International Award-winning Documentary FULL SIGNAL Screening at BODY of Santa Fe, OCT 14 & 28, 7:00 PM


As the science reaches over 25,000 papers published on the dangers of microwave radiation, especially in unregulated and involuntary exposure of children, communities have to step up and learn how to address this situation.

The 1996 TeleCom Act prohibits communities and city officials from refusing a cell tower based upon any concerns of health or environmental effects, although these are both well-documented.

Most cell towers are placed in working class neighborhoods, near affordable housing for the disabled or elderly, or near schools. In Santa Fe, we have only the Historic Area protected.

Please attend this screening to learn what you can do if you want to prevent a cell tower near your home or your children’s school.


1: Am J Ind Med. 2008 Aug; 51 (8) :579-86. A new electromagnetic exposure metric*: high frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school. (*Next-up organization : PLC – PowerLine Communication = PLT – PowerLine Telecommunication)Milham S, Morgan LL. Washington State Department of Health, Tumwater, Washington, USA.

BACKGROUND: In 2003 the teachers at La Quinta, California middle school complained that they had more cancers than would be expected. A consultant for the school district denied that there was a problem.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cancer incidence in the teachers, and its cause.

METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study of cancer incidence in the teachers’ cohort in relationship to the school’s electrical environment. RESULTS: Sixteen school teachers in a cohort of 137 teachers hired in 1988 through 2005 were diagnosed with 18 cancers. The observed to expected (O/E) risk ratio for all cancers was 2.78 (P = 0.000098), while the O/E risk ratio for malignant melanoma was 9.8 (P = 0.0008). Thyroid cancer had a risk ratio of 13.3 (P = 0.0098), and uterine cancer had a risk ratio of 9.2 (P = 0.019). Sixty Hertz magnetic fields showed no association with cancer incidence. A new exposure metric, high frequency voltage transients, did show a positive correlation to cancer incidence. A cohort cancer incidence analysis of the teacher population showed a positive trend (P = 7.1 x 10(-10)) of increasing cancer risk with increasing cumulative exposure to high frequency voltage transients on the classroom’s electrical wiring measured with a Graham/Stetzer (G/S) meter. The attributable risk of cancer associated with this exposure was 64%. A single year of employment at this school increased a teacher’s cancer risk by 21%.

CONCLUSION: The cancer incidence in the teachers at this school is unusually high and is strongly associated with high frequency voltage transients, which may be a universal carcinogen, similar to ionizing radiation. PMID: 18512243 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Cell Phone Report: Children and Pregnant Women Require More Protection

Cell Phone Report Calls for More Responsible Management to Protect Children and Pregnant Women


From: Iris Atzmon
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:04 PM
To: Iris Atzmon
Subject: Fw: Cell Phone Report Calls for More Responsible Management to Protect Children and Pregnant Women


Cell Phone Report Calls for More Responsible Management to Protect Children and Pregnant Women

Cell Phone Report Calls for More Responsible Management to Protect Children and Pregnant Women

North Haven, Conn., Feb. 1, 2012—Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) is releasing a new report calling for tougher standards to regulate cellular technologies—especially for children and pregnant women. This report is the first part of a project researching the health effects of cell phone use. EHHI has reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have examined the potential health threats associated with cellular device use, along with the regulatory standards that have been adopted by the U.S. and other nations. This report provides the context for the second section of the project: an animal study designed to investigate the health effects on offspring of cell phone exposures during pregnancy.

John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of the report, said, “The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women. The weight of the evidence supports stronger precautionary regulation by the federal government. The cellular industry should take immediate steps to reduce emission of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from phones and avoid marketing their products to children.”

EHHI President Nancy Alderman explained how pervasive cell phones are in the United States. “There are nearly 276 million cell phone subscribers in the nation today, up from 97 million subscribers in 2000,” she said.

“More than 75 percent of teens own cell phones, and one third of them text more than 100 messages per day. Children between the ages of 8-18 spend an average of 7.5 hours per day—nearly half their hours while awake—on smart phones, computers, televisions or other electronic devices.

Exposures to electromagnetic radiation are increasing most rapidly among the youngest in our society, as service providers focus their advertising on children and educational markets.”

Dr. Hugh Taylor, coauthor of the report, summarized his concerns regarding neurological effects from cell phone radiation.

“The human brain is especially susceptible to numerous environmental insults that can produce irreversible damage during critical periods of nervous system development between conception and full maturity. A number of peer-reviewed studies reported changes in the nervous systems of rats, mice and humans following exposure to cell phone radiation. These include diminished learning, diminished reaction time, decreased motor function, reduced memory accuracy, hyperactivity and diminished cognition.”

Taylor explained differences in exposure between children and adults, “The thinner skulls of young children permit cell phone radiation to penetrate brain tissues more deeply than occurs in adults. Devices stored in pants pockets while in standby mode can expose rapidly developing reproductive organs to radiofrequency energy. Storage in shirt pockets will increase exposure to breast tissues. Children’s and fetuses’ rapidly developing nervous systems, more rapid rates of cell division, longer potential lifetime exposure, and longer average use per day all heighten their risks of adverse health effects.”

Wargo cautioned, “Cell phones have enjoyed exceptional freedom from government oversight and control to protect against health and environmental hazards before cell phone devices are marketed. There are no enforceable standards to limit human exposure to cell phone radiation. While the U.S. does not require any regulations to restrict advertising or warnings against use of cellular devices by pregnant women or children, many other nations do.”

Cell phones emit non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation that varies in intensity by model of phone, antenna configuration, and signal strength. Most users are unaware that new phones include warnings about the need to hold devices a safe distance from the body, often five-eighths to one inch. Since intensity of exposure falls exponentially as distance between the phone and body increases, users can limit their exposure dramatically by using speakerphones.

The World Health Organization in 2011 classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. Yet some types of tumors take a decade or longer to develop, and if caused by cellular devices, would only be discovered by epidemiological studies that often take a decade to resolve. Since the average useful life of any device is now two years, these findings would be irrelevant to guide management of current technologies or patterns of use.

Summarizing a growing literature in the field of psychology, Wargo explained, “Cellular devices can create feelings of psychological dependency. Common effects reported in the literature include distraction, isolation, hyperactivity, inability to focus on complex and long term tasks, and a heightened sense of anxiety.”

The most immediate threat to public health is the increasing rate of highway fatalities and injury associated with use of cellular devices while driving. The federal government reports that at any one time, approximately 11 percent of all drivers are using their cell phones. Cellular device use while driving poses a serious and avoidable threat to public health and safety. The National Safety Council attributes 23 percent of all traffic accidents to cell phone use—at least 1.3 million crashes per year. Nearly 1.2 million of these are associated with phone calls, while 100,000 are associated with texting. The authors state this loss of life is fully avoidable.

The recycling of cell phones is also a serious concern to the authors. In 2012 nearly 220 million cell phones will be discarded in the U.S., and fewer than 10 percent of these will be recycled. This waste is especially hazardous when burned because of the release of dioxins from some plastic polymers, and diverse metals that do not break down.

Nancy Alderman, president of EHHI, summarized the group’s recommendations. “The government must take greater responsibility for testing cellular technologies before they are marketed to assure their safety, their proper disposal and to educate the public about safe patterns of use.”

Citation: John Wargo, Hugh S. Taylor, Nancy Alderman, Linda Wargo, Jane M.
Bradley, Susan Addiss. Cell phones: technology | exposures | health effects.
North Haven Connecticut: Environment & Human Health, Inc.; February 2012.

Cordless Phones (p. 17)

Digital Enhanced Cordless Telephone (DECT) cordless phones sold in the
United States today emit pulses of microwave radiation similar to cell
phones, in the frequency range of 1880-1930 MHz. Studies show that DECT
phones are the source of the highest levels of RF emissions in many homes
and a source of overall personal exposure to RF-EMF.11

… few studies have looked at exposure and health risks. A German study,for example, found no association between cordless phone use and brain tumors, while a Swedish study found elevated risks of brain tumors with long-term use of cordless phones.12

Radiofrequency Exposure: Young Children (pp. 18-19)

Childhood RF radiation exposure is a concern for several reasons:
* A child’s brain absorbs significantly more radiation than an adult’s brain.
* Children’s anatomical differences may allow greater exposure of their
brain regions from cell phone RF because of differences in electrical
conductivity in their bone marrow.13

Nineteen percent of children aged two to five are more likely to operate a
smartphone than swim, tie their shoelaces, or make their own breakfasts

Almost as many children aged two to three (17 percent) can play with
smartphone applications as children aged four to five (21 percent).
One-quarter of all U.S. children aged two to five know how to make a mobile phone call.14

Numerous phones are designed specifically for young children, some with applications for preschool children.

The design of educational applications has led to smartphone adoption in many schools. Outside the classroom, cell phone companies target children by offering free cell phones for kids when added to a family plan.

Phones like AT&T’s Firefly are designed for the smaller hands of kids 8 to 12, and Disney phones are specifically made for young children. Sprint’s family plan offers phone models for young children and different phones for teens. For very young children, Verizon offers the Migo, a phone with a simplified keypad that allows you to program in four numbers. Hello Kitty
Bluetooth wireless earphone and Bluetooth devices are newer products for kids.

Radiofrequency Exposure: Tweens and Teens (p. 19)

Seven out of 10 children in the United States aged 10 to 14 have cell
phones. These devices are now the dominant source of radiofrequency exposure in preteens and teens.

Those aged 13 to 17 … talk less than older populations-an average of 515 minutes per month, compared to 750 minutes among those aged 18 to 24.15

Frequent texting means cell phones are often kept in a pocket all day and
under a pillow or on a teenager’s bed at night.

Teenagers now tend to talk on mobile phones more than landlines, a trend
that will likely continue. Both teens and young adults in school and college
are also using mobile devices at school.

Radiofrequency Exposure: Adults (p. 19)

Nearly all young adults aged 18 to 29 – 90 percent-sleep with their cell
phone on or right next to their bed. Slightly fewer-70 percent-of those aged 30 to 49 sleep with their cell phones nearby, as do half of all of cell phone users aged 50 to 64.

Cell Phones in Schools (pp. 21-22)

Many U.S. classrooms contain wireless routers, which are a source of RF
exposure, even for those who do not use handheld devices.

Concerns about the health risks to children from cell phone RF energy has
resulted in efforts in France and throughout Europe to ban cell phone use in schools. Specifically, France prohibits the use of mobile phones in
kindergartens, primary schools, and colleges as precautionary measures to
reduce potential health risks.

Following France’s ban, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers
recommended that member states should “ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or
WiFi or Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) systems from classrooms and
schools.” The draft resolution still requires the council’s full
Parliamentary Assembly for approval.17

In the United States, many school districts restrict cell phones in schools,primarily because they can be disruptive to the educational environment.

Cancer (pp. 24-28)

Since RF-EMFs are emitted from cell phones in close proximity to the head,
the potential for brain tumors has been a concern. Most studies have focused on potential associations between cell phone use and only a few types of brain tumors.

Several studies have found an increase in the risk of developing some types of tumors after long-term exposure, but experimental studies are not available to explain the link, causing some to remain skeptical about the association.

Overall, 33 peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies on cell phones
and cancer have been conducted. Twenty-five of these studies have focused on brain tumors.22 Some have found a risk of cancer with long-term use of cell phones,23 while others have not.24

IARC’s Interphone study, the largest cell phone health study conducted,
found “suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure
levels” but notes “biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.”26 The Mobile Manufacturers forum notes that it provides assurance of the safety of cell phones, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that these biases and errors limit the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from it. Others argue that the study may underestimate the real risk of cell phones today, noting that the average present-day user in the U.S. could fall into this “highest level of exposure” risk use category after about 13 years.27 (funded in part by industry)

The Swedish researcher Dr. Lennart Hardell et al. have conducted six
independently funded studies on cell phones and tumors, using the Swedish
Cancer Registry, and has found a
consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma after
10 years of mobile phone use. Noting that the evidence

To download the full report, visit

Uncensored Fukushima Report

Uncensored Fukushima Report Direct to West Marin, CA
Reprinted from: Guest Column – Pt. Reyes Light – March 22, 2012
By Rachel Gertrude Johnson & Mary Beth Brangan – EON

“The planet can’t endure another Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima.” Prof. Akira Murakami

Immense releases of radioactivity from Fukushima were at first blown eastward from Japan towards the West Coast of North America. In 1986, Chernobyl radiation caused a spike in bird, human elder and infant mortalities. After Fukushima, a similar spike in infant mortality was observed in Seattle, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Oakland, according to Center for Disease Control numbers.

Chernobyl was a single-reactor explosion estimated to have caused one million excess deaths since 1986. By 2000, fewer than 20 percent of Belarus children were considered healthy. Fukushima has already seen three melted reactor cores and 3,108 intensely radioactive fuel rods. It’s all still emitting radiation into the air and ocean, with no end in sight.

Tokyo, with a population of over 32 million, has radioactive hot spots at a distance of 150 miles from Fukushima. A professor emeritus at the University of the Ryukyus, Katsuma Yagasaki, said on November 12: “Children, pregnant women and those wanting children in the future should be evacuated from Tokyo.”

Yet the government has hardly taken any protective measures. Racehorses were evacuated, but children were not. People are still living within a 19-mile radius from the stricken reactors because they can’t afford to move without government help. Russia evacuated everyone from the more sparsely populated Chernobyl area.

What the Japanese government did do was raise the legal allowable radiation exposures to levels higher than those used for adult male nuclear workers. This when children, especially young girls, are up to seven times more sensitive than adults. Already 30 percent of children in the Fukushima area have nodules on their thyroids—a rate unheard of by doctors.

Food is spot-checked, loosely regulated, and residents have caught the government lying about radiation measurements. A campaign of “Buy Fukushima, Eat Fukushima” pressures people everywhere with the charge that they are traitors if they choose not to “eat Fukushima.”

Japan is a conformist society and its people are being ordered to stay silent. The government, the media, compliant college professors and medical doctors are down-playing the dangers and hiding facts.

But increasing numbers of mothers, aided by the Internet, independent media and international activists, are becoming engaged. A network of volunteers in Japan is working with MIT professors to take radiation measurements and provide the data to the public. Many residents and grocery store owners have invested in high-tech devices to provide reliable information about radiation levels in foods to concerned mothers.

Despite having suffered the devastation of being nuclear-bombed, Japanese residents in past decades bought into an “Atoms for Peace” campaign, illustrated with cartoon characters with reactors in their chests. The country wanted to emulate the superior technology of its American vanquisher, but years later it’s clear to many Japanese people that the campaign’s real purpose was to provide business opportunities for GE and Westinghouse as well as a cover for the production of weapons materials. (In 2006, Tochiba bought the nuclear power section of Westinghouse.)

Still, as Professor Akira Murakami from Japan’s Akita University puts it: “The planet can’t endure another Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima.”

Last week the Ecological Options Network (EON) hosted Murakami for a series of events and media interviews as part of a U.S. tour to report the uncensored news from post-Fukushima Japan.

The EON team, a Bolinas-based nonprofit, has a long history of anti-nuclear activism. Responding to the ongoing nuclear disaster has been a big part of our work for the past year. On November 7 we visited the Japanese Consulate in San Francisco, where we presented an international petition of 7,000 signatures asking the Japanese government to stop its plan to distribute and incinerate radioactive rubble all over the nation.

Mary Beth Brangan (left) and Rachel Gertrude Johnson (center) of EON and Kimberly Roberson (right), founder of the Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network (FFAN) meet with Japanese embassy officials.

We had been asked by Japanese activists to help ask their government to stop this unconscionable plan of spreading radiation to even uncontaminated areas of the country instead of containing it as much as possible.

Jim Heddle, co-director of EON, videotaped us at the consulate. The video was posted on YouTube and was translated into Japanese, garnering over 15,000 views in the first week. [See viewers below. ] As result, Murakami contacted us and asked if he could visit while he was here for events related to the anniversary of Fukushima. We were honored and hosted him at successful events in Bolinas and Berkeley.

Now Professor Akira Murakami and other Japanese citizens are pleading with us to shut down our nuclear reactors. Twenty-three U.S. reactor stations have the same defective design as those in Fukushima and California’s Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear reactors are surrounded by multiple earthquake faults and lie in tsunami zones.

Professor Akira ‘Lazy Cat’ Murakami from Japan’s Akita University has traveled to South Korea, Viet Nam, New York and the San Francisco Bay Area working for international solidarity for a nuclear free future. Photo: Rachel Gertrude Johnson

Male Infertility Linked to Cell Phone EMF Exposure

Approximately 35% of women and 45% of men worldwide are sub-fertile. About 7% of women and men are effectively infertile [1,2]. Though most men believe infertility is due to “female issues,” the truth is that male infertility plays a role in about 50% of cases of failing to conceive after one year.

Sperm counts in men worldwide have declined by half over the past 50 years and are continuing to fall, according to a number of studies. A 2011 Finnish study of the sperm counts of 858 young men in three birth-year cohorts from the 1970s to the 1980s concluded: “These simultaneous and rapidly occurring adverse trends suggest that the underlying causes are environmental and, as such, preventable.”

The decrease could be due to environmental chemicals affecting early testicular development and/or to increased electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from cell phones. It is well established that lifestyle factors including smoking and drinking, drugs (medicinal and recreational), hormone-affecting chemicals in our food and environment, and increasing testicular temperature can adversely affect sperm count.

There is growing evidence that EMFs from cell phones can impair male fertility. If the observed association between cell phone EMF exposure and reduced sperm counts proves to be causal, then the dramatic increase in mobile phone use—especially by young people–over the last two decades could be a serious concern.

RF Damages Spermatozoa

Since the 1940s, researchers have recognized that high-level occupational exposure to radio-frequency (RF) radiation significantly decreases male fertility. More recently, a number of studies have shown that much lower levels of RF radiation, such as that emitted by a cell phone, can also affect sperm quantity and quality. There are also links between RF exposure and effects on female reproductive organs. It is possible that fetuses in utero are susceptible to RF exposure, as well [4].

A very important paper on the effects of cell phone radiation on human sperm in vitro was published by Geoffry De Iuliis and colleagues in 2009 [5]. They found that RF exposure enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species around spermatozoa, decreasing both their motility and vitality, while increasing DNA fragmentation. These in vitro findings have clear implications for the safety of long term mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.

The De Iuliis paper details the dramatic effect that absorbed RF radiation has on both sperm quality and their ability to move efficiently. The specific absorption rates (SAR) span across the range produced by cell phones in common use. At 1 W/kg, sperm vitality was significantly (p<0.01) decreased from 89% to 65%, and sperm motility reduced from 86% to 68% (p<0.05).

Save the Males: The UK’s Electromagnetic Radiation Research Trust recently launched a public education campaign urging men not to carry cell phones in front pockets next to their testicles. These “Save the Male” placards are being posted in public urinals.

What does a 1 W/kg SAR represent? Well, cell phone safety regulations throughout the world permit a maximum allowable SAR of between 1.6 W/kg (USA) and 2 W/kg (most of the world) for cell phones held close to the head.

Higher exposures than this certainly may occur, if the handset is close to other parts of the body. Many phone user manuals now state that the device should be carried at least half an inch away from the body. Eyes, breasts and testicles have electrical characteristics that mean they absorb RF radiation much more highly than any other external part of the human body.

Despite these facts, there are almost no published assessments of likely SAR levels delivered to the testicles from a phone held on the lap whilst texting or carried in a trousers/pants pocket. One theoretical study [6] using the Brooks Air Force Base model of an adult man, predicted up to 4 W/kg peak (in the pulses) with 0.5 W/kg maximum average SAR to the testicles.

Potential for Testicular Changes

Another more recent model [7] using a different type of handset, suggested much lower levels in the region of 0.1 to 0.2 W/kg for an adult male. However, bear in mind that SAR values in a young boy will be higher, as his pocket is closer to his testicles. When dealing with EMF fields, changes as small as 1 mm in the distance between the emitting device and exposed tissue can make a difference in total cumulative absorption.

A study of rats exposed to a SAR of only 0.14 W/kg for 2 hours per day for one month, showed significant adverse changes in their testicles [8]. The diameters of the seminiferous tubules of the testes in the exposed rats were lower than the sham exposure group (p<0.05).

Last year, Nadia Falzone and her colleagues irradiated healthy active human sperm for one hour with a 900 MHz cell phone frequency band at 2 W/kg [9] The radiation caused a halving in sperm head size and an abnormally low level of sperm able to bind with the outer membrane of a human egg. Presumably, this would significantly lower fertility.

Previously, Osman Erogul et al took semen samples from 27 healthy human volunteers, divided each sample, and exposed half of each sample to 5 minutes of RF from an active GSM cell phone at 10 cm distance. They then compared these with the unexposed half-samples [10]. RF exposure caused a statistically significant decrease in forward sperm movement, as well as a reduction in total number of motile sperm.

Abnormal Sperm Morphology & Activity

There have also been a lot of animal studies. Maneesh Mailankot et al exposed male Wistar rats to 1 hour per day of active GSM cell phone radiation for 28 days. They found a significant decrease in sperm movement and activity in samples from the exposed versus non-exposed rats [11].

Adebayo Akeem Otitoloju et al reported significant sperm abnormalities, apparently dose-dependent, in mice exposed to much lower RF levels such as those found near to cell phone base stations [12]. The major abnormalities observed were knobbed, hooked, pin-headed and banana-shaped sperm heads. John Aitken et al found that mice exposed to 900 MHz at 0.09 W/kg for 7 days at 12 h per day showed statistically significant damage to both the mitochondrial genome (p < 0.05) and the cell nucleus (p < 0.01) [13].

Not all studies have found evidence of harm, however. In a project funded by the German Mobile Phone Health Research Program, Angela Somner and colleagues exposed male and female mice to typical levels of RF radiation from 3G/UMTS cell phones [14]. Their study did not find harmful effects of long-term exposure over several generations of mice. This study is an exception to the clear trend in almost all other studies of RF radiation and fertility.

Cause for Concern

The evidence that radiation from cell phones affects sperm quantity and quality in humans and animals is compelling. The key clinical question is whether this translates into declines in actual human fertility? Though this has not been definitively proven, two recent studies are cause for serious concern.

Ashok Agarwal et al studied 361 men attending an infertility clinic. They were divided into four groups according to their active cell phone use: no cell phone use; 0-2 hours per day; 2-4 hours per day; and over 4 hours per day [15]. The comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal sperm morphology among the four groups showed statistically significant inverse correlations.

Basically, the men with the highest cell phone use had the lowest semen quality. Importantly, the decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones. Note that though the correlation was with “cell phone use,” the likely cause was direct testicular exposure from where the phone was carried and how it was used. In a given case, was the man holding the unit to his head or using a hands-free headset whilst carrying the phone in a pocket? This needs further investigation.

Another study, by Artur Wdowiak et al, looked at 304 males undergoing infertility therapy; 99 of them did not use a cell phone. They found an increase abnormal sperm morphology associated with the duration of RF exposure from GSM phones[16]. They also found that these sperm were less likely to fertilize an egg due to lack of vitality and movement; this also correlated with cumulative cell phone use.

Single short-term exposure effects usually only last for a few days. However no work has been done on whether chronic long-term exposure may cause permanent effects on male fertility.

Power-Frequency EMF Effects

Men exposed to magnetic fields of only 0.16 microtesla (µT) in strength for six or more hours per day are four times as likely to have substandard sperm [17]. DNA breaks and sperm chromatin changes have been found experimentally, when sperm is exposed to low frequency EMFs [18]; these changes would clearly predict infertility [19].

Animal studies corroborate this. Researchers have observed compromised sperm function in boars and rabbits, leading to a reduction in fertilization rate, when the animals or their sperm are exposed to low frequency EMFs [20,21].

Cell apoptosis has been seen in mouse testicular germ cells as a result of exposure to 14µT 60 Hz magnetic fields[22]. This is significantly above typical chronic background exposure (less than about 0.2 µT), but is well below the international guidance levels for human exposure. Many of us are exposed to EMF fields above 14µT on most days. These testicular germ cell changes can occur at even lower EMF levels [23]. Testicle tissue is almost certainly damaged by long-term exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields [24], and testicular developmental delay or degeneration can also occur after maternal exposure during pregnancy or the early postnatal period [25,26]

Testicular cancer is on the rise around the world for unknown reasons, especially in younger men. There may be a connection with RF exposure, but the data are far from clear on this. A 2010 review of EMF/RF exposures and testicular cancer found three studies showing no effect, two reporting a significant increase, and four showing a non-significant increase in incidence [27].

Increased Risk of Miscarriage?

Little is known about the direct effects of RF exposure on female fertility. Rat studies suggest adverse impact, but so far we only have data about exposure levels representative of high-level occupational exposure, not everyday EMF exposures [28]. Chick mortality is increased as a result of RF exposure [29] but the mechanism for the biological changes in animals have not yet been identified [30] , and it is difficult to draw human conclusions from these studies.

What we do know is that there seems to be increased incidence of human miscarriages correlating with EMF exposure. There were highly significant numbers of miscarriages documented near two different high-voltage powerlines in Stoke on Trent [30,31]. The association was especially strong where there were high ‘transient’ fields, that is, where field levels changed rapidly in a short period of time. An exposure of only 1.6 µT (16 mG) was associated with a doubling in spontaneous abortion rate, especially in the first trimester.

Locations where this type of exposure to high transient EMFs can occur include electric trains and trams, some cars, anti-theft (EAS) pillars at large shop doorways, some library security reader/writers and working microwave ovens.

Researchers have documented changes in the ovary and uterus after exposure to EMFs for over 50 days [32]. Experiments with mice showed that low frequency EMF exposure had some adverse effects on reproduction, including miscarriage, fetal loss and malformation and developmental delay in the offspring [33,34]. While we can’t draw definitive conclusions that the same thing is happening in humans, these data do raise a red flag.

Recommendation for Protection

Unfortunately, existing public safety guidelines for EMF/RF-emitting devices are inadequate because they only protect against electric shocks and acute EMF exposure at sufficient levels to generate heat in bodily tissues. None of the guidelines currently mandated by governments worldwide will safeguard against other EMF effects at lower exposure levels.

In the absence of stringent safety regulations, and in light of the growing evidence of significant biological effects, including possible deleterious impact on fertility, it is essential that people learn how to protect themselves and minimize risk. Physicians can play a vital role in helping them understand how to do so.

Here are steps people can take to reduce their EMF exposure that may help preserve their fertility:

• Do not carry a cell phone in the trouser pockets when the phone is on standby or when using a hands-free kit.

• Do not text holding the phone at waist level.

• Avoid using a laptop computer on your lap, as this exposes the reproductive organs to heat from the fan, as well as RF and low frequency EMF from the electronics and power supply. The combination may adversely affect testicular tissue and sperm quality in men; might affect the growing fetus in pregnant women, and possibly the ovaries and uteri in all women.

• Minimize sources of RF at home. People should ask themselves if they truly need such things as DECT phones, WiFi (they can used a wired network or a dLAN network), and wireless game consoles, baby monitors, or burglar alarms. Remember, “wireless” equals increased RF/EMF exposure.

• Consider workplace exposure. Always ask patients what equipment they sit near or work with on a daily basis. If a patient has concerns, encourage him/her to ask the employer for a formal EMF/RF assessment. Often, a simple office re-arrangement can dramatically reduce exposure.

• Women with histories of miscarriage should minimize RF/EMF exposure as much as practically possible.

• “Smart cars” spell trouble. The more complex a person’s automobile, the more RF exposure they—and their children–are getting. Cars with the engine at the front and the battery in the trunk have particularly high EMF levels inside.

• Pregnant women should avoid standing very close to appliances such as washing machines, electric cookers and microwave ovens whilst they are running.

To learn more ways to minimize risks from wireless devices, read our online-only feature on “EMF Hygiene” by Camilla Rees, author of “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution.”

Alasdair Philips is qualified in both Electrical and Electronic Engineering and in Agricultural Engineering. He is co-founder and director of Powerwatch UK, a watchdog organization that, since the 1980s has served as a forum for a small group of knowledgeable engineers and scientists concerned about potentially hazardous biological effects of EMF exposure.

1. Brugh VM, Lipshultz LI. Med. Clin. North Am. 2004: 88 (2): 367–85.
2. Hirsh A. BMJ. 2003: 327 (7416): 669–72.
3. Jørgensen N, et al. Int J Androl. 2011 Mar 2.
4. Ouellet-Hellstrom R & W F Stewart. AJE. 1993: 138(10): 775-86
5. De Iuliis GN, et al. PloS One 2009: 4(7):e6446
6. Whittow WG, et al. Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference 17-18 March 2008. Released under Creative Commons licence.
7. Vu TA, Nguyen UD. IEEE conference paper. DOI:10.1109/ICCE.2010.5670642
8. Dasdag S, et al. Urol Res. 1999 Jun;27(3):219-23.
9. Falzone N, et al. Int J Androl. 2010 Mar 7 [Epub ahead of print]
10. Erogul O, et al. Arch Med Research 2006 (7):840-3.
11. Mailankot M, et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009: 64(6):561-5
12. Otitoloju A, et al. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2009: 84(1):51-4
13. Aitken RJ, et al. Int J Androl. 2005: 28(3): 171-9
14. Sommer AM, et al. 2009. Radiat Res. 2009:171(1):89-95.
15. Agarwal A, et al. 2008. Fertil Steril. 2008; 89(1):124-128.
16. Wdowiak A, et al. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2007;14(1):169-72
17. Li DK et al. Reprod Toxicol. 2010; 29(1):86-92
18. Hong R, et al. Zhonghua lao dong wei sheng zhi ye bing za zhi. 2005 23(6):414-7
19. Agarwal A, Said TA. Human Reproduction Update. 2011; 9(4):331-345
20. Bernabò N, et al. Theriogenology. 2010: 73(9):1293-305
21. Roychoudhury S, et al. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2009; 44(10):1041-7
22. Kim YW, et al. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009; 30(1):66-72
23. Lee JS, et al. Asian J Androl. 2004; 6(1):29-34
24. Zhang A, et al. Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi. 2009: 26(2):248-52
25. Tenorio B, et al. J Appl Toxicol. 2010; Oct 8 [Epub ahead of print]
26. Tenorio B, et al. J Appl Toxicol. 2011; Mar 30 [Epub ahead of print]
27. Yousif L, et al. J Radiol Prot. 2010;30(3):389-406. 28. Gul A, et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009; 280(5):729-33.
29. Grigoriev I. Radiatsionnaia biologiia radioecologiia. 2003; 43(5):541-3
30. Ferreira A, et al. Life Sci. 2006 Dec 3;80(1):43-50.
30. Li DK, et al. Epidemiology. 2002;13(1):9-20.
31. Lee GM, et al. Epidemiology. 2002; 13(1):21-31.
32. Aksen F, et al. Med Sci Monit. 2006;12(6):BR215-20.
33. Hong R, et al. (article in Chinese) Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2003; 21(5): 342-5.
34. Cao YN, et al. (article in Chinese) Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2006; 24(8):468-70

Canadian Couple Sues Cell Tower

Antigonish County couple files lawsuit

Posted on December 6, 2011 by Brian Lazzuri

Edna Pettipas reviews some of the documentation she has accumulated for her lawsuit against Bell Aliant Regional Communications Inc. Edna and Marshall Pettipas’s attorney, Jamie MacGillivray, filed the lawsuit at the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Nov. 30. It alleges that a cell phone tower Bell Aliant placed on the Pettipas property is making them sick. (Debbie Johnson photo)

For Marshall and Edna Pettipas what was supposed to be a dream home has turned into a nightmare. The Antigonish couple has launched a lawsuit against Bell Aliant Regional Communications Inc. claiming a telecommunications tower built on their property has made them sick.

The Pettipas bought their 16-acre property in 1993 with the hopes of one day building a home with views of St. Georges Bay. In 2001, they were approached by Bell Aliant about the possibility of placing a cell phone tower on the property. Edna Pettipas said the couple faced intense pressure by the company.

“They told us that we either agree to let them put the tower up there behind the house or if we didn’t they would go to a neighbor and the tower could have been located beside or in front the house,” she said. “I felt blackmailed.”

The Pettipas entered into a 20-year lease. In exchange for allowing the tower to be built on their land they receive $5,000 per year.

The couple did have concerns about the tower but they were reassured that there were no safety issues other than falling ice which necessitated a 300-foot fallout zone. The tower was built in 2002 and the couple began construction on their home in 2007.

The home, 600 feet from the tower, was completed in time for the family to move in Christmas Eve day.

“We started getting sick instantaneously,” Pettipas said. “The more exposure we got the more we got sicker.”

At first the couple thought the house was “gassing off” or they were experiencing allergies. By September 2008, she and her teenage daughter moved out of the house after discovering her cancer tracer levels were “through the roof.”

“When I moved out of the house these cancer tracer levels started going down. Eventually they came down to normal levels.”

They tried moving back into the house in March 2009 but didn’t last the day. She stopped going in the house. Later she noticed that just visiting the property made her sick.

“I decided to call Bell Aliant and [the contact person] admitted that there could be potentially dangerous radiation being given off by the tower,” Pettipas said. “She said, ‘don’t worry whatever it is we will fix it.’”

In April 2009 the company agreed to send out a technician to measure the radiation levels. A few months later a technician came but measured no radiation. Prior to that Pettipas had hired a company from Ontario to measure the radiation. The results differed.

“I brought a meter I had purchased and the technician’s eyes almost popped out of his head,” she said.

The two measured and discovered radiation. The technician blamed his reading on a faulty meter which he had dropped the week prior.

She said after the technician’s visit and about a year ago Bell Aliant put up danger signs warning about radiation.

In September 2009, she asked Aliant to remove the tower or to pay for all the house related expenses. A month later her request was denied. The Pettipas then hired lawyer Jamie MacGillivray who filed the lawsuit at the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Nov. 30.

“They lied to us from the get go,” she said. “They told us we would not be subjected to any emissions. If we had known this we would have never signed that contract. We signed that contract on lies.”

Since the Pettipas house in unlivable their property value has plummeted and their insurance company will not insure the house. She said nine acres of their property has been made tax exempt by the county.

Pettipas said she is aware of no federal guidelines for how far residences are to be built from cell phone towers. Federal guidelines state the maximum amount of radiation exposure over a six minute period.

Bell Aliant spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said the company always meets and usually “exceeds the strict regulations set out by Industry Canada regarding the location and operation of cell sites, including community consultation, safety regulations and other requirements.”

Michelis said the company has several thousand cell site locations across Canada and that each one complies with all applicable government regulations.

“The guidelines are too high,” Pettipas said. “There are people getting sick below the guidelines.”
Pettipas said losing the property is a real concern as they now own two homes. They removed their belongings from their new home last summer.

“I got sick again. If I go to the house my cancer tracers go sky high and if I stay away they return to normal.”

She has been diagnosed with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) which is characterized by skin redness, tingling and burning as well as fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation and digestive disturbances. World Health Organization studies indicate that EHS affects a few individuals per million people.

Pettipas has also been diagnosed with breast cancer. On Dec. 12 she will have a mastectomy. There is also a concern about other cancers.

“I have a long road ahead of me yet,” she said.

In the lawsuit the couple seeks compensation for physical, emotional and financial hardships. None of the claims have been proven in court.
She said if Bell Aliant removed the tower and compensated the family they would move into their home.

“We were dreaming that today. That’s our dream home, it’s a beautiful home and the scenery is unreal. That is why we bought the property.”
No matter what happens things will never be the same.

“I won’t be getting my breasts back. I may never completely recover from this but I’ll take what I can get if I am completely compensated. It would be nice for me to move into my dream home.”

If you wish to post comments on the newspaper site, please go to:

Hempstead’s Cell Tower Limits Among Toughest in Country

By Frank Eltman, AP on September 23rd, 2010

Now that the Town of Hempstead has imposed restrictions on the placement of new cell towers that are among the toughest in the country, one phone company says it effectively bans new construction.

Hempstead township is a notable example on a list of municipalities tightening rules on where cell phone companies can place antennas. The moves come as consumers are demanding blanket wireless coverage for their phones and buying laptops and, more recently, tablet computers that also rely on cell towers.

Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from considering health issues in approving locations for cell antennas, a group of mothers concerned about what they consider risky cell towers outside their children’s schools successfully lobbied Hempstead town officials.

“Our position is we want to be more proactive,” said Jody Turk-Goldberg, co-founder of a civic group called “Moms of Merrick,” which discounts pronouncements by groups like the American Cancer Society that conclude there is scant evidence that cell towers are a health hazard.

“We saw what the tobacco companies did years ago; everybody said smoking was safe,” she added.

The ordinance passed unanimously this week by the Hempstead town board prohibits wireless companies from installing equipment closer than 1,500 feet to homes, day care centers, schools and houses of worship, unless they submit compelling evidence that there is an absolute need.

While the town board adhered to FCC regulations to not consider possible health effects, officials instead described the vote as a quality of life issue.

The ordinance provides “real protection against the siting of cell towers and antennae in locations that would adversely impact home values or the character of local neighborhoods,” said Hempstead Supervisor Kate Murray.

The town has also hired Richard Comi of the Center for Municipal Solutions as a consultant to review applications of cellular companies seeking to install new antennas or towers. Comi’s company advises municipalities in 32 states on cell tower regulations, he said.

“Because of the volume and continued growth of cellular devices, all of the ‘easy places’ to locate antennae and cell towers are gone,” Comi said. “The issue is they are having to penetrate residential areas now and that leads to concerns of aesthetics and home values.”

Among other municipalities taking action on cell towers, the city of Bend, Ore., is considering restrictions on the size and location of cell phone towers that may keep them out of residential areas and off historic buildings. A proposed city ordinance would ban poles and towers that soar above building tops and tree lines in low and standard density residential areas.

There would also be restrictions on camouflaged towers, like the ones designed to mimic trees, to make sure they don’t stick out in their surroundings.

But not all the momentum is against the cell companies.

In Mount Vernon, a federal court ruled recently that the city had violated both federal and state law in its review of an application by MetroPCS Communications Inc. to put antennas on a rooftop, and ordered the installation to proceed.

“It’s easy for people to say they want better cell service,” said Turk-Goldberg. “Every single mom we have spoken to uses cell phones, they all have good service. The question is how many towers do we need? They have invaded us with tons of towers; they’re all over the place. We just don’t want our children exposed.”

David Samberg, a spokesman for Verizon Wireless, said his company has encountered opposition to cell towers in virtually every municipality around the country.

“It’s not unheard of for towns to have issues, but this is extreme,” he said, contending that the Hempstead regulations effectively would shut out 95 percent of the town to future antenna construction. “Every place you go it’s the same questions. It usually starts with health effects, then they go to the question of real estate values,” Samberg said.

Fewer choices for cell sites forces phone companies to pay more for the remaining options, and settle for places that don’t help coverage as much. Even where there is coverage, phone companies sometimes add towers to boost calling and data capacity.

The phones and the radiation they emit are subject to suspicion as well: San Francisco legislators this summer passed an ordinance that requires phone stores to post the radiation values of different models, starting next year. The wireless industry association has sued the city in return, saying the radiation values are irrelevant to shoppers, as long as they’re under the legal limit set by the FCC.

Attorney Andrew Campanelli, who represents the “Merrick Moms” and groups in other communities opposing cell towers, says safety questions persist about cell phone towers, especially near schools.

He said in Bayville, five children who attended school 50 feet from cell antennas on a water tower have been diagnosed with cancer or leukemia and three have died. “I am not prepared to produce experts that there is a direct correlation, but it’s frightening,” he said. “The moms say err on the side of caution.”

An American Cancer Society website Q&A addresses the issue this way:

“Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea.”

Joe Baker, president of another Merrick civic association, said many residents in his community remain dubious.

“The bottom line is that the perception does exist; there’s a fear that exists,” he said. “I’d also say that its probably only a matter of time before science finds an alternative to these cell towers. Whether it’s satellite or otherwise, in time it will resolve itself.”

Associated Press researcher Monika Mathur in New York contributed to this report.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.