Keywords: heart rate variability, mobile phone, tachycardia, arrhythmia, microwave radiation, radio frequency radiation, electrohypersensitivity, autonomic nervous system

Conclusion:

"Our results show that a considerable percentage of the individuals tested were moderately sensitive to very sensitive to radiation generated by a cordless phone based on HRV, and that their reactions were not psychosomatic. In this double- blind, sham-controlled study, we document an increased HR, altered HRV and changes in the sympathetic and parasympathetic control of the ANS similar to our previous study. The results are not due to EMI, since we have examples of a delayed response after the radiation was turned off and have tested EMI with much higher exposure using the same technology with no reactions noted. Our results demonstrate that the radiation from a 2.4-GHz cordless phone affects the ANS and may put some individuals with preexisting heart conditions at risk when exposed to electromagnetic frequencies to which they are sensitive. Although documenting a response is relatively simple, determining the degree of EHS is quite complex and requires further study."

"In her 2011 book Disconnect, National Book Award finalist, former senior White House health advisor and internationally regarded epidemiologist Devra Davis revealed that the cellphone industry is knowingly exposing us to dangerous levels of electromagnetic radiation. No small problem when you consider that of the roughly 7 billion people on this planet, about 6 billion of us now use mobile phones.

"In a recent analysis for theHuffington Post, Davis examined the cellphone industry's long-term strategy, devised in the early '90s, to deal with studies showing cellphone radiation damages DNA: "war-game the science." Noted in a 1994 Motorola memo, this strategy, wrote Davis, "remains alive and well" today, the latest example occurring just last month. When the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published newly detailed documentation for its yearlong 2011 expert review--which declared cellphone radiation a "possible human carcinogen" (same as lead and DDT)--the multi-trillion-dollar cellular industry responded by citing a new dubious report out of Taiwan.

"Davis, the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council, pointed out that the online abstract concludes "with some highly unscientific language that sounds as though it was crafted for the PR section of Foxconn, the Taiwanese producer of phones for Apple, Motorola, and Sony:

'In conclusion, we do not detect any correlation between the morbidity/mortality of malignant brain tumors and cellphone use in Taiwan. We thus urge international agencies to publish only confirmatory reports with more applicable conclusions in public. This will help spare the public from unnecessary worries.'" . . . .

This partial list shows recent studies (mostly since 2000) that found an effect from radio frequency electro-magnetic fields at or below the power levels of mobile phones (i.e. equivalent to SAR 2 W/kg - many exposures are much lower than this).

If all positive studies were included there would be more than 500.

Experiment and Commentary by Dietrich Klinghardt M.D. PhD

This short video shows the chilling effect of microwave radiation on the pathogens in our bodies:

"In science news as in life, timing is everything. As soon as the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer expert review declaring cell phone radiation a "possible human carcinogen" -- just like lead, DDT, and jet fuel -- was drafted in 2011, the global multi-trillion dollar cell phone industry set up a quarter of a billion dollar defense fund to produce and promote science that would discredit the WHO. Whenever a report pops up questioning cell phone safety, a contrary report stands ready in the wings to cast doubt about its legitimacy.

"Case in point. The WHO published detailed documentation for its year-long 2011 expert review last month. Extending this work, Santosh Kesari, chief of neuro-oncology at the University of California, San Diego, two of Canada's top physician-epidemiologists, Antony B. Miller and Colin Soskolne, and I have just published a technical report concluding that more recent studies indicate that cell phone radiation constitutes a "probable human carcinogen."

"Now, let's look at what's being presented as "new science" from Taiwan and Sweden -- packaged for headline writers as proving that because there is no increase in brain cancer at this time, cell phones can be used with impunity. In fact, the effort to promote these skeptical reports is part of a longstanding practice of this industry that sees science as nothing but a matter of public relations. When first reports that cell phone radiation could damage DNA emerged from the laboratory of Henry Lai and N.P. Singh, a memo written by Motorola to their media advisors in 1994 announced the clear strategy that remains alive and well: war-game the science. . . .

" . . . Although Shattuck doesn't know for sure what caused his tumour--he's asked his doctor "a thousand times" but says he's never received a clear answer--he certainly has a theory: he worked as an operator and then as a technician for a phone company for thirteen years, and regularly used a cellphone for a good ten of them. Three of his former co-workers also have malignant brain tumours, and he suspects their cellphone use, too, is to blame.

"Shattuck isn't alone in worrying about the effects of the devices. In May, speculation swirled that Massachusetts senator Edward Kennedy's brain cancer was linked to habitual cellphone use. Picking up on the rumours, CNN's Larry King Live devoted a show to the subject. On it, the neurosurgeon who treated US attorney Johnnie Cochran's brain tumour in 2005 said he would not rule out a link between cellphones and cancer. An issue that won't go away had resurfaced, and concern over cellphones causing or contributing to brain tumours went mainstream again.

"The wireless industry adamantly denies the association. "The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk," says a spokesperson for the CTIA, a heavyweight international organization that represents the trillion-dollar wireless industry. Many scientists agree: the literature shows little evidence of a problem. But what if the published science doesn't reflect what's really happening out there? And what if there has been a concerted effort to shield us from the evidence that does exist? Accounts from a handful of well-respected scientists suggest that since the mid-1990s wireless companies have been doing their best to bury worrying findings, discredit researchers who publish them, and design experiments that virtually guarantee the desired results. "Biological effects are undoubtedly there, no question, and it's a canard to suggest that they're not," says Abe Liboff, a research professor at Florida Atlantic University, and co-editor of the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. The cellphone industry, he insists, "will use any excuse to avoid the truth." . . .

Each electromagnetic source has its own characteristic sound, which is demodulated by broadband-meters to allow evaluation of the sound's source.  The sounds are the interference on a particular radio frequency, not the sounds of wireless.  They are an audio representation of the patterns of the transmission, with every "zap" representing a "hit' of a micro pulse of radiation. 

Here you will find samples of:

• HAARP            High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program 
• TETRA            TErrestrial Trunked RAdio 
• DVB-T             Digital Video Broadcasting- Terrestrial (aka Digital TV)
• GSM                2 Generation Mobile Phone 
• GSM                2 Generation Mobile Phone Base Station Transmitter (BST) 
• DECT               Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunication (cordless phone) Base: Near                                  and Far  
• UMTS              (3G) Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (3 Gen) Base Station (Node B) 
• iPhone            (3G) Apple Phone (3G Mode and Standby) 
• WLAN/Wi-Fi    Wireless Local Area Network / Wireless Fidelity
• Bluetooth        Proprietary open wireless technology standard for microwave data                                                  exchange (standby and working) 
• WiMAX            Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access 
• RADAR            RAdio Detection And Ranging

Excerpts in an April 2, 2013 Press Release from Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley:

A new study finds that children who use cell phones who are exposed to lead are at greater risk of developing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than lead-exposed children who do not use cell phones much or at all.

"... preventing the use of mobile phones in children may be one measure to keep children from developing ADHD symptoms ..."

The full text of the study is available at: PLOS ONE: Mobile Phone Use, Blood Lead Levels, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Symptoms in Children: A Longitudinal Study

Concerns are growing over cell phone use after a new study showed a link between early cell phone use and brain cancer. . . . 

Part 1: Brain Tumour Wake-up Call
Neurosurgeon Dr. Charlie Teo is interviewed about mobile phone use and his assertion that cell phones have a direct influence on the development of brain tumours. 



Part 2: