• Column #1 at the Communities @ The WashingtonTimes.com

As of today, December 4, 2011, I am beginning to publish a regular column, on cell phones and health, in the Communities at The Washington Times. I will attempt to publish it regularly, once a week. The first column touches subject of why we need more research on cell phones.

We often hear that, those who do not like that the research on cell phones continues, complain and joke that the scientists always call for more research to secure their own jobs. But is it really so? Are we really so calculating or are the critics mistaken? I think that the critics are mistaken.

There are scientifically very legitimate and very pressing reasons for why we need to spend more money on research of the biological and health effects of cell phones. Not just any research but something what I called in this science blog – the targeted research…

Read some more in my first column. However, be aware that I purposely used the context that: my column “touches” the issue… It is because of the limited size of the text that is possible to publish in a single column writing that makes me to only “touch” on this subject in a single writing. But do not worry, there will be more on this subject in the future, in my weekly columns.

If you are interested what I have to say, now and in the future, follow this link and save it to your favorites and, the most important – dare to comment and discuss.


17 thoughts on “• Column #1 at the Communities @ The WashingtonTimes.com

  1. I see, the comment’s posting was delayed. Looks like, as was said there by someone maybe serving as site monitor, that posts with a weblink, as that one was, are apt to be delayed, I suppose so they can be checked? Anyway, sorry also I wrongly said ‘Post’ when it’s Times.

  2. The public — and more to the point, local, state, and federal government agencies — are not catching on soon enough. The telecommunications industry and their lobby reps are going full steam ahead, moving the public desire for stronger and faster frequencies and pushing through legislation at all levels to accommodate the technology . . . despite growing indications (and even alarm) over possible health consequences.

  3. Epidemiology is a complex science and unfortunately it does not seem like the epidemiologists out there are agreeing on this subject. And we also really must question the moral fabric (not to mention their connections with military/industry) of some of these epidemiologists who are saying that there is not a problem. And while I agree that it is important, I am not sure if I would agree with the modifying absolute “Most” in this case. What we can say, however, is that there are indeed thousands of studies showing a multitude of biological effects. Correlation and causation have been established. However, due to the complex nature of the interaction between EMR and animal biology, explaining the processes becomes also quite complex — since after all, we are not talking about a linear process of one cause equals one effect. So rather than looking for so-called the enigmatic “scientific proof” per se, I think that we rather should be doing is building a plausible theoretical structure from what we already know is happening and then conduct further research based on this to fill in the gaps. That would be the most logical and efficient manner to go about this. Having said that, on the other hand, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that “the-powers-that-be” are using science (and their scientists-for-hire) to create a smoke screen to deceive the public about the problem. Fortunately, (though unfortunately for them) the public is starting to catch on to their deceptive tactics.

  4. It is commonly accepted fact that the most important evidence concerning health effects of environmental pollutants is coming from the epidemiological studies. It is also a commonly accepted fact that the larger the epidemiological study is the more reliable statistical analysis can be done. Meaning, the results are more reliable.

    When considerin the cell phone radiation, the two largest epidemiology studies are a complete failure. Money and time have been wasted without producing any reliable results. Some thoughts about it you find in my blog “It’s the epidemiology, stupid!”.

    This is my brief answer to your claim that we have enough information. We do not have. And how long it will take to get it? As long as the considered to be top notch epidemiologists do not design and execute study that will be reliable. As I said earlier, the two largest epidemiology studies were total failure.

  5. Please post the following and delete the previous post. I found some typos and made corrections.

    I think there is enough research out there for us to be able to build a comprehensive theory with regards to what kind of health effects we are seeing and what is causing them. One problem seems to be the fact that we have people doing research who have not really done an extensive review of previous research. Another problem is that industry funds researchers to try to discredit any research it doesn`t like. And then we have people mistakenly coming to the conclusion that the research is inconclusive. One of industry`s tactics used in order to delay any action is to call for more research. Researchers don`t mind this because it is how they get their funding. Certainly we need research to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, but we do not need the industry-funded “manufactured” research, whose only purpose seems to war game honest researchers` studies. Hence, I do not agree with the following statement:

    “As of now we have only indications of potential health risks but we are missing reliable evidence proving them. ”

    And what would constitute “reliable” evidence?

    And how much longer do you think it would take in order to get this “reliable” evidence?

    I think whether you agree or not with the above statement may depend in part on one`s epistemological leanings (and probaly also on whether or not you are a pathological liar). In other words, are you an empiricist, positivist, reductionist, rationalist etc.? My own epistemological leanings are more in line with constructivism, holism, experiential learning theory, and radical empiricism. Hence, if we look at the big picture of this complex system without ignoring anything, if we look at the individual empirical studies and see how they fit together, if we look at all the individual anecdotal experiences, if we look at the true reasons researchers have for conducting research, if we look at the economics, the politics, the media, the military-electronics-academic-industrial complex, we can start to use a logic to put the pieces of the puzzle together here.

    Our governments, which are supposed to protect the populace , have failed us around the world. Their number one goal has been to seemingly protect the corporations. People are getting sick from this technology and they are even more sick of the fact that people in places of power are trying to conveniently deny — or unacknowledge — the fact that they are indeed getting sick.

  6. More research??!!

    The “organizations and experts” you mention that speak with authority that there will never be any health effects need to either be ignored, exposed as fraudulent or in collusion with industry. There are many reputable organizations and experts round the world that have documented a large body of evidence justifying the need for taking precautions NOW. Waiting until scientists reach consensus on a “smoking gun” may put millions or billions of people at risk for long-term health effects.

    It is unconscionable to allow the wireless industry to carry on with “business as usual” while our regulatory agencies are actively engaged in facilitating greater expansion of our global wireless infrastructure. The FCC argues against updating their 15 year old obsolete and faulty safety standards for testing wireless devices. This is a trillion dollar industry; corporate interests run our government.

    How much longer will we keep calling for more research?

  7. Paul, you are so right! Check out the Montgomery County Telecommunications committee link on the county website to see the proliferation of antennae and cell towers over the past couple of years. You can also check your home and business address on antennasearch.com to check the number of antennae and cell towers in a four mile radius of the address — to begin to appreciate the number and intensity of wifi signals we (adults and children) are each subjected to on a daily basis — 24/7 — in addition to those signals we inflict upon ourselves through home routers and personal use of our own devices.

  8. Congratulations on taking up this issue! It has been in desperate need of a media spokesperson. Hopefully you can assemble a network of those of us concerned with this issue who have professional expertise and/or research information and knowledgeable contacts as a resource to this public blog. In 2010 the mayor of San Francisco announced that cell phone providers would be required to provide radio freq data to mobile purchasers and the city has apparently launched a public information campaign on cell phone use and public health . . . in October 2011 the mayor of Paris announced a moratorium on cell towers in the city . . . what do they know that Ike Leggett, Martin O’Malley, and the other public officials throughout the Washington area either do not know, or do not care to acknowledge?

  9. I am why we need protective laws. I started to feel the ill effects of emf/wireless technology about 5 years ago . . . we purchased a house in OC and I started to use my cell phone more often and for longer periods of time — 20 min conversations vs. 2 or 3 minutes locally. At the time, there were few cell towers between the Eastern Shore and DC . . . the phone would heat up in my hand . . . I began to notice a nerve buzz in my head, and driving back and forth to DC I began to become sensitive to heavy powerlines overhead and cell towers in the distance. With the proliferation of cell towers in the area, I am in a constant state of “body buzz” . . . only now, in the vicinity of a strong wifi signals, it is like someone has pulled the battery from my body — my upper body goes weak. The medical term is “electrosensitivity” — or, since all of our bodies function on electrical currents , “electrohypersensitivity”. The medical research — with cautionary results — is coming out of Europe and Canada, not the U.S. At the moment, I can’t even tolerate to be in the vicinty of a blackberry or “smart” phone. Based on my own experience — and the widespread use among young people of wireless technology (cellphones, laptops, home routers, wifi in university dormitories), we are looking at a MAJOR public health crisis in the coming decades. Serious scientist researching this area are looking at everything from insomnia to ADD to ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and other neuromuscular disorders to effects on DNA and reproduction. And with the race to implement all this technology in Montgomery County — from elementary schools and preschools through high schools, as well as throughout the entire community, we will be hard hit when we start seeing and feeling the effects.

  10. This was my first column posted just last night. I am not aware of how comments are accepted but I will check on it… and yes, YOUR COMMENT IS THERE…

    We need justification for further research because there are organizations and experts telling that we have enough information to say that there will never be any health effect. So, we need to bring our quality reasons that will dismiss such claims.

    As it was my first column and as the lenght of it is limited to some 1000 words, I was not able to write everything about everything. But do not worry, next Sunday night will came out next column and so on as long as I will be allowed to keep this weekly column… Patiency, please.

  11. While I agree that we need “different research I am not so sure about the laws. In order to be able to efficiently introduce protecting laws we need to know why we need protection. As of now we have only indications of potential health risks but we are missing reliable evidence proving them. I know that you will disagree and that is why this blog is called ad it is called “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”. 😉

  12. They have been calling for more research since the 1970s, when we already had enough research showing the adverse effects on our health from this technology. While we may indeed need more research, we do not need the same research showing us what we already know — and we do not need the kind of research sponsored by the industry to try to discredit the honest independent researchers out there and confuse the issue. What we need now more than anything else are laws to protect us from this radiation and laws which allow us to protect ourselves. We do not need laws like the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which only protects industry`s profits and which legally (though criminally) took our ability to protect ourselves away from us. This undemocratic law needs to be rescinded. We need ACTION Now!

  13. Looks like the Post won’t let interesting comments through. Here was mine posted many hours ago, but apparently censored out. Why write for such a newspaper?
    I’d like to know how the writer legitimizes his expansive ‘We’, as in “cannot imagine life without these gadgets”. A few years with a gadget, redundant really for almost everything done with it, and one’s imagination & creativity sinks so low?

    Re “myth” 1: “Health” “authorities” extrapolate all the time. Not all frequencies or modulation patterns are tested, but a regulatory agency still feels able to issue a guideline for a whole range — why is that then? What kind of level of exactitude is enough for this writer’s epistemology? And why confuse a scientist’s use of the verb, ‘know’, with usage closer to the everyday one, upon which public policy must be based?

    “Myth” 2: What about Rf hearing, Frey effect, microwave auditory effect? Why not talk about that? The three myths propagated about this well-established microwave radiation bio-effect: that it is only induced at “high” power levels, it is merely transient, and is non-adverse. All three are readily disprovable. (And claims of sufficiency for the thermoelastic expansion explanation for the effect are ludicrous.) Further, what sense was there ever in focus on thermal effect within the brain? We feel no pain or heat there as in other parts of the body – in the brain we get a ‘sonic’ warning instead. (On one interesting, and by inference gruesome, aspect of the heating focus business, see veteran researcher A. Marino’s blog item at http://andrewamarino.com/blog/?m=20111003 .)

    No excuse is needed for “doing more research”. But neither is there one for not condemning the entirety of cell telephony & associated wireless, given the atrocious history, plentiful accounts of suffering, and more corroborative research than for any other public health matter.


  14. As an expert in electromagnetic pollution, people have noticed if they are informed regularly is more interested in a topic the subject of wireless cellular telephony is increasing concern about and see that it is more lucrative to put wireless antenna cable optical fiber, since it requires more investment, by now twenty-one century almost everything is wireless in the house and offices, metro buses, trains, planes, parks and even automobiles, will bring unimaginable consequences, I hope your articles on this topic more information http://www.gigahertz.es

  15. Pingback: New weekly column on cell phones and health | EMFacts Consultancy

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