Elektrosmog - FORUM

[Infozentrale]

From _The Washington Post_:

By John Donnelly
Special to _The Washington Post_
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/12/AR2010021204438.html?hpid=sec-health
Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Lisa Oakley knows that some studies on long-term use of cellphones suggest an increased correlation with cancerous tumors. And she knows of a couple of people who have had brain tumors, and wonders whether their cellphones had anything to do with it.

Still, the Chevy Chase, D.C., mother, didn't think long about health hazards when she bought a phone last year for her 12-year-old son, Will. For one thing, several other studies have shown no health risks at all. And for another, Will rarely holds the phone to his head. He holds it in his hands, sending text messages to friends.

"He never talks on it, and I think this is true with a lot of kids, they seem to just text," Oakley said. "It would be different if I did see my son talk on the phone all the time. But there are a lot of questions. Are some cellphones worse than others? . . . What about living near a cellphone tower? I would love it if there were definitive data out there."

A long-awaited study by the International Agency for Cancer Research -- an arm of the World Health Organization -- will attempt to give the world's billions of cellphone users a better informed perspective; the findings are now in the midst of peer review for publication. The so-called Interphone study looks at the results of published national studies in 13 countries (the list includes Canada, eight European nations, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Israel, but not the United States) to assess whether radio-frequency radiation exposure from cellphones is associated with cancer risk.

The international study, though, will hardly be the last word. Now in motion is a 10-year, $25 million research project by the U.S. government. It will soon beam 10 hours' worth of cellphone radio waves daily into specially designed stainless-steel containers housing rats and mice to ?????????? whether cellphones pose any health risk. Preliminary results are expected in two to three years.

The truth is that after nearly two decades of widespread cellphone use, "we don't know if cellphones pose a health risk," said Michael Wyde, a toxicologist at the National Toxicity Program in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and the project leader on the ongoing U.S. study. "Everyone has to make their own decision on whether to limit exposures or not."

But some things can be explained. One of them is how cellphones work.

When you turn on your phone, it searches for a signal from a base station. When you place a call, the phone converts voice into a digital signal -- an electronic code -- that is packaged and sent via base stations such as towers to another cellphone, where it is converted back to voice. This electronic transfer uses radio-frequency, which is a form of electromagnetic radiation.

It is a non-ionizing form of radiation -- or low-frequency radiation that is not known to be associated with cancer risk. (Ionizing radiation, on the other hand, can pose a cancer risk at high levels of exposure; one example is X-ray machines.) The low level of energy from cellphone radio waves is not believed to be able to alter molecules in the body.

The WHO, American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration have not found from their review of studies that wireless devices are a public health risk -- but the organizations also welcome more comprehensive research. According to the NCI, studies suggest that the cellphone's radio waves are "too low to produce significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, more research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing (radio frequency) energy has on the body and whether it poses a health danger."

The cellphone industry, which has funded several of its own studies, believes there shouldn't be a concern. "The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," said John Walls, vice president for public affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, in a statement to The Post. "In addition, there is no known mechanism for microwave energy within the limits established by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to cause any adverse health effects."

It cites multiple scientists vouching for cellphones' safety. But scientists are not in lock step. For instance, Ronald Herberman, former director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, testified before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy in September 2008 that there needed to be more research on the issue. Herberman, now chief medical officer at Intrexon Corp., a biotech company based in Germantown, said that electromagnetic fields from cellphones could penetrate more deeply into the brains of children, compared with adults', because of children's thinner skulls. "I cannot tell this committee that cellphones are definitely dangerous," Herberman said then. "But I certainly cannot tell you that they are safe."

That uncertainty has started to draw the attention of some policymakers. In San Francisco, for instance, Mayor Gavin Newsom is pushing for his city to be the first requiring warnings that cellphones may pose a health risk. In Maine, state legislator Andrea Boland recently introduced legislation that requires manufacturers to use a warning label that says: "This device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body."

Boland said in an interview that she grew concerned after reading the results from a Swedish study in 2004 of 752 people that suggested regular use of a mobile phone for more than a decade was associated with a slightly elevated risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign tumor behind the ear and under the brain. (A Danish study of 437 people, in contrast, showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term use of cellphones. She also noted that several European countries have taken steps to discourage cellphone use by children because of health concerns.

"I absolutely believe there is a risk," Boland said. "In Maine, we have 15,000 live births a year, and to think these prospective new parents -- hoping for a healthy, happy baby and growing period -- don't know that their using the cellphone close to where that fetus is developing could result in possible cancers, birth defects, is a crime."

Where does this leave the user of cellphones?

From random, unscientific interviews in one Washington suburb -- outside an Apple store, where one of the draws was its highly touted iPhone -- the conclusion was decidedly mixed.

For some it was an active concern. "Every time I use my cell, I hold it out here," said Robin Jahncke, 26, of Bethesda, who demonstrated by holding her arm far from her head and body.

Jahncke was pregnant, due in two months. She said she has used a cellphone for 12 years, since age 14. But now, pregnant, it's different.

"It makes me nervous," she said. "I use the speakerphone as much as I can. I keep it away from my body. I try to use it very little. But there's no denying we're completely dependent on them."

Suzy Kelly, in her 50s and also of Bethesda, doesn't think of a possible health risk at all when using her BlackBerry. "I'm waiting until the studies come out," she said. She suggested that manufacturers sell a headset with each phone -- as a way of acknowledging the uncertainty around the issue and also to make it easier for consumers.

Maurice Whitehead, 46, meanwhile, wondered what the fuss was about. "Everything is a risk. I'm a bodyguard. That's risky. You got to have a life. Cellphones don't scare me."

Same story for banker Jason Borras -- sort of. "I never think about it, it's the least of my worries," said Borras, who is 28. "Except, well, except that some studies say there may be a risk of your sperm count going down if you put your phone in your pocket. Now that would worry me."

Wyde, the scientist overseeing the 10-year study, is confident that more definitive answers on health risks and cellphones will be forthcoming. He said teams of scientists rigorously designed its lab study to mimic human use.

The studies involving 3,000 rats and mice in a Chicago lab will have cellphone radio waves passing through the containers for 10 hours daily. They will track newborn to elderly rats and mice.

"Our exposure is getting to be cradle to grave," Wyde said. "Your mother is using the cellphone with the baby in her belly, and my grandmother is using her cellphone."

And Wyde? What about his cellphone? The scientist cannot give his up. "I have become more cognizant of my cellphone usage, but I have not changed . . . my habits."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/12/AR2010021204438.html?hpid=sec-health

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1260

[forum_admin]

From AlterNet:

Posted by Daniela Perdomo at 8:16 pm
February 16, 2010

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=
HgmLee7VBzo8KTM4359QXaiknHN0W2OI (Copy  paste entire link into your
browser)

The Safest (and Most Dangerous) Cell Phones

Exerpt:

A couple weeks ago I wrote an article titled “Could Your Cell Phone
End Up Killing You?,” which resulted in a flooded inbox, consisting
mostly of folks telling me stories of what they believe is anecdotal
proof that cell phone use had caused tumors, both malignant and
benign. And there were, of course, a couple who believe the research I
cited was much ado about nothing. (A former boss told me cell phone
radiation had reversed Alzheimer’s in mice.) My piece mentioned that
electromagnetic pollution surround us all the time. Cell phones are a
major purveyor of particularly dangerous levels of radiation, due to
their being so close to our heads and bodies most of the time, but
electromagnetic radiation comes from all sources — wi-fi,
satellites, GPS, microwaves, and more. As a result, I felt it was
necessary to point out a few recommendations that might lower your
exposure:

SNIP

For the full article go to:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c
=HgmLee7VBzo8KTM4359QXaiknHN0W2OI (Copy  paste entire link into your
browser)

ttp://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1261
_________________
Forum Admin

[forum_admin]

#1218: Listen to interview with Dr. David Carpenter on KMJ's Morning News about EMFs.

On Feb 15, 2010 in the _Los Angeles Times_ Dr. David Carpenter, one of
the authors of the Bioinitiative report, was quoted by reporter Chris
Woolston as apparently having a very dismissive viewpoint towards cell
phone use and the condition of electrosensitivity. If we are to
believe the reporter Carpenter is of the opinion that "there's no good
evidence that cellphones can cause headaches and other vague
complaints", and that "I'm not sure electrosensitivity is real."
Link (Copy  paste into your browser):
latimes.com/features/health/la-he-electromagnetic-syndrome1-2010feb
15,0,801515.story

HOWEVER, Woolston's article is at odds with what Dr. Carpenter said on
KMJ Radio after the LA Times article:
Link: http://kmj580.com/common/global_audio/174/16704.mp3

Is this an example of creative editing on the part of the LA Times by
selectively quoting parts to fit in with whatever agenda the newspaper
has?

Whatever the case, listen to Dr. Carpenter on KMJ Radio for his own
words:

Link: http://kmj580.com/common/global_audio/174/16704.mp3

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1262
_________________
Forum Admin

[Infozentrale]

#1219: Toyota calls in Exponent Inc. as hired gun

This story was sent in by Cindy Sage:

-------------------
Toyota calls in Exponent Inc. as hired gun
-------------------

The California engineering firm is known for helping big corporations weather messy disputes. It denies accusations that it skews results to benefit its clients.

By Ken Bensinger and Ralph Vartabedian

February 18 2010

When some of the world's best-known companies faced disputes over secondhand smoke, toxic waste in the jungle and asbestos, they all turned to the same source for a staunch defense: Exponent Inc.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18,0,6775660.story

Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1263
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

#1220:Extensive report on Toyota vehicle recall

Sent in by Alasdair Philips, Powerwatch:

First page from the 9 page report:

Link: http://www.nutwooduk.co.uk/downloads/Toyota.doc

*Toyota “sticking pedals” recall is a smokescreen*

Their sudden unintended acceleration problem is caused by electronics
either due to EMI, lead-free soldering or software “bugs”

By EurIng Keith Armstrong FIET, C.Eng, ACGI, www.cherryclough.com
phone/fax: +44 (0)1785 660 247, 13th February 2010
Contents
1 US Government’s NHTSA contacted me for advice on EMI and Toyota
electronics 1
2 CTS pedal replacement could not have saved Mark Saylor and his
family 2
3 It is difficult/impossible to stop a runaway vehicle with the brakes
2
4 EMI generally leaves no trace of a “defect” after an incident 2
4.1 Why no “defect” can be found afterwards 2
4.2 “Latch-up” as a possible cause 3
4.3 What kind of misoperations can occur? 4
4.4 “Black Box” data recorders 4
4.5 Redundancy 4
4.6 Lack of evidence proves nothing 4
5 Complex electronics cannot be reliable enough for safety-critical
systems 4
6 EMC testing cannot prove EM immunity for safety-critical systems 5
7 Auto electronics do not employ safety principles that have been
commonplace, even mandatory, in many other industries for decades 6
7.1 “Fail safes” must be independent systems 6
7.2 Making the driver the back-up for vehicle control failure is bad
practice 7
8 Standards 7
9 Lead-free soldering 7
9.1 Tin whiskers 8
9.2 Brittle solder joints 8
9.3 Tin Pest 8
9.4 Higher soldering temperatures can weaken components 8
10 Software 9
11 References 9

1 US Government’s NHTSA contacted me for advice on EMI and Toyota
electronics
The US Government’s National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA)
has been wanting to speak to me for some weeks, to discuss the EMI
implications of Toyota’s spate of sudden unintended acceleration
incidents. They said they wanted to speak to me because they had
no-one on their staff with my experience or knowledge of EMI and EMC.
I imagine the fact that I’ve been presenting IEEE EMC Symposium
papers on EMC and Functional Safety since 2001, including one
addressed to the auto industry at a symposium in Detroit in 2008,
played a part in their decision.

SNIP

Full report at: http://www.nutwooduk.co.uk/downloads/Toyota.doc

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1264

[Infozentrale]

#1221: Long-term and intensive mobile phone use may cause inner ear damage

From Sylvie Hsem

Published in Drug Week

Life Sciences; Study findings from Postgraduate Institute of Medical
Education and Research broaden understanding of life sciences

2010 FEB 26 - (NewsRx.com) --- Researchers detail in 'Audiologic
disturbances in long-term mobile phone users,' new data in life
sciences. "There is general concern regarding the possible hazardous
health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation
emitted from mobile phones. This study aimed to assess the effects of
chronic exposure to electromagnetic waves emitted from Global System
for Mobile Communication (GSM) mobile phones on auditory functions,"
scientists in Chandigarh, India report.

"A retrospective, cross-sectional, randomized, case control study was
carried out in a tertiary care hospital. One hundred twelve subjects
who were long-term mobile phone users (more than 1 year) and 50
controls who had never used a mobile phone underwent a battery of
audiologic investigations including pure-tone audiometry (both speech
and high frequency), tympanometry, distortion product otoacoustic
emissions, auditory brain responses, and middle latency responses.
Changes in the various parameters were studied in the mobile phone-and
non-mobile phone-using ears of subjects and corresponding ears of the
controls to ascertain the effects of electromagnetic exposure. There
was no significant difference between users and controls for any of
the audiologic parameters. However, trends for audiologic
abnormalities were seen within the users. High-frequency loss and
absent distortion product otoacoustic emissions were observed with an
increase in the duration of mobile phone use, excessive use of mobile
phones, and age more than 30 years. Additionally, users with some
complaints during mobile phone use demonstrated absent distortion
product otoacoustic emissions and abnormalities in auditory brainstem
response. Long-term and intensive mobile phone use may cause inner ear
damage," wrote N.K. Panda and colleagues, Postgraduate Institute of
Medical Education and Research.

The researchers concluded: "A large sample size would be required to
reach definitive conclusions."

Panda and colleagues published their study in the Journal of
Otolaryngology - Head  Neck Surgery = Le Journal
D'oto-Rhino-Laryngologie Et De Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale (Audiologic
disturbances in long-term mobile phone users. Journal of
Otolaryngology - Head  Neck Surgery = Le Journal
D'oto-Rhino-Laryngologie Et De Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale,
2010;39(1):5-11).

For additional information, contact N.K. Panda, Postgraduate Institute
of Medical Education and Research, Dept. of Otolaryngology,
Chandigarh, India.

This article was prepared by Drug Week editors from staff and other
reports. Copyright 2010, Drug Week via NewsRx.com.

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1265

[Infozentrale]

#1222: Yet another Toowong ABC breast cancer case

From Jack Verbank:

Link:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/another-abc-breast-cancer-case/story-e6frg6nf-1225833225484

Another ABC breast cancer case

AN 18th woman who worked at the ABC's former Brisbane headquarters has
been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Amarita Kinnoo, 44, worked in the ABC TV newsroom for seven years in
the 1990s as a news and current affairs journalist.

The broadcaster abandoned its studios at Toowong, in the city's inner
west, in late 2006 because of the breast cancer cluster.

ABC Queensland news editor Bernard Bowen said the panel investigating
the cluster was aware of the latest diagnosis.

"It is still a source of frustration to us all that no cause has ever
been established . . . and in all probability won't ever be," Bowen
said yesterday.

[ Don's comment: Bowan is right there, considering how hard the so
called expert panel worked on avoiding a thorough investigation into
the possible ELF connection in spite of advice that such an
investigation was needed. ]

An ABC spokeswoman said the organisation's response to the issue
continued to be guided by an independent panel of experts. "The ABC
has worked closely with the panel over the past few years to ensure
the best care for those affected by the breast cancer cluster," she
said.

[Don's comment: ABC management knows a good thing when they see
it...... No worries about litigation as long as a possible cause
remains blissfully unknown with no trade union willing to take a stand
on the issue for the sake of worker health in other ABC studios and
similar workplaces.]

For another independent viewpoint on what the ABC expert panel should
have investigated see: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/toowong.pdf

Don

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1266
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

#1223: Popular Science on electrosensitivity

From Lana:

Popular Science (online)

The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves
By James Geary Posted 15.02.2010 at 9:36 am

Link: http://www.popsci.com.au/science/article/2010-02/disconnected

Exerpts from the 4 page article:

Your cellphone does not in itself cause cancer. But in the daily sea
of radiation we all travel, there may be subtler dangers at work, and
science is only just beginning to understand how they can come to
affect people like Per Segerbäck so intensely

Per Segerbäck lives in a modest cottage in a nature reserve some 75
miles northeast of Stockholm. Wolves, moose and brown bears roam
freely past his front door. He keeps limited human company, because
human technology makes him physically ill. How ill? On a walk last
summer, he ran into one of his few neighbors, a man who lives in a
cottage about 100 yards away. During their chat, the man’s cellphone
rang, and Segerbäck, 54, was overcome by nausea. Within seconds, he
was unconscious.

Segerbäck suffers from electro-hypersensitivity (EHS), which means he
has severe physical reactions to the electromagnetic radiation
produced by common consumer technologies, such as computers,
televisions and cellphones. Symptoms range from burning or tingling
sensations on the skin to dizziness, nausea, headaches, sleep
disturbance and memory loss. In extreme cases like Segerbäck’s,
breathing problems, heart palpitations and loss of consciousness can
result.

SNIP

Segerbäck was once an elite telecommunications engineer. He worked
for Ellemtel, a division of the Swedish telecom giant Ericsson, for
more than 20 years, leading an engineering group that designed
advanced integrated circuits for prototype telecommunication systems.
He used the newest and most advanced computer and telecom equipment
available, the kind of stuff only Ericsson and the Swedish military
had access to. He was, as a result, up to his eyeballs in a
non-ionizing radiation bath, from computers, fluorescent lights and
the telecom antenna located right outside his window.

He noticed his first symptoms—dizziness, nausea, headaches, burning
sensations and red blotches on his skin—in the late 1980s, a decade
into his telecommunications research work. All but two of the 20 or so
other members of his group reported similar symptoms, he says,
although his were by far the most severe. His EHS worsened and now, he
says, even radar from low-flying aircraft can set it off. Segerbäck
is convinced that the perfect storm of EMFs in his office, combined
with potentially toxic fumes from his brand-new computer, were
responsible for his condition. “The company doctors didn’t
understand what was going on,” he says.

Agne Fredriksson, who managed Segerbäck’s group at Ellemtel and
retired from Ericsson in 2006, says a commonly reported symptom was
“a feeling of heat in the face,” which everyone attributed to the
new computer workstations. When members of Segerbäck’s group
started calling in sick and people from other departments began
reporting similar symptoms, Fredriksson recalls, “that’s when we
started to look into what could be done about it. There was a lot of
worry from the groups in which people reported the most symptoms.”

A new office space was created for the worst-affected employees; about
half a dozen people shared this fully shielded room. Others switched
to different computer workstations, while others managed by spending
less time in front of their screens. No one had ever encountered
anything like it before. “Why are we so special?” Fredriksson
remembers wondering. He later learned that other companies faced
similar situations at the time, although that information remained
internal.

Ericsson went to great lengths to keep Segerbäck, a key member of the
firm’s design team, on the job. In the early 1990s, the company
installed metal shields around his bedroom and study at home so he
could sleep and work without radiation exposure. To enable him to go
outside, medical authorities gave Segerbäck an EMF-resistant suit
like the ones worn by engineers working in close proximity to live
telecom towers and high-voltage power lines. The firm even modified a
Volvo so he could travel safely to and from work. His commutes ended
when cellphone towers began to spring up around Stockholm in the
mid-1990s, eventually forcing his retreat to the woods.

In 1993 Ericsson produced a report, “Hypersensitivity in the
Workplace,” about what happened at Segerbäck’s lab. In the
foreword, Ellemtel’s vice president Örjan Mattsson and
administrative chief Torbjörn Johnson wrote: “A new problem in the
work environment has appeared: hypersensitivity. When dealing with
traditional occupational injury, as a rule you can establish a cause
and effect relationship. Not so with regard to hypersensitivity. When
the first serious cases occurred at Ellemtel at the end of the 1980s,
we were not prepared. Soon, we came to look upon hypersensitivity as a
serious threat to the company business. . . . We started wondering if
we were faced with a modern-day scourge.”

SNIP

Go to the link above for the full article.

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1267
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

#1224: Comments on Popular Science's electrosensitivity article and REFLEX findings

From Dr. Grahame Blackwell re. last message:

Very good overall.
But I seriously question the statement "Your cellphone does not in
itself cause cancer." This is in direct conflict with findings of the
REFLEX Project, which reported multiple replications of double-strand
DNA chain breaks at exposure to cellphone-type radiation within
official 'safety' levels. Double-strand DNA chain breaks CAUSE
cancer.

The REFLEX studies were carried out on groups of living cells in Petri
dishes. As the leader of the project stated: these results don't
prove conclusively that such radiation poses serious health risks to
humans - but it is strongly indicative of such a possibility (almost
his exact words).
Even more explicitly, the study's Summary on 'Genotoxic Effects'
(which can be broadly interpreted as 'effects likely to cause
cancer'): “Based on the methodology used and the data obtained in
the REFLEX study, the findings on genotoxicity caused by RF-EMF are
hard facts.”
How one can state definitively in the face of such evidence "Your
cellphone does not in itself cause cancer" is quite beyond me.

I've attached my summary of the REFLEX Study findings, for reference.

A good article - a shame it was slightly marred by such an unwarranted
assertion which goes against the available evidence.

I'm happy for you to circulate this info (with REFLEX summary as
attached) if you consider it appropriate.

Grahame Blackwell

The REFLEX Project Report by Dr G Blackwell
1st Feb 2000 - 31st May 2004

This EU-funded project, undertaken by twelve partner institutions from
seven European countries, published its Final Report in November 2004.

The twelve partners between them conducted a large number of
experiments on human, rat and mouse cells of various types. Roughly
half of those experiments used RF (RadioFrequency) EMFs, as emitted by
mobile phones and masts; the other half used ELF (Extremely Low
Frequency) EMFs as emitted from power lines and similar sources. Both
types of emission were shown to have a number of significant effects
on the behaviour of cells - potentially seriously harmful effects.

Experiments with RF EMFs used 900 MHz and 1800 MHz, as used in GSM
mobile phone systems, at levels within the internationally-accepted
ICNIRP ‘safety’ guide-lines. Most significantly, damage to DNA -
both single-strand and double-strand breaks - were found by at least
three project partners to result from these RF emissions. As cited in
the Report:

“DNA double strand breaks may affect the integrity of the genome
leading to cell death, uncontrolled cell growth or cancer (Van Gent et
al. 2001).”

Participant 3 specifically recorded that:

“RF-EMF generated DNA strand breaks in granulosa cells of rats and
DNA strand breaks and chromosomal aberrations in human
fibroblasts.”...“Our results imply a genotoxic action of RF-EMFs
below proposed radiation safety levels.”

In the Summary on ‘Genotoxic Effects’ the Report states:

“Based on the methodology used and the data obtained in the REFLEX
study, the findings on genotoxicity caused by RF-EMF are hard
facts.”

The REFLEX team record, very responsibly, that all of these many
experiments were conducted ‘in vitro’ (on groups of living cells
in Petri dishes) and so their results cannot be taken as definite
proof of effects in living organisms from RF EMFs below guideline
levels. However, they go on to say:
“They move such an assumption nearer into the range of the
possible.” and:
“Since all these observations were made in in vitro studies, the
results obtained neither preclude nor confirm a health risk due to EMF
exposure, but they speak in favour of such a possibility.”

That last phrase says, in effect: It is more likely than not, on the
basis of these findings, that such health risks exist. [It’s worth
noting here that this responsible attitude contrasts sharply with the
ambitious claims often made of , for example, the DSTL Porton Down
study on TETRA radiation - also conducted ’in vitro’ - that it
‘proves’ that such radiation isn’t harmful to living organisms.
The bias should, if anything, lean the other way: lack of an effect on
isolated cells ’in vitro’ shouldn’t be taken to mean that a far
more complex living organism wouldn’t be affected; whereas clear
evidence of effects on living cells ’in vitro’ is a definite
warning sign as to likely consequences for living organisms.]

The REFLEX research team went on to say:

“Furthermore, there exists no justification anymore to claim, that
we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be
the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind
of chronic diseases in animal and man.“

In other words: The claim, so often peddled out by official sources,
that there are no known mechanisms by which radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation could cause illness, is no longer tenable.
The following text lists some of the “Conclusions based on the
findings obtained in RF EMF research” listed in the REFLEX Report:

“RF-EMF produced genotoxic effects in fibroblasts, HL-60 cells,
granulosa cells of rats and neural progenitor cells derived from mouse
embryonic stem cells (Paticipants 2, 3 and 4). Cells responded to
RF-EMF exposure between SAR levels of 0.3 and 2 W/kg with a
significant increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and in
micronuclei frequency (Participants 2 and 3). Chromosomal aberrations
in fibroblasts were also observed after RF-EMF exposure (Participant
3). In HL-60 cells an increase in the intracellular generation of free
radicals accompanying RF-EMF exposure could clearly be demonstrated
(Participant 2).“... “There is some indication that RF-EMF may
affect the growth arrest and DNA damage inducible gene GADD45 and the
neuronal differentiation by inhibition of Nurr1 in neural progenitor
cells (Participant 4).“... "There is some indication that RF-EMF may
have some influence on the bcl-2 mediated anti-apoptotic pathway in
neural progenotor cells (Participant 4) and on the the p38MAPK/hsp27
stress response pathway in endothelial cells of human origin
(Participant 6) which may in turn exert an inhibitory effect on
apoptosis.“

[Note: ‘apoptosis’ is ‘programmed cell death’ - the body’s
own defence mechanism that kills off cells that are malformed or
running out of control, a natural protection against possibly
cancerous cells. Inhibition of this process is thus bad news.]

“The results of the whole genome cDNA micro-array and proteomic
analyses indicated that [RF] EMF may activate several groups of genes
that play a role in cell division, cell proliferation and cell
differentiation (Participants 2, 6 and 12).”

External activation of such crucial groups of genes needs no further
comment.

Finally, under “Policy-Related Benefits”, the REFLEX Report has
this to say:

“The policy related benefits of the REFLEX project consist in the
fact that new knowledge has been generated independent of whether one
likes it or not. ... the overall objective of REFLEX was to find out
whether or not the fundamental biological processes at the cellular
and molecular level support such an assumption [public fear of health
effects]. For this purpose, possible effects of EMFs on cellular
events controlling key functions, including those involved in
carcinogenesis and in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders,
were studied through focussed research.
Failure to observe the occurrence of such key critical events in
living cells after EMF exposure would have suggested that further
research efforts in this field could be suspended and financial
resources be reallocated to the investigation of more important
issues. But as clearly demonstrated, the results of the REFLEX project
show the way into the opposite direction.”
(My emphasis)

More on this subject, including Professor Ross Adey’s excellent
foreword on the proper conduct of fundamental research, also news
reports, on the Powerwatch website: www.powerwatch.org.uk .
The full REFLEX Report can be downloaded as a PDF File (10.8 Mb) via a
link on Powerwatch.
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp

Dr Grahame Blackwell

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1268

[Infozentrale]

#1225:Updated EWG Cellphone Radiation Guide now available

From the Environmental Working Group (US):

Link:
http://action.ewg.org/salsa/track.jsp?v=2c=f23r6k9SQK8VM2BacQ7xPw%2B2

UmMRaUnH

EWG has brought to light important new science showing potential
health risks linked to long-term cell phone use. Now, with EWG's new
Cell Phone Radiation Guide you can check your cell phone's radiation
ranking and learn how to use it wisely.

It's easy to be smart with EWG's Cell Phone Radiation Guide

Our Cell Phone Radiation Guide has been extremely popular since we
released it in October, because it gives consumers exactly the
information needed to choose and use cell phones wisely. You can:
1 See how the hottest new phones of 2010 rank
2 Look up your phone's radiation level
3 Find a low-radiation phone
4 Find a headset
5 Get practical, convenient tips on how to reduce your radiation
6 Take action and tell the government that it's time to modernize
their radiation standards

Have you looked up your cell phone's radiation level in EWG's updated
online guide yet? We just added some of the most talked about phones
new for 2010, like the Motorola Droid, Apple iPhone 3GS, and the LG
Chocolate Touch. Find the radiation levels of these popular new
phones.

Sincerely,

Ken Cook, President
Environmental Working Group
and EWG Action Fund



http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1270
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

From Louis Slesin, Microwave News:

Check out the latest pieces in Time and Popular Science magazines
-and two old ones in Fortune.

See, once again, how so little has
changed.

Go to:
http://www.microwavenews.com

Best,
Louis Slesin

__________________________________________________________
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Phone: +1 (212) 517-2800; Fax: +1 (212) 734-0316
E-mail:
Internet:
Mail: 155 East 77th Street, Suite 3D
New York, NY 10075, U.S.A.

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1271
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

From Sharesa Price:

I'm sorry Louis, but a lot of things have changed in the last 10
years. The phones have changed, the manuals have changed. Most of all
the public awareness has changed. People are waking up to the fact,
these cell phones can promote tumor growth, and other health effects.
That is a fact. Just because people don't want to think they have been
lied to. The thing that hasn't changed is the deny, deny. The
industry, and media, paid off doctors, public relations companies,
FCC, FDA,etc. As long as they all stick to the same story. They think
they are winning. Truth is the side we all walk on here. Protecting
our children from this microwave emitting device, got lost at the
hearing I thought. That is the part that has to change. Don't forget
this part. 10 Years ago, we would not even thought of giving our kids
a cell phone. Now, they can get one on their own. Most of them use it
for all the wrong reasons..

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1273
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

From Iris Atzmon:

This is related to the latest microwave news item. Sharesa Price won a
lawsuit against the cellular company where she worked and exposed to
cell phones and got brain tumor. I think what has changed is more
studies and more data, but at the same time with a price of more
technology exposure. So it somehow "balanced" one each other, at the
bottom line it maybe means that nothing really has changed, from the
aspect of making an advance in the bigger picture. The public
awareness is mainly a result of information from studies penetrating
despite the bribe of the media, but the against the argument that the
public is more aware the opposite is also true: the public awareness
is really not what it should be, and the proof for this is in the
exposure and level of use of these devices, or if you wish, simply the
profits of the companies. Profits are a measure for awareness (or lack
of it). The risk of brain tumor is quite obvious for those who want
to make 1+1 but mathematics has never been harder for the public than
in this period of time...

Iris

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1274
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

#1229: Correction to last message on the Sharesa Price brain tumour case

Robert Reidlinger points out that the Sharesa Price brain tumour case
was a workers compensation claim and not a claim against the cell
phone company. The judge awarded her $30,000 to pay her medical bills
and other expenses. The importance, even though it was such a small
amount, is that it set a legal precedent that cell phone radiation
could cause a brain tumour. That's why according to Robert that the
industry is fighting so hard to not have the science heard in the
class action lawsuits.

Links to a few articles on the 2008 Sharesa Price brain tumour case:

http://www.articlesbase.com/diseases-and-conditions-articles/brain-tumor-brings-court-victory-for-a-cell-phone-user-384221.html

http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/sfl-otumor02oct02,0,2345506.story

http://earthcaresolutions.net/science.htm

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1275
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

#1230: U.S. Green groups: selling our future for corporate $$$

The Wrong Kind of Green
By Johann Hari

This article appeared in the March 22, 2010 edition of The Nation.
March 4, 2010
Exerpt:

Why did America's leading environmental groups jet to Copenhagen and
lobby for policies that will lead to the faster death of the
rainforests-and runaway global warming? Why are their lobbyists on
Capitol Hill dismissing the only real solutions to climate change as
"unworkable" and "unrealistic," as though they were just another sooty
tentacle of Big Coal?

A look at the most questionable 'green' organizations that are busy
shoveling up hard cash from the world's worst polluters.

At first glance, these questions will seem bizarre. Groups like
Conservation International are among the most trusted "brands" in
America, pledged to protect and defend nature. Yet as we confront the
biggest ecological crisis in human history, many of the green
organizations meant to be leading the fight are busy shoveling up hard
cash from the world's worst polluters-and burying science-based
environmentalism in return. Sometimes the corruption is subtle;
sometimes it is blatant. In the middle of a swirl of bogus climate
scandals trumped up by deniers, here is the real Climategate, waiting
to be exposed.

SNIP

For the full article go to:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1272
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

Sent in by Iris Atzmon:

The Telegraph (UK)

Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/7467200/Rehab-clinic-for-

children-internet-and-technology-addicts-founded.html

Rehab clinic for children internet and technology addicts founded
Britain's first internet rehab clinic has been founded amid fears
children
as young as 12 are addicted to the web, computer games and mobile
phones.

By Andrew Hough

18 Mar 2010

School children on computers: Rehab clinic for children internet and
technology addicts founded
The clinic has been founded amid fears that some children were
damaging
their health by their overuse of computers. Photo: ALAMY

Capio Nightingale Hospital, in central London, has launched the first
addiction service which allows young people to go ³cold turkey² from
their
technology compulsion.

The service, which will be offered for children as young as 12, comes
amid
growing concerns about children's behaviour with technology which puts
their
health at risk and has led to police being called to sort out family
disputes.

Children will be forced to go ³cold turkey² from their technology
use as
well as being encouraged to cut out any problem use, such as computer
games,
and restrict the time spent using their phone or computer.

They would also be taught face-to face social skills at a residential
unit.

It also encourages them to think about their relationship with their
phone,
computer games or social networking websites like Facebook and teaches
them
skills to help them to switch off.

The treatment package may also include a look at body image and
physical
health if the addiction has affected the child's confidence, activity
levels
or diet.

The treatment aims to increase off-screen social activities and
improve the
person's confidence in face-to-face situations, the lack of which may
have
made them more susceptible to technology addiction.

Strategies to deal with online problems, like cyber bullying, may also
be
part of intensive in-patient care, group or individual therapy.

Consultant psychiatrist Dr Richard Graham, who is leading the new
addiction
treatment, said services need to "adapt quickly" to help young people
affected by technology addiction - who he dubbed ''screenagers" -
rather
than sticking with the same treatment models used for substance abuse.

He said a growing number of parents had told him about when their
children
flew "into a rage" when they were told to turn off their computer.

Police had even been called to sort out some rows, he added.

Dr Graham said technology addicts, whom were like gambling addicts,
were
hyper-stimulated so they were "always on the alert" and could suffer
withdrawal symptoms like agitation.

"I've been contacted by parents who see their children going into a
rage
when they're told to turn off their computer. Some end up having to
call the
police," he said.

Dr Graham said children played some computer games for the social
contact,
adding: "It gives them a sense of connection so they end up playing
all the
time."

"What we need are official guidelines now on what counts as healthy or

unhealthy use of technology,² he told the London Evening Standard.

"Mental health services need to adapt quickly to the changing worlds
that
young people inhabit, and understand just how seriously their lives
can be
impaired by unregulated time online, on-screen or in-game.

"We have found that many of the existing services fail to recognise
the
complexity of these situations, borrowing from older models of
addiction and
substance misuse to very limited effect.

"This is why Capio Nightingale Hospital has launched the first Young
Person
Technology Addiction Service, which we hope will address the
underlying
causes of this addiction to transform screenagers back into
teenagers."

Other clinics, including The Priory, offer treatment for internet
addiction
but have no dedicated service for young people.

A spokeswoman said the service will be offered for children as young
as 12
but those aged 15 to 17 are expected to be the main target group.

She said the service did not aim to make children give up technology
use
completely, instead they are encouraged to cut out any problem use -
like
computer games - and restrict the time spent using their phone or
computer.

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1276
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

#1233: DECT signals affects the heart

From Magda Havas:

Hello Everyone,

Please watch this 7-minute video on youtube that I made yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EI9fZX4iwwfeature=channel

It provides unequivocal evidence that the radiation from a cordless
(DECT) phone interferes with the heart. This video provides evidence
that electrohypersensitivity is real, is physical, and may be life
threatening.

It also shows that non-thermal exposure, at levels well below federal
guidelines in most countries (0.3% of the 1000 microW/cm2), has
biological and health effects.

Please share this video with your friends, family, and doctors as they
are the ones who need to know about this to better help their
patients.

-magda

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1278
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

From Georgiy Ostroumov:

The most dangerous sources of microwave radiation

I should like to tell you about the most dangerous sources of
microwave radiation (EMF, RF; electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields, high frequency microwave radiation, etc). I am
seeing that many people are suffering from microwave radiation but
they do not often know about sources (radiating units) of the strong
radiation.

Allow me to introduce briefly myself. I live in Kotka, Finland. I am
a radio engineer, Ph.D. in the field of microwave technique. My skills
are measurements of microwave radiation and reduction of all
radiations (microwave radiations and low frequency fields) from mobile
phones. I am electrosensitive.

European Parliament resolution (on health concerns associated with
electromagnetic fields) was published (2.4.2009). The European
Parliament calls on all parties to follow precautionary principle
(ALARA- As Low As Reasonably Achievable). The European Parliament has
suggested many ways to reduce exposure of the general public to
microwave radiation. It was planned for full frequency range up to 300
GHz. How are the plans being carried out?

The joint statement from the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities
(exposure of the general public to radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields) was quickly published (16.11.2009). It was done only for
radiofrequency range from 10 MHz to 2,500 MHz (2.5 GHz). There is such
opinion in the statement:” According to measurements performed in
all the Nordic countries exposure of the general public to these
background fields is typically far below 1/100th of the exposure
limits. The Nordic authorities therefore at present see no need for a
common recommendation for further actions to reduce these
radiofrequency fields.”

The Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities referred to the exposure
limits of the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection). By the way, we know exposure limits, which are
far below 1/100th of the exposure limits of the ICNIRP.
The joint statement is a half-truth.

Let us say whole truth about microwave radiation.
I can speak to you only about Finland. Finnish Radiation and Nuclear
Safety Authority (STUK) says itself that the background fields are up
to 1/1000-1/200th of the exposure limits of the ICNIRP in some living
places. It means 4,500-22,500 µW/m2. Moreover, STUK recently
evaluated background fields as 1/42th of the exposure limits (in
Turku). But many independent researchers say that a safe level is only
up to 100 µW/m2(indoor). Thus those background fields should be
reduced essentially. A safe level of the background fields for mobile
communication should be within the limits of 0.1 and 10 µW/m2. It is
ALARA-principle for mobile communication (in this case all base
station radiate as low as possible and so do all mobile phones).

The Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities said:”If the number of fixed
antennas is reduced, mobile phones will need to use higher power to
maintain their connection, thereby the exposure of the general public
may increase”.

That needn’t be so. For example, the European Parliament urges the
authorities responsible for authorizing the siting of mobile telephony
antennas to reach agreement, jointly with the operators in that
sector, on the sharing of infrastructure, in order to reduce the
volume thereof and the exposure of the public to microwave radiation.

Is it enough? I should give you my examples.

Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities should carry out at least their
own suggestion (”The Nordic authorities wish to emphasize the fact
that to reduce the total exposure received by the general public from
wireless communication systems, it is necessary to carry out
integrated planning that takes into account radiation emitted both
from fixed antennas and hand-held devices such as mobile phones.”).
It is very important because of strong radiation emitted fixed
antennas of microwave units (see below)! I have to emphasize the fact
that the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities inform correctly about
this problem. But they had better do correctly something. What am I
speaking about? The STUK is the leading organization in the Finnish
project COSMOS (cohort study of mobile phone use and health). As many
as 30,000 persons were engaged in this study. Unfortunately there are
not any measurements of the radiation emitted from fixed antennas in
the Finnish project. Thus this long-term (at least for 10 years) study
is entirely wrong.

But allow me to tell you about the greatest danger. Why did the Nordic
Radiation Safety Authorities speak only about radiations (background
fields) in the radiofrequency range from 10 MHz to 2.5 GHz? I have
measured all background fields in frequency range from 1 MHz to 7 GHz
with spectrum analyzer in my bedroom. Total radiation in frequency
range from 1 MHz to 5 GHz is about 400 µW/m2. Total radiation in
frequency range from 5.725 GHz to 7 GHz is about 130,000 µW/m2. It
means already 1/77th of the exposure limits. Moreover, I measured
radiation in this frequency range in other places of some towns.
Levels of the radiation were 200,000-2,000,000 µW/m2 (1/50th-1/5th of
the exposure limits). Individual unit radiated strongly for a long
time! How about total exposure in those places? Such bad situation is
typical for the towns of South Finland. Thus long-term radiation (the
background fields) in the frequency range from 5.725 GHz to 7 GHz is
doing ecological catastrophe in many towns of Finland.

Exposure of a user to this radiation is as dangerous as exposure of
the user to radiation from his or her mobile phone! Just imagine!
That is why, it is important to carry out measurements of all
background fields (microwave radiations emitted from all fixed
antennas) when health of mobile phone users is studied.

I did not measure all radiations in frequency range from 5 GHz to
5.725 GHz because of radars. I cannot calculate exactly total exposure
in this frequency range because the radars emit strong short pulses
for the time being. By the way, weather radar radiation (peak) in my
bedroom was 230,000 µW/m2 (distance is about 30 km! Frequency range
is 5.5-5.65 GHz). The weather radar irradiates accidentally
neighboring towns too. Perhaps it is dangerous.

There are many various radiating units in the frequency range from
5.725 GHz to 7 GHz. But the most dangerous units for general public
are microwave radio relay links and terrestrial base stations for
satellite communication. These units irradiate people mostly because
of inappropriate installation of antennas. Our predecessors installed
the antennas chiefly out of the towns on high masts (70-100 m). Some
years ago situation was changed. The antennas are being often
installed in the towns on shorts masts (15-30 m) at present. In this
reason exposure of the general public to microwave radiation is
increasing dramatically.

Both radio relay links and terrestrial base stations work in frequency
range above 7 GHz too.

(Who would calculate correctly total exposure to radiation for whole
frequency range? No one from the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities
can do it at present. According to the ICNIRP, correct value of
exposure is only SAR (Specific Absorption Rates-basic restriction
quantity) in frequency range up to 10 GHz. Of course, one can use the
other value-power density (reference level quantity) in this frequency
range, but it does not matter. Correct value of exposure is only power
density (basic restriction quantity) in frequency range above 10 GHz.

Thus one has total exposure in whole frequency range (both below 10
GHz and above 10 GHz), but one has no any possibility to calculate
correctly level of danger! Of course, both all ecological
organizations and some countries, as well as I, have always measured
power density only).

Please note, that radio relay links, terrestrial base stations for
satellite communication and radars may have different frequency ranges
in various countries. For the most part microwave radio relay links
should be replaced with optic fiber and/or free space optic. These
radiations could be reduced to zero without any technical problems. By
the way, booth optic fiber and free space optic often are more
cost-effective than microwave radio relay links are.

All strong radiations should be reduced significantly because exposure
of the general public to these background fields is typically far
above 1/100th of the exposure limits. Level of these radiations might
be reduced to 10 µW/m2. Fortunately there are few living places with
strong radiations in the radiofrequency range from 10 MHz to 2.5 GHz
in Finland. Unfortunately there are many towns with strong radiations
in frequency range above 5.725 GHz in Finland. How about your
countries? We are all in trouble, I am afraid.

Thank you for your attention.

Georgiy Ostroumov g_ostroumov@yahoo.com

P.S. I and my friends had sent our notes about radiations to blogs of
the STUK, afterwards the blogs were removed at all! Nevertheless one
can read our notes, including the STUK censored blogs (mostly in
Finnish) at Link: http://beyondcreativity.blogs.com/

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1279
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

From Katharina Gustavs:

Just recently, I translated an article on compact fluorescent lamps
and their EMF emissions by Wolfgang Maes, the initiator of the
Building Biology Standard. Take a look at the many oscilloscope graphs
and spectrum analyses. The huge harmonic distortions and high flicker
percentages speak for themselves.

http://www.buildingbiology.ca/pdf/2009cflights.pdf

The German branch of the Friends of the Earth (BUND), one of the
largest environmental organizations in Germany, issued a background
paper on compact fluorescent lamps in 2009 when the incandescent lamp
was banned in Europe. The BUND demands that lighting should be safe
both for the environment as well as human health.

Their recommendations for exposure limits apply not only to compact
fluorescent lamps but all lamp types. Any lamp that cannot meet the
TCO limit (VLF: 1 V/m and ELF: 10 V/m at 30 cm) should be taken from
the market. And by 2015 lamps should stay below the target threshold
of 0.2 V/m in the VLF range. For lamps used close to the body, the
BUND suggests a precautionary value of 0.02 V/m. I fully support these
recommendations.

http://www.buildingbiology.ca/cflights_preguide.php

Just for the record, Health Canada released data on EMF emissions of
CFLs this year. The details on the testing procedures have not been
released yet. But for the kHz range (VLF), the worst-case CFL is given
with 126 V/m at 20 cm. This is only 45% of the Safety Code 6 exposure
limit of 280 V/m, but it is 45% above the ICNIRP exposure limit of 87
V/m. Converting the measurements to a 30-cm distance, the CFL emission
level is 56 times higher than the TCO limit of 1 V/m recommended by
the Swedish standard on low-emission computer monitors.

For more details on CFL reports by governments (UK, Switzerland),
check out my comments at:
http://www.buildingbiology.ca/cflights_govrep.php

More information available at:
http://www.buildingbiology.ca/cflights.php

With best regards,

Katharina Gustavs,
Building Biology Environmental Consultant (IBN)
Translator German/English (STIBC)

Rainbow Consulting
5237 Mt. Matheson Rd.
Sooke BC V9Z 1C4 Canada
E-mail: info@buildingbiology.ca
Fax: 250-642-2785
Phone: 250-642-2774
www.buildingbiology.ca

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1277
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa

[Infozentrale]

#1234: New study finds low level EMFs reduce melatoin's protective effect

From Cindy Sage on the CHE-EMF list:

EMF at only 12 mG has been shown to reduce the protective effect of
melatonin on human breast cancer cells. This is the latest in a series
of at least seven (7) papers reporting similar results. These EMF
(magnetic field) levels of exposure can be found in homes and offices
near transmission lines or with faulty wiring, or near large
electrical appliances or electric panels. 1.2 uT (microTesla) is the
same as 12 milligauss (12 mG).

Cindy Sage
CHE-EMF

*********************************************************************************

Girgert, R Hanf V Emons G Grundker, 2010. Signal Transduction of the
Melatonin Receptor
MT1Is Disrupted in Breast Cancer Cells by Electromagnetic Fields.
Bioelectromagnetics 31:237- 245 (2010)

Abstract

The growth of estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer cells is
inhibited by the pineal gland hormone, melatonin. Concern has been
raised that power-line frequency and microwave electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) could reduce the efficiency of melatonin on breast cancer
cells. In this study we investigated the impact of EMFs on the signal
transduction of the high-affinity receptor MT1 in parental MCF-7 cells
and MCF-7 cells transfected with the MT1 gene. The binding of the
cAMP-responsive element binding (CREB) protein to a promoter sequence
of BRCA-1 after stimulation with melatonin was analyzed by a gel-shift
assay and the expression of four estrogen-responsive genes was
measured in sham-exposed breast cancer cells and cells exposed to a
sinusoidal 50 Hz EMF of 1.2 uT for 48 h. In sham-exposed cells,
binding of CREB to the promoter of BRCA-1 was increased by estradiol
and subsequently diminished by treatment with melatonin. In cells
exposed to 1.2 uT, 50 Hz EMF, binding of CREB was almost completely
omitted. Expression of BRCA-1, p53, p21WAF, and c-myc was increased by
estradiol stimulation and subsequently decreased by melatonin
treatment in both cell lines, except for p53 expression in the
transfected cell line, thereby proving the antiestrogenic effect of
melatonin at molecular level. In contrast, in breast cancer cells
transfected withMT1exposed to 1.2 uT of the 50 Hz EMF, the expression
of p53 and c-myc increased significantly after melatonin treatment but
for p21WAF the increase was not significant. These results
convincingly prove the negative effect of EMF on the antiestrogenic
effect of melatonin in breast cancer cells. Bioelectromagnetics
31:237–245, 2010. 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Key words: breast cancer; electromagnetic fields

***********************************************************************************

The BioInitiative Report, Chapter 13, Evidence for Breast Cancer
Promotion (2007) summarizes earlier studies. Note that the author of
this paper - Girgert - also published on the negative effect of EMF on
tamoxifen. Please contact Cindy Sage if you would like copies of any
of these articles.

II. Melatonin and ELF-EMF

Evidence which supports a possible mechanism for ELF-EMF and breast
cancer is the consistent finding (in five separate labs) that
environmental levels of ELF-EMF can act at the cellular level to
enhance breast cancer proliferation by blocking melatonin’s natural
oncostatic action in MCF-7 cells (Liburdy, 1993; Luben et al, 1996;
Morris et al, 1998; Blackman et al, 2001; Ishido, et al, 2001).
ELF-EMF levels between 0.6 and 1.2 µT have been shown to consistently
block the protective effects of melatonin.

The series of papers reporting increased breast cancer cell
proliferation when ELF-EMF at environmental levels negatively affects
the oncostatic actions of melatonin in MCF-7 cells should warrant new
public exposure guidelines or planning target limits for the public,
and for various susceptible segments of the population.

References

Liburdy, R. P., T. R. Sloma, et al, 1993. ELF magnetic fields, breast
cancer, andmelatonin: 60 Hz fields block melatonin's oncostatic
action on ER+ breast cancer cell proliferation. J of Pineal Research.
14: 89-97.

Luben et al, 1996. Replication of 12 mG EMF effects on melatonin
responses of MCF-7 breast cancer cells in vitro. Abstract A-1 of the
1996 Annual review of research on biological effects of electric and
magnetic fields from the generation, delivery and use of electricity,
November 17-21, 1996. San Antonio, Texas, p.1

Luben et al, 1998. Independent replication of 60-Hz 1.2 µT EMF
effects on melatonin and tamoxifen responses of MCF-7 cells in vitro.
Abstract A-3.4, Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting, St. Pete
Beach, FL. June 7-11, p 17-18.

Morris et al, 1998. In vitro exposure of MCF-7 human breast cancer
cells to 60-Hz magnetic fields. Abstract p-125A, Bioelectromagnetics
Society Annual Meeting, St. Pete Beach, FL. June 7-11, p 204-205.

Ishido et al, 2001. Magnetic fields (MF) of 50 Hz at 1.2 µT as well
as 100 µT cause uncoupling of inhibitory pathways of adenylyl cyclase
mediated by melatonin 1a receptor in MF-sensitive MCF-7 cells.

D.E. Blask, S.M. Hill, Effects of melatonin on cancer: studies on
MCF-7 human breast cancer cells in culture, J. Neural Transm. Suppl.
21 (1986) 433–449.

Loberg LI et al 1999. Gene expression in human breast epithelial cells
exposed to 60 Hz magnetic fields, Carcinogenesis 20 1633–1636.

III. Tamoxifen and ELF-EMF

Girgert et al (2005) reported that “the anti-estrogenic activity of
tamoxifen is reduced in two subclones of MCF-7 cells under the
influence of ELF/EMF to different extent. Dose-response curves of the
growth-inhibitory effect of tamoxifen are shifted towards higher
concentrations leading to a reduced growth inhibition at a given
concentration. Our observations confirm results from a previous
report describing a reduced inhibitory effect of tamoxifen at 1—7 M
from 40% to only 17% by exposure to an EMF of 1.2 µT” (Harland t
al, 1997). Further, Girgert et al conclude that “From a medical
point of view, it is disturbing that maximal induction of cell
proliferation by tamoxifen at a field strength of 1.2 µT is observed
at concentration of 10-6 M. This is exactly the serum concentration
achieved in BC patients under standard oral therapy.” (De Cupis et
al, 1997).

The Girgert et al paper confirms prior findings that environmental
level ELF-EMF inhibits the antiproliferative action of tamoxifen in
MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Four other papers reporting this
effect include Liburdy et al, 1997; Harland et al, 1997; Harland et
al, 1999; and Blackman et al, 2001).
References

Liburdy et al, 1997. Magnetic Fields, Melatonin, Tamoxifen, and Human
Breast Cancer Cell Growth. In: Stevens R. G., Wilson B. W., Anderson
L.E. (Eds). The Melatonin Hypothesis - Breast Cancer and Use of
Electric Power. Battelle Press, Columbus, Richland 1997: 669- 700.

Harland et al, 1997. Environmental magnetic fields inhibit the
antiproliferative action of tamoxifen and melatonin in a human breast
cancer cell line. Bioelectromagnetics, 18, 555-562.

Harland et al, 1999. Evidence for a slow time-scale of interaction for
magnetic fields inhibiting tamoxifen’s antiproliferative action in
human breast cancer cells. Cell Biochemistry  Biophysics, 31(3),
295-306.

Blackman et al, 2001. The influence of 1.2 μT, 60 Hz magnetic fields
on melatonin and tamoxifen-induced inhibition of MCF-7 cell growth.
Bioelectromagnetics, 22(2), 122-128.

Girgert et al, 2005. Induction of tamoxifen resistance in breast
cancer cells by ELF electromagnetic fields. Biochemical  Biophysics
Research Communications, 336, 1144-1149.

A. De Cupis et al, 1997. Oestrogen/growth factor cross-talk in breast
carcinoma: a specific target for novel antioestrogens, TIPS 18
245–251.

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=1280
_________________
Infozentrale der EuroTa