Citizens for Safe Technology
Empowering the public to protect children
and nature from unsafe wireless technologies.
Science and Research
There is mounting evidence worldwide, contained in reputable peer reviewed and published studies and journals, showing adverse biological effects from low-frequency, radiofrequency fields.
Governmental health protection agencies are reluctant to recognize new studies as relevant, claiming that more research is needed over an extended period of time before any protective measures need to be taken.
There is already substantial and compelling research in this field. In view of the unprecedented speed with which wireless technologies are being deployed and adopted, many highly respected scientists have repeatedly presented credible, insightful, brave and forward-looking evidence with minimal funding or support. Based on results and careful observation, they are saying that strong evidence warrants caution.
Just as harm from wireless technologies has not been proven to the satisfaction of our present governments, neither have they ever been proven to be safe. Due to the fact that there are no unaffected populations left, there can be no "control" for traditional experimentation.
Until such time as wireless technologies and infrastructure are proven to be safe, our old paradigm is sorely lacking.
Looking for a specific topic or a past article? Search for it below:
... as a Dosimetric Quantity for Electromagnetic Fields Bioeffects -Panagopoulos, Johansson, Carlo
Purpose: To evaluate SAR as a dosimetric quantity for EMF bioeffects, and identify ways for increasing the precision in EMF dosimetry and bioactivity assessment.
Methods: We discuss the interaction of man-made electromagnetic waves with biological matter and calculate the energy transferred to a single free ion within a cell. We analyze the physics and biology of SAR and evaluate the methods of its estimation. We discuss the experimentally observed non-linearity between electromagnetic exposure and biological effect.
Results: We find that: a) The energy absorbed by living matter during exposure to environmentally accounted EMFs is normally well below the thermal level. b) All existing methods for SAR estimation, especially those based upon tissue conductivity and internal electric field, have serious deficiencies. c) The only method to estimate SAR without large error is by measuring temperature increases within biological tissue, which normally are negligible for environmental EMF intensities, and thus cannot be measured.
Conclusions: SAR actually refers to thermal effects, while the vast majority of the recorded biological effects from man-made non-ionizing environmental radiation are non-thermal. Even if SAR could be accurately estimated for a whole tissue, organ, or body, the biological/health effect is determined by tiny amounts of energy/power absorbed by specific biomolecules, which cannot be calculated. Moreover, it depends upon field parameters not taken into account in SAR calculation. Thus, SAR should not be used as the primary dosimetric quantity, but used only as a complementary measure, always reporting the estimating method and the corresponding error. Radiation/field intensity along with additional physical parameters (such as frequency, modulation etc) which can be directly and in any case more accurately measured on the surface of biological tissues, should constitute the primary measure for EMF exposures, in spite of similar uncertainty to predict the biological effect due to non-linearity.
Self-reported symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields: a questionnaire study
" . . . In summary, our study tried to establish if there is a statistical association between exposure to EMFs and self-reported symptoms. Statistical studies involve measurements on very complex human populations and difficult to control sufficiently well to detect small effects. For this reason, statistical studies supported with animal and cellular studies should be needed to clarify whether daily environmental exposure to EMF may cause self-reported symptoms."
2.4-GHz cordless phone confirms original findings - Havas and Marrongelle, June, 2013
Keywords: heart rate variability, mobile phone, tachycardia, arrhythmia, microwave radiation, radio frequency radiation, electrohypersensitivity, autonomic nervous system
"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."
Electromagnetic Fields Act via Activation of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels in Biology and Medicine: Study by Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University - Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine
" . . . Earlier modelling of electrical effects across plasma membranes of EMF exposures suggested that such electrical effects were likely to be too small to explain EMF effects at levels reported to produce biological changes . . . However more recent and presumably more biologically plausible modelling have
suggested that such electrical effects may be much more substantial . . . and may therefore act to directly stimulate VGCCs. Direct stimulation of VGCCs by partial depolarization across the plasma membrane is suggested by the following observations discussed in this review:
Study Includes 117 references
based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances
"The Biological Effects Chart, at the end of this document, has been produced using data from a massive new review of the medical research literature on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. That review is called the BioInitiative 2012 Report. The purpose of the Biological Effects Chart is to show the radiofrequency (RF) exposure levels at which biological effects were found in 67 studies from the RF Color Charts of the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and then to compare those exposure levels to the following:
(1) current FCC Maximum Permitted Exposure (MPE) limits that govern Smart Meters and Smart Appliances in the United States
(2) new biologically based RF exposure limits proposed in the BioInitiative 2012 Report
(3) calculated RF exposure levels produced by a single Smart Meter at various distances
(4) calculated RF exposure levels produced by a single Smart Appliance at various distances . . .
Blake Levitt and Henry Lai 2010 (first posted December, 2011)
"The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby residents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers that international exposure standards will be followed. Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.
"The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products, some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting.
"Further epidemiology research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration is warranted. Symptoms reported today may be classic microwave sickness, first described in 1978. Non-ionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made from research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from exposures at levels far below current exposure guidelines."
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.
due to magnetic and electromagnetic fields of cell phone networks and other wireless communication technologies
This is a very important report on cellular stress caused by RF exposure. In it, reference is made to particular damage from 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz frequencies resulting in DNA breaks.
The study places blame squarely on our EMF-saturated environment. It also puts EHS into the same realm as medically-recognized syndromes, disorders and sensitivities: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), Burnout Syndrome (BOS), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Fibromyalgia Syndrome.
Please don't be fooled by the opening portion which describes the symptoms associated with RF effects as a psychosomatic stress disorder. These researchers go on to describe why the symptoms are real, and what is causing them.
"With the current and soon-to-be-available technology, it will not be possible to realize the AACC visions of "Any time, Anywhere Communication and Computing" in a manner that is compatible with human health."
Dietrich Klinghardt M.D. PhD - Health Effect on Children and Teenagers
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:
Marko Markov & Yuri G. Grigoriev - Moscow, Russia
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.