining these studies — to not only look at the quality of the studies performed, but also at who paid for the studies, and how all these studies fit into the much larger economic, political, social, scientific, and psychological picture.

 

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

Red Blood Cell Rouleaux Formation from Cell Phone Radiation

Numerous studies repeated over the years have shown how red blood cells (RBCs) will clump together in what is described as Rouleaux formation when they are exposed for only even short periods of time to wireless radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices. For example, the first study I saw on this was a German study back in 2005 of a person who only spoke on the phone for 90 seconds [17, 18]. Blood was taken from the caller immediately before and immediately after the phone call.

                               

      Caller’s RBCs before the call.                                                        Caller’s RBCs after the call.

(Similar results were also found with a bystander standing 1.7 meters away.)

In a YouTube video entitled, “Live Blood Analysis & Electrosmog,” Dr. Magda Havas, an EMF researcher at Trent University in Canada, shows a similar effect when she uses her own cell phone or computer [19].

In another more recent study conducted by the Weston Price Foundation [20], the researchers had subjects either carry a smart phone in their backpack for 45 minutes or use a cell phone for 45 minutes. We can see the following effects below of what happens from just carrying a smart phone in one’s backpack:

                              

       Before carrying the smart phone.                                                After carrying the smart phone.

Since one of the functions of red blood cells is to carry oxygen to and carbon dioxide away from the cells and the fact that many of the symptoms people experience when exposed to EMFs (e.g. nausea, headache, dizziness, fatigue, intestinal disturbances, insomnia, and shortness of breath, etc.) mimic apoxia or altitude sickness, one must suspect that these symptoms might in fact be due to hypoxia — or deficiency of the amount of oxygen reaching the tissues. It makes one wonder about all those people jogging with their cell phones and how it might be affecting their RBC’s ability to transport oxygen to the cells of their tissues.

 

Comet Assay Studies

In the 1990s, researchers by the names of Lai and Singh discovered that cell phone radiation broke DNA using a technique earlier developed by Singh called the comet assay, named this because the broken DNA (call micronucleai) leaking out of the cell looks like a trail of a comet [21].

Photo from Microwave News [21]

These studies were replicated in 2004 in a series of experiments called the REFLEX studies [22] undertaken at a number of research laboratories throughout Europe. As we can see below [23], 24 hours of cell phone use is pretty much equivalent to 1,600 x-rays when it comes to the amount of DNA damage induced. Hence, the damage done by one x-ray could be said to be more or less equivalent to one minute of cell phone use. Given that, one hundred hours of cell-phone use would be more or less equivalent to 6,000 x-rays. Now, most sane people would not x-ray his or her head 6000 times — yet most don’t think twice about doing this with their cell phones. And then a lot of people often will say, “Well, I don’t feel anything.” Well, they don’t feel an x-ray when they get one either, do they? Just because one does not feel something, does not mean it is not dangerous. The fact of the matter is that EMFs create a deluge of free radicals which not only break DNA, but also result in damage to the cell wall and mitochondria.

 

Rat Brain Studies

A study published in the June 2003 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives [24] clearly demonstrates the damage caused by cell phone radiation on the brain neurons of rats. In the top cross-section of the photo below we can see the brain of a healthy control rat. The bottom cross-section, however, demonstrates visually the drastic effect a two-hour does of GSM cell phone radiation has on the brain. The dark blots show neuronal damage of the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia caused by proteins that have leaked through the blood-brain barrier.

 

Cell Phone Radiation Brain Penetration Study

In a research model constructed by Ghandi, Lazzi, and Furse (1996) [25], we can see how cell-phone radiation at 835 and 1900 MHz penetrates the skulls of adults, ten-year olds, and five-year olds respectively, with further penetration in the younger skulls.

 

Penetration of Cell Phone Radiation into the Human Skull

Tests Conducted by researchers Ghandi, Lazzi, and Furse (1996).

Morgan, Kesari, and Davis (2014) take this a step further in their paper “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences” [26]. They conclude “the risk to children and adolescent from exposure to microwave radiating devices is considerable. Adults have a smaller but very real risk, as well” and highlight the facts that 1. a child’s brain absorbs more microwave radiation (MWR) than an adult’s, 2. MWR has been classified as a Group 2B (possible) carcinogen by the IARC branch of the WHO, and 3. fetuses are more vulnerable than children (emphasizing the fact that pregnant women need to avoid exposures), among listing a number of other recommendations.

Brain Tumors Galore

With what used to be seemingly a rare occurrence, now sadly seems to be an everyday affair — famous people who have had brain tumors include Cheryl Crow, Beau Biden, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and now John McCain. And it is now known for an absolute fact that brain cancer is increasing in frequency [27]. We also know now for a fact that EMF exposure can lead to brain cancer [27, 28]. Brain tumors are now, not only the most common form of cancer in children and adolescents (ages 0-14), surpassing leukemia in 2004, but also the leading cause of death by disease in the same age group [29]. And the brain surgeons are not even mentioning EMFs as possible cause to their patients. I recently had a client with a brain tumor who told me that she used to talk for hours on her cell phone and was surprised that her doctors never even asked her about her cell phone usage after being diagnosed. Ellie Marks of the California Brain Tumor Association, who gets calls just about every day from people with brain tumors, has stated that fetuses are now being aborted due to them having developed brain tumors. The powers-that-be are seemingly not allowing us to be told what is really going on.

In a study published in 2009, an analysis by the eminent Swedish brain cancer researcher Dr. Lennart Hardell found that people using cell phones on the same side of the head for at least 30 minutes a day had a 200% increase in contracting brain cancer, whereas people who start using cell phones before the age of 20 had a five time increased possibility in contracting brain cancer [30]. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an independent branch of the WHO, classified RF microwave radiation (the kind used by cell phones and other wireless devices) a Group 2B or possible carcinogen [31], and based on even more recent research, there have been calls for it to be deemed a Group 2A or probably carcinogen [28]. For example, a 2015 study [32] replicating a 2010 study [33] found the significant promotion of tumor growth in mice exposed to weak cell phone signals — and that the combination of toxic chemical exposure with RF more than doubled the tumor activity. Moreover, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recently (2016) released preliminary research findings from its ten-year $25-million-dollar “Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation” (34) program, “designed to mimic human exposure and based on frequencies and modulations currently in use in the United States.” So far they report that RF radiation exposures produced increased rates of two kinds of tumors in rodents: gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart in rats. Furthermore, a recent (2017) research study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology reanalyzing the Canadian data from the thirteen-country Interphone study of 2001-2004, found Canadians who had used cell phones for only 558 hours or more had more than a doubled risk of glioma (one form of common brain tumor) [35].

Our Federal and International Organizations Are Compromised

As a clear example of how our federal organizations are compromised, let’s take Thomas Wheeler. Thomas Wheeler — the former CEO of Washington’s main wireless industry lobbying group, the CTIA – The Wireless Association — was appointed by Barack Obama in 2013 to head the FCC in a blatant abuse of the revolving-door policy, where executives become the regulators of the industry groups they once led [36]. Could we really expect the former CEO of Washington’s main wireless lobbying group to have made impartial decisions in favor of protecting public health versus corporate profit as the head of the FCC? I don’t think so!

In a recent (2017) seething critique [38] — published in the highly respected International Journal of Oncology — of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pending review (the Monograph) of the adverse health effects of wireless/RF radiation, Dr. Lennart Hardell examines the historic relationship the WHO has had with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP). In it he gives an overview of the WHO’s “EMF Project,” and describes the WHO’s relationship with both the military and the electric and telecommunications industries. He further dissects and exposes the associations between ICNIRP (the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection), and the WHO EMF Project. Finally, he points out that five of the six members of the core group in charge of the Monograph are affiliated with the industry-loyal ICNIRP, a blatant and serious conflict of interest.

While the former head of the WHO (1998-2003), and three-time prime minister of Norway, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland is herself electrically sensitive (ES) [37], the man who might be called her nemesis, Michael Repacholi, was the head of the WHO’s EMF Project — and a man who consistently has had undeniable ties with industry and military before, while, and after acting as head of the EMF Project.

In his critique,  Dr. Hardell points out how the WHO has historically relied on the advice of ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization with ties to industry and “with a serious conflict of interest.”

It was, in fact, Michael Repacholi, in 1992, who founded the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and acted as its chairman until 1996, (and has since acted as honorary chairman).

It is on the advice of ICNIRP (and the IEEE) that the WHO and most Western-block countries set their RF exposure limits [39]. And in determining these limits, ICNIRP has consistently refused to acknowledge anything but the thermal biological effects of EMF exposures, obstinately dismissing any evaluation of scientific evidence related to non-thermal biological effects.

Hence, they have set exposure limit recommendations at 10 watts (or 10 million microwatts) per meter squared (10 W/m²), whereas the BioInitiative Working Group (an independent international team of highly respected EMF researchers), for example, has recommended limits at 60 microwatts per meter squared (60 uW/m²) (166,666.66 times less than ICNIRP), and the German Building Biology Guidelines have recommended even stricter guidelines at 0.1 microwatts per meter squared (0.1 uW/m²) (100,000,000 times less than ICNIRP) for sleeping areas [40].

ICNIRP is based in Germany and is a private NGO, with many of its members having ties with industries that depend on ICNIRP guidelines — which are of significant economic and strategic importance to the wireless and electric industries, and the military industrial complex.

The EMF Project was initially initiated in 1996 on Repacholi’s recommendations in 1995. Repacholi then acted as its head from 1996 to 2006. The WHO EMF Project website now states

“All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect.” (41)

Hence, in a manner similar to that that of Big Tobacco in 1954 where it assembled its own “experts” as its spokespersons in order to exert influence on public opinion via the New York Times, it seems that Big Wireless has subverted the WHO by stacking it with its own so-called “experts” in order to both set policy and influence the opinion of an unwitting public. And in spite of the IARC’s issuing of RF as a Group 2B possible carcinogen in 2011, and the 2016 U.S. NTP’s release of preliminary research findings showing increased rates of cancer in mice with RF frequencies and modulations “designed to mimic human exposure… currently in use in the United States,” as Hardell emphasizes in his review that

in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased.

And now we are faced with the rollout of 5G and with it 50,000 new small Distributed Antenna System s(DAS) antennas in California alone, with one very likely to be placed right outside your window.

Having an Informed Opinion and Making Informed Decisions

It is best to have an informed opinion in order to make an informed decision — especially when deciding whether or not to use a product (or in how to use it). Unfortunately, we seem to hear too many individuals just regurgitating shibboleths (e.g. about tinfoil hats, conspiracy theories, and Luddites) they have apparently superficially heard repeated over and over again in the media without looking a little deeper. These people are unable to think out of the box called their brain because it is being programmed by the box we call the TV.

Hence, while they think it might make them sound smooth, they should realize that regurgitation is not intelligence — with the real Hallmark of Intelligence rather being the realization that you “may not know you don’t know” [42]. Hopefully, the information presented here will help to give you a more informed opinion and to hence make a more informed decision in order to protect your health and the health of your loved ones. So while officialdom keeps telling us it’s safe, I challenge you to make that decision for yourself.

 

“I now firmly believe that the increased radiation we are living in from radio and TV and radar and appliances compared to the turn of the century is contributing to our background rates of ill health.”

 

– Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph.D. New Zealand Biophysicist and EMF Researcher, from the the documentary, “Public Exposure” (2000).

 

“I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than warming, and the increase in chemical elements in the environment.”

 

– Dr. Robert Becker, Ph.D. Doctor, EMF Researcher, Author, and twice nominated for Nobel Prize in Medicine, from the book “The Body Electric” (1985).

 

References:

1. The American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team. (2016, Aug. 4). “Cellular Phones.” The American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html
2. Byrd, O.E. (1954). Health Yearbook 1954. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3. Glantz, A., Slade, J., Bero, L.A., Hanauer, P., Barnes, D.E. (1996). The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press.
4. Moore, B.K. & Parker, R. (1989). Critical Thinking: Evaluating Claims and Arguments in Everyday Life. Houston, TX: Mayfield Publishing Co.
5. Stephens, T & Brynner, R. (2001). Dark Remedy: The Impact of Thalidomide and Its Revival as a Vital Medicine. New York, New York: Perseus Publishing.
6. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations. (1963). Interagency Coordination on Drug Research and Regulation. U.S. Government Printing Office.
7. Mitsutake, G, Otsuka, K, Hayakawa, M, Sekiguchi, M, Cornélissen, G, and Halberg, F. (2005). “Does Schumann resonance affect our blood pressure?” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie, 59(Suppl 1), S10–S14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656447/
8. Doyon, P. (2016, April 10). “Levels of Man-made Artificial Radio-frequency Radiation Levels in Comparison to Natural Background Levels: A Compilation of Comments.” The Microwave Factor. http://emfrefugee.blogspot.com/2016/04/levels-of-man-made-artificial-radio.html
9. BioInitiative Working Group. (2007, 2011). The BioInitiative Report. BioInitiative.org
10. PowerWatch (N.D.) “Peer-reviewed Scientific Studies from on EMF Related Subjects.” http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp
11. Prove It. (N.D.) Studies. http://www.justproveit.net/studies
12. (N.D.) US National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
13. RWTH Aachen University. (N.D.) EMF Portal. https://www.emf-portal.org/en
14. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA). (N.D.) “Research Papers.” http://www.orsaa.org/research-papers.html
15. Havas, M. (N.D.) “Zory’s Archive.” com. http://www.magdahavas.com/category/from-zorys-archive/
16. Ishisaka, M. (2011). “UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry.” Seattle Magazine. http://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry
17. “Auswirkungen eines Handy-Telefonats von ner 90 sekunden Dauer.” http://www.buergerwelle.de/assets/files/cluster.jpg?cultureKey=&q=pdf/cluster.jpg
18. “The Effect of Cell-Phone Radiation on the Red Blood Cell.” http://www.spiritofhealthkc.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CELLPHONES3-The-Effect-of-Cell-Phone-Radiation-on-the-Red-.pdf
19. Havas, M. “Live Blood Analysis & Electrosmog”. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7E36zGHxRw>
20. The Western Price Foundation. (2015, Jan. 16). “Does short-term exposure to cell phone radiation affect the blood?” westernaprice.org. https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/does-short-term-exposure-to-cell-phone-radiation-affect-the-blood/
21. Slesin, L. (2016). “NTP: Cell Phone RF Breaks DNA.” Microwave News. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-comet-assay
22. The REFLEX Studies, Final Report. http://www.iaff.org/hs/PDF/REFLEX%20Final%20Report.pdf
23. Worthington, A. (2008, May). “Generation X-ray: Childhood Victims of Technological Abuse.” The Idaho Observer. https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalartech_cellphonesmicrowave09.htm
24. Salford, LG, Brun, AE, Jacob, LE, Malmgren, L, and Bertil, BRR. (2003, May). “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241519/pdf/ehp0111-000881.pdf
25. Gandhi, OP, Lazzi, G., Furse, CM. (1996, Nov.) “Electromagnetic absorption in the human head and neck for mobile telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz.” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 44(10):1884-1897　https://www.ece.ncsu.edu/erl/html2/papers/lazzi/1996/NCSU-ERL-LAZZI-96-03.pdf
26. Morgan, LL, Kesari, S, Davis, DL. (2014). “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences.” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, 2(4):197-204 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583
27. Environmental Health Trust. (2015). “Renowned Neurosurgeon Dr. Charlie Teo Calls For the Right To Know About Cell Phone Radiation.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEfFkF1OHsY
28. Morgan, LL, Miller, AB, Sasco, A, and Davis, DL. (2015). “Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review).” International Journal of Oncology, 46(5)1865-1871. https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/46/5/1865
29. American Brain Tumor Association. “Brain Tumor Statistics.” http://www.abta.org/about-us/news/brain-tumor-statistics/
30. Lean, G. (2008). “Mobile phone use ‘raises children’s risk of brain cancer five-fold.” Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mobile-phone-use-raises-childrens-risk-of-brain-cancer-fivefold-937005.html
31. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2011). “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields As Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans.” World Health Organization (WHO). http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
32. Lerchl, A, Klose, M, Krote, K, et al. (2015). “Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans.” Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015 Apr 17;459(4):585-90. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.151. Epub 2015 Mar 6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X15003988
33. Tillmann, T, Ernst, H, Streckert, J, et al. (2010). “Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model.” International Journal of Radiation Biology, 86(7)529-541 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09553001003734501
34. Wyde, M,  Cesta, M,  Blystone, C, et al. (2016, May 6). “Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure).” http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699
35. Environmental Health Trust. (2017, May 31). “Major Canadian Study Finds Cell Phone Use Significantly Increases Risk for Brain Cancer.” SBwire. http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/major-canadian-study-finds-cell-phone-use-significantly-increases-risk-for-brain-cancer-814451.htm
36. Brodkin, J. (2014, April 23). “Washington’s revolving door: Cellular lobby and FCC have traded leaders.” arsTECHNICA. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/washingtons-revolving-door-cellular-lobby-and-fcc-have-traded-leaders/
37. (N.D.) “Gro Harlem Brundtland.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro_Harlem_Brundtland
38. Hardell, L. (2017). “World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review).” International Journal of Oncology, 51, 405-413. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2017.4046
39. H.O. (N.D.) “What are electromagnetic fields?” WHO. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index4.html
40. Safe Living Technologies. “International Radiofrequency ‘RF’ Exposure Limits for 1800 MHz Range.” co http://www.slt.co/Downloads/Education/RF-ExposureGuidelines-International.pdf
41. “Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs).” http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/en/
42. Doyon, P. (2015). “The Hallmark of Intelligence: Knowing that you may not know you don’t know.” academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/32260922/The_Hallmark_of_Intelligence_Knowing_That_You_May_Not_Know_You_Dont_Know_And_When_to_Keep_Your_Mouth_Shut_About_It