Citizens for Safe Technology
Empowering the public to protect children
and nature from unsafe wireless technologies.
Similar symptoms of ill health are reported worldwide by people of all ages who are exposed to wireless technologies. These include cell phones and cell towers, wireless internet (Wi-Fi), portable home telephones, Wi-Max, utility "Smart" meters, microwave ovens, lighting fixtures, CFL light bulbs and other home and business devices and appliances.
Looking for a specific topic or a past article? Search for it below:
In my opinion, based on what I have seen and read, those at highest risk for EHS include the fetus, children, the elderly, the infirm, those with predisposing morbidities--usually cardiac and neurological--and those with a toxic overload. They are all at risk for adverse health effects from this insufficiently regulated, poorly studied, man-made environmental health hazard--the radio and microwaves ranging from 10 kilohertz to 10 gigahertz to hundreds of gigahertz. Sources causing a majority of problems in the patients we have seen include airport technology, cellphone units and towers, cellphones, Wi-Fi routers, Wi-Fi hubs, laptops, iPads, baby monitors, and fluorescent lights. Signs and symptoms include skin irritations, headaches, tinnitus or ringing in the ears, brain fog, listlessness, fatigue, concentration problems, dizziness, low mood, irritability, malaise, heart palpitations, nausea, and gastrointestinal disturbances.
CBS Local News (New York)
"From using cell phones and computers to watching movies online, wireless technology has made life easier. But now, some say there is a serious downside.
As CBS2's Maurice Dubois explained, there are those who claim that exposure to Wi-Fi is making people sick, and some people don't even know it. . . .
CBS Local Video Clip of Broadcast
microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action
I am attaching my recent paper published in Reviews on Environmental Health that provides a detailed critique of the 2014 Canadian Report, showing that each of the major positions taken by the Panel of Experts in support of their view that only heating effects need be considered are deeply flawed. These include the claim that there is no biophysically viable mechanism for non-thermal effects and specifically for non-thermal effects causing cancer; includes the claim for "inconsistencies" in the literature, where the only primary literature they provide (on genotoxicity) that they assert supports that claim is shown to have no inconsistencies whatsoever -- rather that literature shows that different cell types and different EMFs produce different responses, showing biological heterogeneity, not inconsistency; includes the claim that cataracts are caused by heating, a claim shown to be falsified by three studies which the Report fails to cite and also falsified by findings that elevated levels of intracellular calcium have essential roles in causing cataracts and that VGCC activation can cause cataracts; includes the fact that although they throw out huge numbers of studies because of undocumented claims of inconsistency, they fail to throw out their own view on heating effects although it is clearly inconsistent with thousands of published studies.
This is a public access paper which can, therefore, be freely forwarded and freely placed onto internet sites. The paper has several other important parts to it. It updates the evidence that microwave/lower frequency EMFs act via activation of the voltage-gated calcium channels with biological effects being produced by downstream effects of increased intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i. The most important update is that the voltage sensor of the VGCCs can be seen to be extraordinarily sensitive to weak EMFs because of its structure and position in the plasma membrane. It is probably millions of times more sensitive than perhaps any structure in the cell outside the plasma membrane. I don't consider this to be a biophysical model, there are too many uncertainties about it to be considered such a model, but it clearly shows that the claims that there cannot be a biophysically viable mechanism for biological responses to weak, non-thermal EMFs do not apply to the VGCC voltage sensor. Of course you only have to be wrong once for this claim to be wrong.
It also reviews the literature that pulsed fields are often more biologically active than are non-pulsed fields and also the literature that there are window effects where specific intensity windows produce larger biological responses than do windows that do intensities that are either lower or higher. Again, you are welcome to forward this as you wish and/or place it on the internet.
Best wishes to you all,
One of the things that Dr. Pall does not address in the following letter is that Health Canada itself selected the panel members, many of whom, such as John Moulder, Ken Foster, Daniel Krewski, have been long time industry supporters, Krewski was named as Chair, but was shown to have had financial conflicts of interests he did not declare, resulting in his resignation. For some reason Moulder's and Foster's conflicts of interest were not addressed. The selection process was not transparent.
Likewise, Health Canada selected the studies that were to be reviewed, and in advance of the final report refused to provide the list of studies when requested. The entire process has been highly controlled, and the results, as expected, were basically to maintain the status quo - no evidence to show harm that is not attributable to RF exposures that cause heating.
Now that there are more of us educated on the topic as well as on the industry affiliates who promote the public's ignorance, it has become harder for these conclusions to be accepted.
We expect that the FCC's process is equally flawed, and hope that it will be similarly reviewed and criticized.
View from Trent - Magda Havas
"Imagine a world identical to our own with one exception everyone is deaf. There is no radio and television remains at the level of the silent movie. Telephone communication is visual but beyond that the world is very much like our own.
"What would such a world be like?
"It would probably be very noisy, since there would be no need for noise control and no regulations to limit noise. Car engines would still roar, perhaps louder than they do now, tires would squeal, birds would sing, and thunder would rumble across the sky but we would not be able to hear any of this.
"Now, imagine that some people in this world can hear. They don't realize they are any different except in a few subtle ways. They can predict the coming of storms. They claim to "hear" thunder at a distance. They have difficulty sleeping. In the middle of the night they hear roaring engines, squealing tires, horns blaring and other things that are silent to the rest of us. Because of their poor sleep, they are tired during the day. They become anxious and worried. The noise frightens them but only they can hear it so they begin to question their sanity. . . .
"Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has not yet been accepted by our medical professionals. Just like chronic fatigue syndrome, chemical hypersensitivity, and seasonal affective disorder (SAD) it will take some time and many complaining patients before that changes. In the meantime, those suffering need to reduce their exposure to radio frequency radiation not a simple thing to do in our highly technical society . . .
"Our government can play a vital role. . .
BioInitiative 2012 Section 13 - Updated Chapter - Davanipour and Sobel
" . . . RECOMMENDATION
"Using the Precautionary Principal, mitigating exposure is a proper goal. Mean occupational exposures over 10 mG or intermittent exposures above 100 mG should be lowered to the extent possible. In situations where this is not feasible, the daily length of exposure should curtailed. Lowering ELF MF exposure can be done by improved placement of the source(s) of magnetic fields (e.g., electric motors in sewing machines, AC/DC converters), shielding, and redesign. It is clear that re-engineering products can greatly lessen ELF MF exposure, and possibly result in important innovations. It is noted that certain automotive models produce medium to high ELF MFs, as do steel-belted radial tires (Milham et al., 1999).
"All of the studies discussed have based exposure classifications using magnetic field (MF) measurements, not electric field (EF) measurements. We separately discuss extremely low frequency (ELF, ≤ 60 Hz) MFs and radiofrequency (RF) MFs. Furthermore, the discussion is primarily limited to investigations related to ELF MF exposure as a possible risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), female breast cancer (BC), and the possible biological pathways linking ELF MF exposure to AD and BC incidence, e.g., reduction in the production of melatonin. . . .
Effects of 2.4 GHz Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted from Wi-Fi Equipment on microRNA Expression in Brain Tissue.
"Long term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNAs expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNAs expression levels.
"Dr. Joel Moskowitz comments: The significant effects on microRNAs observed in this study were found from Wi-Fi exposure that was well below the legal limit. The FCC's whole-body exposure limit for the general population is 0.08 watts/kilogram. In this study, the average whole body exposure was 0.0001414 watts/kilogram (141.4 μW/kg), and the peak exposure was 0.007127 watts/kilogram (7127 μW/kg)."
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Interview with Dafna Tachover, attorney representing Wi-Fi victims
Dafna Tachover was a highly-paid professional (lawyer, IT professional) in NYC when she became severely electrosensitive as a result of wireless Apple laptops and had to live off-grid in a cabin for several years to regain her health. You can read her story here:
She came back fighting for others, especially kids in schools, to prevent them from being made as sick as she was.
In light of insurance EMR-liability exclusion clauses, think really hard before installing more Wi-Fi and cell antennas in or around schools, hospitals, and other public places. Return to wired connections to avoid the insurance and liablilty implications.
Important 6 page FLYER newsletter gives very good general information about
Results of 4-year monitoring (Russia)
" . . . To sum up, the preliminary results of a four-year monitoring revealed the following.
1. All children from the test group showed an increase in the number of wrong phonetic perception (incorrect phoneme recognition). The contralateral effect was registered in in 79.3% of all cases.
2. 66.7% of children from the test group showed the increased reaction time to audio signal.
3. At the end of fourth year of observations, 50.7% of children from the test group demonstrated lower performance. Half of those cell phone users were performing at the lower level of their age norm.
4. Considerable increase in the fatigue was registered in 39.7% of all the cases, and these changes should be seen as substantial in 30% of the cases.
5. Registered declines in productivity (14.3%) and / or accuracy (19.4%) when the stability of voluntary attention has been tested; and lower accuracy (19.4%) and / or increasing the time (30.1%) when semantic memory has been tested, i.e. the deterioration of cognitive processes in general|.
6. Although in most cases, changes in psychophysiological indicators were staying within the age norms, we found steady decline from high results to the lower limit of norm (performance, voluntary attention and semantic memory, audio-and visual-motor reactions).
These data and continuous active children's use of mobile phones call for further research and observations.
Sean Holman - The Tyee
There's an important new book out that will likely be very useful for this and other related issues: your right to know; how to use the law to access government information; how to access what government hides; how to hold institutions accountable; how to request pertinent info from government using both informal and formal requests. This information is rightfully free because it is a public interest issue.
"In their recently published book "Your Right to Know", journalists Jim Bronskill and David McKie have done yeomans' work explaining how Canadians can use freedom of information requests to get government secrets. But, at the federal level, it's work they shouldn't have needed to do -- pointing to another problem with Canada's broken access to information laws.
"Introduced in 1980 by Pierre Trudeau's Liberals, the Access to Information Act gave Canadians a limited right to request government records. The bureaucracy's filing cabinets could now metaphorically be opened by anyone -- unless the records in them included 75 different kinds of information that would still be considered secret.
"But, even with those limits, the Trudeau administration seemed to have little interest in telling voters about their newfound rights or how to exercise them.
"Just before the act came into force, the Globe and Mail told readers the government would be "placing posters in post offices and public libraries" to advertise the new program. But "it plans nothing else in the way of public information," a deficiency noted by information commissioner Inger Hansen in her first annual report. . . .
One time donation: Click the donate button below and follow the instructions on the screen.
Monthly donation: If you wish to contribute every month, please select the amount from the Donation Options list below and click Subscribe. Your contribution will be sent for you every month for the amount you selected.
Citizens for Safe Technology (CST) is funded and supported solely by those who wish to help us. Thank-you for learning, sharing and helping if you can.
Meetings and events on the issue of wireless technologies in homes and communities throughout North America.
Click the button above to sign our online petition to return to hardwired computers in schools.
Click the button above to sign our online petition against Smart Meters in British Columbia.
Citizens For Safe Technology
"Wi-Fi: Is It Safe?"
Citizens for Safe Technology is a not-for-profit educational society made up of parents, grandparents, teachers, business professionals, scientists, politicians and lawyers concerned about the exponential increase in public exposure to harmful wireless technologies.
We believe a profound urgency exists to protect the unsuspecting public, especially children, youth and pregnant mothers from unsafe wireless technologies.
The content of the Citizens for Safe Technology website is provided for information purposes only. Information is subject to change without prior notice. Every effort has been taken to ensure that the information on this website is accurate, but no guarantees can be made.
Neither Citizens for Safe Technology nor its authors are liable for damages resulting from the use of information obtained from this site. The authors are not responsible for any contents linked or referred to from this website or any damages resulting from information on those sites.
The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information on this site lies with the reader.