• How was the passing OLD YEAR 2011?

As Christmas is over and the New Year 2012 is fast approaching this is the time of the year when we look back at what was achieved during the past 12 months.

Let’s briefly look at several areas such as:

  • Research in 2011
  • Research evaluation
  • This science blog here and
  • Elsewhere

In the scientific research on cell phone radiation was no any very dramatic breakthrough in 2011. However, few publications gained attention. Though, not always for their excellence…

Two research groups, one in USA and the other in Finland, have shown in a small pilot studies that the cell phone radiation might affect glucose metabolism in human brain. Even though the US study has shown increase and Finnish study a decline in glucose metabolism, the both studies are a step in the right direction. We need studies that examine molecular level changes in human body under the influence of cell phone radiation. Firstly, such studies will demonstrate whether human body reacts in any significant manner to the cell phone radiation. Secondly, the observed molecular level changes might be used to predict what physiological changes can be induced by the cell phone radiation. We need to focus not only on what detrimental effects cell phone radiation might induce but more importantly on ways and means of preventing these changes before they happen. Prevention of is the best cure…

One epidemiological study, the Danish Cohort update, was hailed by the authors and the news media as the largest and most informative proof of the lack of causality between cell phone radiation and cancer. However, as shown by others, this study is a complete failure due to flawed design that causes significant contamination of the control population with, among others, the persons with the highest exposure to cell phone radiation. The esteemed British Medical Journal was asked to retract this paper. However, no signs of such activity were so far displayed by the Editors or the article authors alike.

However, following the publication of my weekly column in The WashingtonTimes.com community pages, I got a message from a very prominent researcher who wrote the following:

“…I wonder why you waste time writing about epidemiology, not being an epidemiologist yourself. I had discussed the Danish study with the authors and other epidemiologists: it is a most important study with limitations that are clearly outlined: it will never be withdrawn…”

Is this the end of the story? Hopefully not. The Danish Cohort is very flawed and “admissions” of the flaws, by the authors in discussion part of the article, do not help the end result. It is rubbish…

The most important meeting/event of the passing year was the evaluation of the scientific evidence by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).  All scientific evidence was evaluated by the Working Group of 30 experts invited by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The evaluator work was done in plenary sessions of the whole Working Group and in subgroups I-IV: exposure to radiation (4 experts), epidemiology (10 experts), animal studies (4 experts) and mechanistic studies (12 experts with 1 expert absent; I was in this subgroup), respectively.

Subgroups worked on assigned to them scientific articles and prepared by the subgroup members, before the meeting, reviews of various areas of the scientific evidence. Unfortunately, because of “miscommunication” between IARC and experts the majority of the work time in subgroups was spent on revision of the reviews, prepared before the meeting. The time in the subgroups meetings was used less for the discussion about science and more on “literary” issues.

The science that was analyzed in subgroups was later brought before the plenary meeting of the whole Working Group. The outcome of the subgroup discussions was decided either by unanimous acceptance of certain view or by compromise or was decided by voting where simple majority wins. This organization of the work in subgroups led to situations where certain scientific evidence was unjustly dismissed.

There were also made conclusions that at the first sight appear to be correct. However, to the experts knowing the research field the conclusions tell the truth but not the whole truth. For example the following statement:

“…There is insufficient evidence from human studies to determine if RF radiation has effects on gene and protein expression… ”

The statement is correct but it is based on a single pilot study analyzing protein expression that was published in 2008. If more studies will not be done then this statement will be “correct” forever.

The classification of the cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen has come to many scientists as a great surprise. It is the first time when the world-wide respected agency has openly admitted that the cell phone radiation is a possible health risk- in this case to develop cancer. The classification was predominantly based on the evidence from epidemiology and from the animal studies. The epidemiological evidence included the results from the Swedish group of Lennart Hardell, what was hotly discussed and led to “walk-out” of one expert.

The evidence from the animal studies was also vigorously discussed and some experts attempted to down play conclusions of their own studies, when these conclusions were used as supportive evidence for the existence of cancer-related effects. Such attempts were dismissed. Interestingly, the strongest evidence from animal studies was provided by studies using combination of chemical carcinogens and cell phone radiation.

Already during the meeting in Lyon, some were asking why the evidence from laboratory in vitro studies does not play a more important role. The explanation is in the following statement from the final summary of the work of subgroup IV:

“…Overall Evaluation: The data from studies of genes, proteins and changes in cellular signaling are insufficient to provide mechanistic evidence of carcinogenesis in humans…”

Within the mechanistic subgroup IV were voices (including my own) that wanted to use the in vitro laboratory evidence in support of the carcinogenic effects of cell phone radiation but the democratic voting prevented it.

In 2012, will take place evaluation of all studies (not only cancer-related) by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This evaluation, similarly like IARC evaluation, will be used by the World Health Organization to make their recommendation.

However, we might already know what ICNIRP thinks about the epidemiological evidence. Immediately after the IARC announced their classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen, ICNIRP has published a commentary on the epidemiological evidence with the concluding statement:  

“…Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults.…”

This science blog is slowly growing and for this I most sincerely thank all my readers and all those who “dared” to submit comments. Thank you very much.

In August 2009 I started to have science blog on this wordpress.com site.

  • In 2009 (5 months) this blog was visited 1519 times (=10 visits/day)
  • In 2010 (52 weeks) this blog was visited 7428 times (=20 visits/day)
  • In 2011 (51 weeks) this blog was visited 15687 times (=43 visits/day)

In total this blog was visited 24619 times since its beginning and has currently 280 active subscribers. Thank you again…

A new development, that brought a new responsibility and a better visibility for the issues I am writing about, was the invitation from the Communities at The WashingtonTimes.com to keep a weekly column in the Health & Science section. It is also called “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”. Starting December 4, 2011, I have published 5 columns this year. The next one will appear after the New Year 2012.

Another new development that I am sill learning how it works is twitter. You can follow me on twitter @blogBRHP (http://twitter.com/blogBRHP) and stay up to date with the developments in 2012 and beyond…

I  WISH  YOU  ALL  A  VERY  SUCCESSFUL  NEW  YEAR  2012 !

Dariusz

About these ads

26 thoughts on “• How was the passing OLD YEAR 2011?

  1. Devra wrote:
    We are all indebted to Darius and Magda for documenting the hidden history of experimental evidence …….
    ____________________________

    I for my part don’t want mention Magda Havas in the same breath as Dariusz Leszczynski.
    When I read the Websites from both, I think the quality of work vary significantly.

  2. The current SAR standards for radiofrequency radiation were based on animal studies conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Based on those studies, FCC, on the recommendation of the IEEE, adopted an SAR level of 4 W/kg as the point of departure for determining legal SAR limits for cell phones. In contrast to the FCC position, an independent analysis by the EPA scientists concluded, on the basis of the same body of data, that biological effects occur at SAR levels of 1 W/kg, 4 times lower than the level chosen by IEEE. Based on the EPA analysis, a point of departure at 1 W/kg SAR may well be a more scientifically defensible hazard level that should be used for determining legally acceptable exposure limits. In fact, the EPA scientist in charge of editing the 1984 report, D.F. Cahill, published a peer-reviewed paper where he indicated that SAR of 0.4 W/kg is likely to be a conservative threshold point, 10 times lower than the departure point chosen by IEEE. This conclusion is supported by a growing body of studies from researchers world-wide that observe biological effects of cell phone radiation at SAR values significantly below the limits adopted by FCC.

  3. I think that it is a well-known fact that “ionizing” radiation breaks the bonds of H20, which in turn creates the Hydroxyl (OH), which in turn damages the DNA, Mitochondria, and Cell Wall. However, having said that, the Hydroxyl Free Radical is not only formed via ionizing radiation. It can also be formed via what is known as the Fenton Reaction, which entails a combination of Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) and Iron — two things found in the human body. I believe that research conducted by George Saijin showed very clearly that the amount of electromagnetic radiation from less than a cell phone caused red blood cells to leak hemoglobin. One can make a logical inference here as to how the Fenton Reaction might indeed be causing the production of the Hydroxyl Free Radical inside the human body, which is in fact damaging the DNA.

  4. Dariusz,

    I am imagining that it is indeed causing you a lot of “real” trouble. However, it is very much appreciated — even if I do have my disagreements with everything you are saying. You are indeed Between a Rock and a Hard Place. But then again, you are not the only one.

    Regards,

    paul doyon

  5. Indeed, “it is jungle out there” and it is difficult to distinguish between real facts and spin. My blog, in my opinion, is based on the few facts that we can be “sure” about. I speak, even if if what I say is inconvenient and causes me a lot of real trouble.

  6. HI.

    I’m an amateur researcher. I’ve been trying to find some concrete data on the effects of RF on the human body.

    I have found Dr. Glaser’s reports and I have to say I’m very impressed with what I’ve read. In fact, I’m pretty impressed with the reports I’ve been reading from that era. Some of them have set the framework for medical precautions today.

    As an aside, I’ve also discovered another little gem: The works of Doctor Neil Cherry.

    His papers not only quote some of the papers from Glaser’s time, but also from Lai et al.

    Unfortunately, in the midst of all this, I have also found a giant web of controversy and intrigue regarding EMF Science. Accusations of corporate funding, spin, and sadly, after learning that the same thing has happened twice before (with global warming and the harmful effects of cigarettes), I’m finding it hard to find facts.

  7. The paper
    Arnt Inge Vistnes and Kristoffer Gjotterud: ” Why Arguments Based on Photon Energy may be Highly Misleading for Power Line Frequency Electromagnetic Fields”, Bioelectromagnetics 22:200^204 (2001)
    explains that quantum electrodynamics is compatible with multi-photon interactions.
    The probability calculation by David Appel does not hold in the case where the photons are coherent (not independent random occurecies) which happens in the power line and radio frequencies as stated in the paper by Vistnes. The coherency of RF photon is also an important element of the well established theory of black body radiation used as another example in my paper.

  8. Well, the acceleration of elementary particles to relativistic velocities by radio-frequency electromagnetic fields is a fact, see for example the following document from CERN:
    http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/cern/others/multimedia/brochure/brochure-2006-003-eng.pdf
    which explains on its page 19 how this happens in the paragraph starting with “Cavities”. Similarly, the other examples in my paper are well known physics. The same conclusions about multitudes of photons influencing particles was pointed out long ago by Vistnes whom I reference in my article. Thus many known interactions between radio waves and matter are not limited by the energy of a single photon. As stated in my article, this does not mean that the exact mechanism of interaction of RF with the living tissue is already known.
    I add a link to my article for readers convenience:
    http://sites.google.com/site/pelegmichael/Aggregates_of_RF_photons.pdf

  9. We are all indebted to Darius and Magda for documenting the hidden history of experimental evidence that levels of microwave radiation that cannot produce conventionally measured changes in temperature do have a range of biological impacts. Their work reminds us that during the time period before the internet, important scientific work was conducted that remains generally out of range of most search engines and tools today.

    Thus, what passes for scientific evidence is not merely a matter of the science but of the contemporary culture, ambience, Zeitgeist, Weltanschauung, Umwelt, that determines what is considered evidence and what evidence is allowed to become public. In that regard, changes in scientific understanding reflect not only advances in science, but also shifts in the cultural context in which such understanding evolves.

    The question of potential mechanisms that could be involved in inducing biological changes is indeed an important one. But, the absence of clear consensus regarding what mechanisms could be involved does not provide proof that there is no such impact. Indeed, at this point, there is no debate that asbestos or tobacco smoking induce cancer, but there is still important research being carried out to delinate what mechanisms are key.

    Among the mechanisms through which microwave radiation and other radiation from cellphones could induce biological damage that have been proposed are those that impair mitochondrial production (which is vital to numerous biological processes including the production of the anti-carcinogenic melatonin), weaken the blood-brain barrier, enhance the production of damaging free radicals, or otherwise lead to processes that could affect chemical bonds by disrupting paired electrons, altering homeostatic resonance, or increasing or decreasing spin.

    Further complicating consideration of these issues is the fact that there are well-known dependencies of biological responses to microwave radiation on carrier frequency and modulation, as well as dependencies on polarization, intermittence and coherence time of exposure, magnetic field, and underlying host factors, ranging from gender, age, nutritional status, even body mass index, and genotype–all of which have been well elucidated by Igor Belyaev in his important review of this issue published in the Ramazzini Institute, ICEMS Monograph this past year, pp. 187-217 (edited by Livio Guiliani and Morando Soffritti). Also in this issue, my colleagues and I produced documentation that the models of the head being used to estimate Specific Absorption Rate of phones woefully underestimate exposures of nearly all of the world’s population–by factors of between 2 to 10-fold. (see Han et al., pp. 301-18) http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm

    I would urge those who have managed to read this far to provide additional relevant technical information on the underlying issues directly to the General Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress with relevant information Leung, Rosa Lin PhD or Kyle Browning browningk@gao.gov.

    For backup information on other key references more information can be found at http://www.disconnectbook.com/references/ Videos of the Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health can also be found at http://environmentalhealthtrust.org/content/agenda-video-and-slides-conference

    .

  10. You should check your school physics very carefully. Do you know what is the skin effect? The fact that any waves go inside the surface of objects. The higher the frequency the deeper the wave penetrates the surface.
    The interview of Dr Carlos means that the microwave signal passed deeper in our body than the radiowave which passed also around us.
    A microwave of frequency 1900 MHz has a wavelenght NOT of 20 cm but 16 cm in the air and less inside our body because the permittivity of our body is more than 1. it is 1.33 for water and It is about 70 for sea water. Our blood is closer to sea water, it gives us a wavelenght of 10 cm for simple water and 19 mm for sea water.
    So we can conclude by saying that the microwave signal enters inside our body and the carry signal (voice information) of the microwave signal interacts with our cells by resonance because our cells vibrate in a rang of few Hertz.
    That is what Dr Carlos means.
    Do you even know from School that the resonance effect breaks bridges?

  11. When you want to break a bridge for example, you don’t need a lot of energy; if you use the resonance effect. You can break a glass easily if you use the resonance effect. Soldiers who walk on a bridge can break it easily. The wind can break easily a bridge too if it forces the bridge to vibrate at its own frequency. The interaction of the microwave and our body is controlled by the resonance interaction.

  12. NO YOU CAN’T EXPLAIN ALL BY ELEMENTARY PHYSICS, WE LEARN AT SCHOOL.
    YOU HAVE TO STUDY THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE MICROWAVE RADIATION AND THE CELLS FIRST BEFORE INTRODUCING A DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY ON THE MARKET.
    Microwave Weapons, Cell Tower Radiation Experiments Barry Trower Part 1 to 11 to watch

  13. My comment still stands: NOT ALL PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES HAPPENING IN CELL ARE BASED ON BREAKING CHEMICAL BONDS.

  14. What about the finding by Dr. Martin Blank that the dna is also a fractal antenna?

    http://pubget.com/paper/21457072

    “Conclusions: The wide frequency range of interaction with EMF is the functional characteristic of a fractal antenna, and DNA appears to possess the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self symmetry. These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF in the environment, and the DNA damage could account for increases in cancer epidemiology, as well as variations in the rate of chemical evolution in early geologic history. “

  15. Ahouassa wrote:
    > We can’t explain all the effects of microwave radiation by physics, you
    > should know very well the biology of human beings.

    Well, yes you can. Biology is just applied chemistry (so to speak), and chemistry is applied physics. The laws of physics apply to biological structures just as much as they apply to anything else. Radiation, heating, etc — all of chemistry — ultimately can be deconstructed to the interactions of photons and charged particles. We should be open to new biological effects, but if they violate the laws of physics — which, in this arena, are very well established — it’s a very big red flag.

    I watched the video above of Dr. Carlos and, while he is poised and erudite, I didn’t see anything that would overcome the objections of the physicists.

  16. Ahouassa wrote:
    > The signals use carrier waves of around 1,900 megahertz (MHz),
    > which are so high in frequency that they pass right through us, and
    > our houses, unnoticed.

    Here’s another example of incorrect physics — 1900 MHz is actually quite a *low* frequency, about 100,000 times smaller than the frequency of visible light. It’s the *wavelength* of microwaves that is very “high.” A microwave of frequency 1900 MHz has a wavelength of about 20 cm. Such microwaves don’t pass “through us,” but around us, just like AM radio waves pass around structures like a short tunnel but FM radio waves pass through it, which is why your radio plays static if you drive through a short tunnel but you still get FM radio reception.

  17. I haven’t looked at all the comments above yet, but I did look at the Michael Peleg paper suggested by Deborah Rubin. Peleg is simply wrong.

    Whatever might be going on, biological processes are still subject to the laws of physics. That means that atomic interactions — which is ultimately what chemical reactions are, which is ultimately what biological processes are — are the ultimate drivers. And photons don’t ‘gang up’ on atoms and do things that single photons can’t.

    Photons interact with elementary particles, like electrons and protons, one at a time. These interactions are nearly instantaneous, and the probability of 2 photons simultaneously interacting with, say, an electron can be precisely calculated via quantum electrodynamics (the most precise theory in existence) and is a factor of about 1/137 smaller than the 1-photon case (the fine structure constant, “alpha”). The probability of N photons all doing so at the same time is proportional to (1/137)^N, which is infinitesimal for N ~ 10^5.

    In particular Peleg’s particle accelerator example is wrong. Particle accelerators, like cyclotrons, that use RF fields to accelerate particles can’t get them to relativistic velocities, as Peleg claims.

  18. If you want to understand how the microwave radiation modified our cells, you should not only know very well electromagnetism but also biology.

    Dr. Carlo explained in detail his theory of how cell phones cause brain damage. It begins with the wave. The signals use carrier waves of around 1,900 megahertz (MHz), which are so high in frequency that they pass right through us, and our houses, unnoticed. But harmful information-carrying waves are packed into the carrier waves. These information waves, which carry signals that can be decoded by our computers and mobile phones, are low-frequency waves in the range of one hertz (Hz). That’s slow. So slow that our cells can feel them as an aggravating, physical jolt at their surfaces. Within 30 seconds or so of bombardment, our cells temporarily shut down their surface transport and intercellular communication functions, to resist further damage from threatening invaders.

    These videos are very informative. Watch all of them please. Part 1 to Part 7.

  19. You should watch these interesting vidoes of Dr Carlos for more information.
    We can’t explain all the effects of microwave radiation by physics, you should know very well the biology of human beings.

  20. Dr. Carlo explained in detail his theory of how cell phones cause brain damage. It begins with the wave. The signals use carrier waves of around 1,900 megahertz (MHz), which are so high in frequency that they pass right through us, and our houses, unnoticed. But harmful information-carrying waves are packed into the carrier waves. These information waves, which carry signals that can be decoded by our computers and mobile phones, are low-frequency waves in the range of one hertz (Hz). That’s slow. So slow that our cells can feel them as an aggravating, physical jolt at their surfaces. Within 30 seconds or so of bombardment, our cells temporarily shut down their surface transport and intercellular communication functions, to resist further damage from threatening invaders.

  21. Another mechanism is presented by Peleg, and I have seen it elsewhere. Certainly others have realized response is not be based on the action of a single photon in the real world:

    https://4873811620532217718-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/pelegmichael/Aggregates_of_RF_photons.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqr4VJCkAdMtDxf-sKcNBUzJS1_emAaevM9WwLpA_pcjjjoiLtOybxRtLvLsjb-9_KlbCP_357wFnRsg7NXJhVrPlPxKeUdEfoYunnncKbcVUe_St6schC9DLGlrjd9mqnAo4fZhS_xSW0gwGS4bkd0HWYNQfT3x3XwfoOD98ZxiM5n8dcC-HGV1SLHZr8st6I_FJCNqoUYw-ypHnYWWODa7Mh-rQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0

    In case the link does not work, the paper is Bioelectromagnetic phenomena are affected by aggregates of many radiofrequency photons by Michael Peleg.

    Cancer always seems to come to the forefront, but isn’t the potential for serious outcomes far reaching because cell membrane disruption at low levels of exposure is repeatedly demonstrated in the literature?

  22. David, I would be a very happy scientist if I would know an answer to your question. But I do not know. However, let me answer with a question – Do all processes taking place inside a living cell are based on breaking chemical bonds? My answer is no, as far as I know cell physiology. So, this is also my answe to you. There is group of physicists who very narrowly look at physiological processes and think that only by breaking chemical bonds physiology of cell can be affectsd. They propagate this erroneous view throughout scientific literature and to news media… It is not so that only by breaking bonds cells regulate various processes. They should go back to school bench and learn some more… I am being very direct but it is already boring the continuous “chemical bond and energy” issue… If you get some new ideas, please, let me know. I am very open for suggestions.

  23. Hi Dariusz,

    I have been “researching” this subject on my own as an amateur researcher for approximately the past six years and I sometimes do have to question whether or not the so-called “experts” out there have really done their homework. Why do I say this? Because I seem to be seeing a more-or-less repetition of research conducted many years ago. For example, you talk above about the glucose experiments. Are you aware that L. I. Mischenko, in his paper, “Effect of the Ultra-high Frequency Electromagnetic Field on the Carbohydrate Metabolism of the Rat Brain,” in the year 1969, showed an increase in both lactic acid and pyruvic acid with a decrease in glycogen in the brains of rats from exposures to nonthermogenic 48 MHz fields. With prolonged exposures, elevated brain levels of lactic acid remained high for a month. Relatively intelligent people with the ability to make logical inferences might be able to connect these facts (i.e. connect the dots) to the appearance of diseases like Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which mysteriously seem to have appeared and increased along with increases in ambient levels of EMFs that the majority of the population are all unwittingly being continuously exposed to 24/7. And despite work in the 1990s by Henry Lai and the REFLEX studies in 2004, I have also read about research (outlined in Paul Brodeur`s book “The Zapping of America”) describing studies from the 1960s showing DNA damage. Of course, a good site is Dr. Magda Havas`s “Zory`s Archives,” which in her own words is described as follows (readers will have to google this as links apparently do not appear on this page):

    ““FROM ZORY’S ARCHIVE”
    June 28, 2010. At the beginning of April 2010, a friend sent me a scanned document entitled “Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation.”

    This document first appeared on October 4, 1971, and what I received was the second printing with revisions, corrections, and additions, dated April 20, 1972. It was a Research Report (Project MF12.524.05-0004B, Report No. 2) commissioned by the Naval Medical Research Institute, and was authored by Zorach (“Zory”) R. Glaser, Ph.D., LT, MSC, USNR.

    On page 4 of this 106-page document, the security classification reads “unclassified”, and the distribution statement reads “This document has been approved for public release and sale; its distribution is unlimited.”

    To my surprise, I learned that by 1971 there were more than 2,300 references to documents that detailed the biological effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation from various technologies including radar and mobile communications, navigational devices, and physical therapy devices such as microwave and shortwave diathermy. What an amazing find, especially since the World Health Organization and the wireless telecommunication industries continually state that there is no credible research showing that non-ionizing, non-thermal microwave radiation is harmful at levels below our existing thermal guidelines.

    As I flipped through the report and the citations, I found hundreds of references translated from Czech, Russian, German and Polish laboratories; references from the U.S. Navy, Army and Air Force; as well as government reports and documents, many of which had not been published or mentioned in other literature.

    What a treasure chest of research on the bioeffects and health effects of microwave radiation!

    I wondered if Dr. Glaser was still alive, and/or still active in the field of radio frequency (RF)/microwave bioeffects, as I had no idea how old he was back in 1972. Consequently I looked him up on the Internet, found a phone number, and called. I reached an answering machine with a young woman’s voice, and left a message saying I wanted to speak with Dr. Glaser and, if this was the correct phone number, could he please return my call. (It turned out that I had reached the phone of Dr. Glaser’s adult daughter.) I wanted to thank Dr. Glaser for the remarkable work he did pulling together so many references on this topic.

    The following day (Saturday), Dr. Glaser called me, and we had a long, animated conversation about his research during the past few decades and my research interests, which were remarkably similar. He informed me that he had produced 9 supplements to the original 1971 bibliography, and now had cited well over 6,000 studies on the bioeffects and health effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation, and a number of these were studies showing that exposure to RF/microwave radiation was able, under certain conditions/circumstances, to produce changes, some of which could be considered dangerous (even at low levels where such exposure did not heat the body). He said he would send me copies or the references for the supplements he had in his possession.

    For those of you who are new to the dangers of RF/microwave radiation, federal guidelines in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and those recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) are based on thermal effects. “If it does not heat you, it does not hurt you”, the saying goes. These countries/organizations deny that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause biological effects below the thermal threshold for microwave radiation.

    Countries such as Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, China, Italy, Luxemburg, and Salzburg in Austria believe that non-thermal microwave radiation may harm you, and consequently have more conservative human safety guidelines.

    Dr. Glaser is still considered to be one of the international experts in the RF/microwave bioeffects field, and I was most impressed with his knowledge, his insights, and his historical perspective.

    Click HERE to visit his website to learn more about his credentials.

    Just before we finished our long insightful telephone conversation into both of our careers, I asked him if, by chance, he had any paper copies of those references.

    Dr. Glaser said, “funny you should ask. As a matter of fact I have them all. I kept the reports in my home (basement, attic and garage) for a number of years following my retirement from FDA, and then moved them into two large commercial storage spaces, and over the years offered them (consisting of about 45-50 large boxes) to scientists performing research in this field, and to governmental and university libraries, but no one seemed to want them. I was planning to discard them, as I am now looking toward real retirement, and storing them is quite costly.”

    Dr. Glaser mentioned that a number of lawyers, and a few individuals working for the wireless industry have asked him for parts of his collection but he declined to give the collection to them because he felt the information would be buried. He indicated that he wanted the collection to be available to the public.

    Before I knew what I was saying, I asked if I could have them. I would digitize them as PDF, put them online, and make them available to the public via the Internet. He thought for a long moment, and finally said “yes”, with the provision that I would pick them up or pay for their delivery. For a university research scientist like me, this was an opportunity equivalent to winning a lottery!

    I learned that he lived in Maryland (between Baltimore and Washington, DC), and, as it happened, I was giving a lecture on the health effects of microwave radiation at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (his university, where he teaches, and where he earned the MPH degree in 1990) at the end of April, and we decided to meet. He came to my lectures, and actually became part of the lectures by joining me, at my invitation, in answering some questions raised by the audience, and sharing his expertise with the students, in the hope that the concerns for the possible dangers of RF/microwave radiation exposure would be considered by the public.

    We then later visited the commercial storage unit, which was overflowing with many boxes containing thousands of reports and printed documents, and-after a quick peek at this treasure house of knowledge-we decided that once the documents was sorted to remove unrelated material I could pick them up. A few weeks later, I flew to Baltimore, rented a U-haul truck, and brought back the first of about 25 boxes overflowing with reports and printed documents.

    The plan is to have the documents scanned (starting with ones that are more difficult to access, including government and military reports and translations of foreign technical articles) as searchable PDFs, and then make them available at the Electrosensitive Society website (www.rewire.me). This is obviously going to take some time.

    In the meantime I have decided to sort through this collection, find the “gems”, provide abstracts (where appropriate) and post a summary in layman’s language on my website. The series will be posted under the heading “From Zory’s Archive”, and the articles will appear weekly as “Pick of the Week.

    The very first article that I will summarize (and make available) is the document that first brought Dr. Glaser’s work to my attention, his bibliography dated 1971/1972.

    For those who think there is no proof . . . stay tuned!”

    At any rate, it would certainly be appreciated by many if the “experts” would do a thorough review of the research before making (in most cases, BAD) decisions that affect us all. For people who have been sick and are getting sick from this electromagnetic crap in our environment, what the experts are deciding is always too little too late.

  24. How can cell phone radiation have any effect on chemical or biological processes when the energy of its photons is too small, by a factor of at least 10,000, to break atomic bonds?

    The frequency of cell phone radiation is between 450 and 2700 MHz. The photon energy of such radiation is between 0.002 and 0.01 meV (milli electron-volts). Molecular bond energies are usually at least 100 kJ/mole, or about 1 eV between atoms — 10,000 times larger than the photon’s energy. Cell phone radiation simply can’t break any bonds.

    See, for example, R. Park, JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2001) 93 (3): 166-167.
    doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.3.166

    If there is some other theoretical causal chain, what is it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s