Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Italian Supreme Court Affirms Tumor Risk from Long-Term Use of a Cell Phone

ICEMS vs. ICNIRP; Hardell vs. Interphone

October 23, 2012
The Supreme Court of Italy has affirmed a ruling granting worker's compensation to a businessman who developed a tumor after using a cell phone for 12 years. This is the first time that a high court —in any country— has ruled in favor a link between mobile phone radiation and tumor development.
Innocente Marcolini, a financial manager at an industrial plant in Brescia in northern Italy, used cell and cordless phones for five-to-six hours a day for 12 years. Then one morning ten years ago, Marcolini, who was 50 years old at the time, sensed an unusual tingling in his chin while shaving. He was soon diagnosed as having a benign tumor on the trigeminal nerve, which controls facial muscles and sensations.
Marcolini filed for workers' compensation alleging that his wireless phones were responsible for the tumor. At first, his claim was rejected. But, in December 2009, the Court of Appeals in Brescia reversed that decision and now, on October 18, Italy's Supreme Court affirmed the Appeals Court's ruling. No further appeals are possible.
"Marcolini wants people to know about the health risks associated with cell phone radiation," Riccardo Staglianó told Microwave News. Staglianó, a reporter for La Repubblica, a major national daily newspaper, chronicled Marcolini's story in his book on cell phone risks,Toglietevelo Dalla Testa, published earlier this year. The title of the book is hard to translate into English —it's something like Get It Out of Your Head. Staglianó explained that his book tries to warn the reader not only to keep the phone away from the brain but also to reject the "fake reassurances" from parts of the scientific community that there are no health risks.
Indeed, it's easy to see the decision as a battle between ICNIRP and ICEMS and their competing views of electromagnetic health hazards. ICNIRP does not recognize any risks associated with long-term, chronic exposures, especially those associated with tumor promotion. Cancer is not a concern, according to ICNIRP. ICEMS, on the other hand, sees large uncertainties and advocates precautionary policies to reduce exposures when possible.
The courts relied on the testimony of Gino Angelo Levis, one of the founders of ICEMS. Levis, an oncologist and a professor emeritus of environmental mutagenesis at the University of Padua, is also a founder and former president of the Association for the Prevention and Fight Against Electrosmog, known as APPLE. He is currently its vice president.
"The logic of the decision was very simple" said Fiorenzo Marinelli, who is with Italy's National Research Council in Bologna and has done his own EMF research. Marinelli also helped set up ICEMS but was not involved with the Marcolini case. In an interview, Marinelli pointed to the studies of Lennart Hardell and IARC's classification of RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen as grounds for the pro-compensation decision.
More than five years ago, Hardell's group at the Örebro University Hospital in Swedenreported that the use of cell phones for ten or more years significantly increased the risk of acoustic neuroma. Acoustic neuroma is a tumor of the acoustic nerve, which is known as the eighth cranial nerve. This type of tumor grows from cells which make up the lining or the sheaf of the nerve, called Schwann cells.
The trigeminal nerve —where Marcolini's tumor was located— is the fifth cranial nerve. Tumors on the trigeminal nerve are also from Schwann cells and are closely related toacoustic neuroma.
Acoustic Neuroma Linked to Cell Phones in Many Countries
Hardell first reported a link between cell phones and acoustic neuroma in 2002. Two years later, a group led by Stefan Lönn and Maria Feychting at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as part of the Interphone projectfound a similar association among long-term users. At the time, Anders Ahlbom, Feychting's mentor at the Karolinska, told us that, "These are strong data." Feychting is the vice chair of ICNIRP; she took over Ahlbom's seat on the commission in 2008 after he had served the maximum of 12 years.
Then in 2005, a joint analysis by Interphone groups in five northern European countries, including Sweden and the U.K., again pointed to a long-term risk of acoustic neuroma. And at the end of 2010, a Japanese team, also working on Interphone, concluded that those who used cell phones for more than 20 minutes a day for at least five years had three times more acoustic neuromas than expected.
And finally, last year, the Interphone study team from the 13 participating countries reportedin their combined analysis that those who had spent the most time on cell phones had a higher risk of acoustic neuroma. But, due to growing tensions within the group, the researchers were unable to agree as to whether the link was real. The published conclusion advised that the elevated risk “could be due to chance, reporting bias or a causal effect.” Feychting and the rest of the Karolinska group are known to favor the explanation that the observed risk is due to chance and/or bias. For instance, in a government report issued earlier this year, Ahlbom and Feychting, together with Yngve Hamnerius and Lena Hillert, concluded that, "The few reported risk increases appear implausible."
One of the noteworthy conclusions of the Italian Supreme Court is its stated preference for the Hardell study over Interphone. The court cited Hardell's independence from industry funding, “unlike the IARC study,” which was partially paid for by cell phone manufacturers.
Paolo Vecchia, the former chair of ICNIRP took strong exception to the 2009 decision by the Brescia Court of Appeals. He and Susanna Lagorio, an epidemiologist at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome who worked on Interphone, attacked the judge for relying on “seriously flawed expert testimonies.” Writing in an Italian journal on occupational health, La Medicina del Lavoro, they accused Levis of being “clearly inexperienced” in the disciplines necessary to evaluate cell phone risks.
In a press release following the October 18 decision, APPLE —and presumably Levis— maintained that the Supreme Court had “acknowledged the presence of conflict of interest and thus ‘business bias’" within ICNIRP, IARC and Interphone. APPLE calls the decision an "important victory."
David Gee, a senior advisor at the European Environment Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen, doesn't think the court's preference for ICEMS' outlook over that of ICNIRP will prompt any immediate changes. "The Italian decision will still be dismissed by most radiation authorities and conventional RF experts," he told us, "Remember it was 20 years before the clear evidence of a twofold excess of leukemia from X-raying pregnant women was accepted by medical authorities. So I don't expect much from them yet."  But, Gee added, "Lawyers for the phone manufacturers will take notice and the more responsible companies will quietly begin to build serious radiation reduction into their new products."
As to whether there will be more litigation, Staglianó reported in La Repubblica that Levis is working on seven other possible claims and that a law firm in Turin is considering filing a class action suit with Levis's assistance. 
The Supreme Court decision is available here.
A news report on the decision from Italian TV may be seen here.
On a lighter note: A number of European newspapers that covered the Supreme Court decision ran a picture of Fiorenzo Marinelli and identified him as the plaintiff, Innocente Marcolini. Among them were the Daily Mail and The Sun in the U.K., Aftonbaldet in Sweden and even Brescia Today!

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

郑雨周谢绝电讯塔 进驻丹绒武雅区各学府





Sunday, September 30, 2012

校园不要电讯塔 影响学子健康 居民签名反对

校园不要电讯塔 影响学子健康 居民签名反对

 柔佛新闻 2012-09-25 17:30 中国报

■ 约20人在黄高明(左7)带领下,拉横幅表明不要在古来国中校园内建电讯塔的意愿。







 居民强调,校园不应建设有辐射的电讯塔,恐影响孩子健康。 他们认为,当地收讯良好,电讯塔应建在郊外地区。











应给予解释 *范志圣(50岁,公主城第二期居民)



未咨询意见 *黄幼玲(46岁,公主城第一期居民)




会带来辐射 *杨桂珍(70岁,公主城居民)


不能开先例 *王友良(48岁,公主城第一期居民)





  • 檳州電磁波輻射公害防護聯盟要求教育部和衛生部以學生的健康為重,立即阻止電訊商在校園興建電訊塔;右起是梁錦源、涂仲儀、李斯傑、溫秀枝和王美麗。(圖:星洲日報)
教育部宣佈將在西馬中小學全面使用“1BestariNet”的新互聯網系統,以取代2010年停用的“School Net”。1BestariNet是教育部與楊忠禮通訊合作下,提供基於網絡儲存的虛擬學習平台,連接全國逾萬所學校高速互聯網的電子教學計劃。
1BestariNet把青蛙虛擬學習模式(Frog VLE)通過無線的4G寬頻連接學校,許多學校已接獲通知將落實這項系統。學校除了推行無線網路(WiFi)上網,有的學校範圍甚至已興建WiMax電訊塔。

计划未进槟城已遭炮轰 国阵反对校园电讯塔

计划未进槟城已遭炮轰 国阵反对校园电讯塔









我国教育部宣布将在西马所有中小学,全面使用新的互联网系统「1BestariNet」,取代於2010年停用的学校互联网系统「School Net」。1BestariNet 由马来西亚教育部与杨忠礼通讯合作下提供基于云储存的虚拟学习平台和连接全国10,000所学校的高速互联网的一项电子教学计划。

1BestariNet项目把青蛙虚拟学习模式(Frog VLE)经由4 G宽带连接全国学校,青蛙虚拟学习模式是极具人性化的程式,为各学校而定制。而且它也提供了完善的管理成面,使教师,管理人员,甚至学生能完全嵌入他们学习的环境。主要的是集行政和教学於一体的性能。截至今年3月,这项计划已覆盖全国1275间学校,并预计将在2013年或今年内,推行至全国逾万间中小学,以提倡资讯工艺时代的电子教育模式。这项15亿令吉计划,由杨忠礼电力旗下的杨忠礼通讯施工。

据我们所知,许多学校已接到通知将被施与此项系统。他们除了将在校内推行Wi-Fi/无线网路通信技术上网之外,还得在学校范围內兴建电讯塔(WIMAX~World Interoperability for Microwave Access - 即全球微波接入互操作性的发射塔,是一种高速、宽带无线数字式电信系统)。


身为父母及防电磁波辐射公害团体的一员,我们必须慎重的提醒大众,尤其是学校单位、董事会、家长、家协及各部门。Wi-Fi(无线网路通信技术)是与电讯塔使用相同的技术的发射器。一般家长都非常抗拒电话通信发射器(电讯塔)建设在居家和学校附近,但却没有发觉其实Wi-Fi使用的也是相同的技术,它也具有微波/电磁波辐射。英国的Stewart Report S1.42里提到“在没有与学校成员或家长达成任何协议,如此大强度的辐射是不应该落于学校或建筑物的任何一部分”



在2012年1月,美国环境医学学院宣告:“慢性暴露于无线电频率辐射是一种可以预防的环境危害,现已有充分数据,足以支持即时履行预防的公共卫生措施.... 孩子们特别有大脑发展被影响、和学习及行为受损的风险。




2012年8月23日,以色列卫生部副部长Yaakov Litzman 倡议其教育部长Gideon Sa'ar 停止在学校安装无线网络,尤其是在有据可查的危害报告下。我们坚定的相信,我们以民为本的政府是应该做得到,为我们的孩子提供一个“安全”的学习环境。





Press Release of Penang EMF Radiation Protection Association
24 September 2012:

Recently, the ministry of education is implementing 1BestariNet project in 10,000 schools in our country. The purpose of this 1BestariNet ( is to provide mobile Internet and high-speed 4G Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in all schools throughout Malaysia. Ministry of Education in collaboration with YTL Communications provides wireless Internet high speed 4G Frog Virtual Learning Environment together with the effective schools throughout Malaysia.

The Frog learning platform is an inclusive solution that will meet the needs of all schools, regardless of their abilities or geographical and socio-economic barriers. All schools, whether urban or rural, will have access to the same, high quality resources and content, giving equal delivery of education to all Malaysian children. The new learning platform solution will support collaboration between high and low performing schools, sharing best teaching methods and resources – helping all schools to raise standards in the way teaching is delivered to students.

At the same time, they also requesting to erect a Wimax(World Interoperability for Microwave Access) tower in these school compound to allow the school enjoy these facilities (newspaper cutting attached to show what happened in few states).

As parents as well the members of EMF Radiation Protection Association, we would like to draw the attention of all parties to the severity of the matter. We need to act fast because parents and school administrators don’t seem to realize that there could be serious health consequences from overexposure to wireless radiation. We are writing to the following departments to express our concern:

1) PM office     2) Ministry of Education    3) Ministry of Health  and

The public, especially the school boards, PIBG (PTA) and administrators of all schools in the country must be aware that Wi-Fi uses the same technology as phone antenna. The Stewart report S1.42 states “The beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school or building without agreement from the school or parents”. Many parents would object to a phone mast near their homes or children’s schools and may not be aware that Wi-Fi is using the same technology.

We fully support the use of computers and the promotion of technology in education, but we believe that it must be implemented in a SAFE manner. We should not expose our children to unnecessary health risks by Wi-Fi, while there are hardwired options available.

 In May 2011 the World Health Organization's IARC (International Agency on Research of Cancer) has classified cellular phone / Wi-Fi radiation as 2B Possible Carcinogen. In October, 2011, Health Canada asked parents to reduce children's radiofrequency exposure since "children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents" and "there is currently a lack of scientific information regarding the potential health impacts of cell phones on children".

As to the IARC warning, it is indeed a serious one. Also in the 2b "possible human" carcinogen classification are DDT, diesel exhaust, and Chlordane among hundreds of other neurotoxins and possibly carcinogenic-to-human toxins. Do we allow Wi-Fi in our schools and think nothing of it? Would you allow DDT or Chlordane to be misted throughout the classrooms all day, 5 days a week, or diesel exhaust to be ventilated into the classrooms from the garages that house the school buses?

Homes and schools are the two places where children spend the most amount of time. Parents have the choice to take measures to reduce children's exposure to microwave radiation at home by using wired computers which offer the same educational benefits with better security and speed. However, children are now FORCED to use wireless laptops and tablets which bear long-term health risks, and they are given no choice to avoid this exposure.

These invisible waves are microwaves and   "Radio waves" is a lovely euphemism. Please do not continue to expose young children to microwave radiation throughout their formative years.

On 23 August 2012, the Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman in a call to the Education Minister of Israel, Gideon Sa'ar, to stop the installation of wireless internet in schools due to the well documented hazards of RF- EMF. It is our strong belief that our citizen-centric government should be doing the same to provide safe learning environments for our children.

We URGE the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and all related parties to halt the installation of wireless internet and cell tower in all schools in our country to safe our children.

Reducing exposure at home and in schools will reduce the majority of cumulative exposure for children.

We recommend that wired alternatives to Wi-Fi be implemented; particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to elevated RF radiations.

Wired Internet has many advantages: it's faster, it can carry more data, it is more secure from hacking, and it doesn't irradiate kids.

Please join the call to withdraw wifi in schools in favor of adopting wired and shielded networks.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

坚信发出辐射危害健康 3花园居民不要转驳站

  • 大山脚辉煌园、光辉园及千禧园逾40名居民在互联网转驳站前, 再度抗议, 表达心中不安及不满。


Sunday, July 8, 2012

Electromagnetic Fields and Leakage of the Blood Brain Barrier: Dr. Leif Salford

Electromagnetic Fields and Leakage of the Blood Brain Barrier: Dr. Leif Salford

Posted on June 18, 2012

The following video is a presentation of Dr. Leif Salford, neurosurgeon and researcher, discussing his animal studies on radio frequency radiation and its effects on the brain.  ”Dr. Salford,” writes Arthur Firstenberg in his paper Silent Wireless Spring, ”exposed over 1600 experimental animals to low level microwave radiation.  Their results were consistent and worrisome: microwave radiation. . ..caused the blood-brain barrier . . .to leak.”  (It was repeated in 2003  on 32 additional animals; they waited this time 8 weeks before “sacrificing them”–and found “up to two percent of the  neurons in all areas of the brain were shrunken and degenerated.”Dr. Salford, says Firstenberg, called the ”potential implications ‘terrifying.’”

An argument is sometimes made (not necessarily accurately)  to those who express concern about radiation from “smart”  meters, Wi Fi, etc, that the radiation emitted from these devices is at such a low level that the public needn’t worry about it. However Dr. Salford’s studies showed opening up of the blood brain barrier from very low levels of radiation.  In fact, Cindy Sage and Dr. David Carpenter write in a 2008 paper (Public Health Implications of Wireless Technologies) it was “the weakest exposure level [which] showed the greatest effect in opening up the BBB [blood brain barrier].”


Sunday, April 8, 2012


Helke Ferrie


How Industry Suppresses – and Government Denies – the Overwhelming Evidence of Harm

by Helke Ferrie RSS

Few people know that wireless devices are considered


(Ed note: This is the first of a 2-part series on Electropollution. The second part, to run in April Vitality, will focus on solutions.)

If something is invented by and for the military, it is certain to be effective and lethal. And industrial capitalists invariably view such military gizmos as having great profit potential – particularly if they’re re-packaged and promoted as beneficial to the public. Hence, the science behind atom bombs dropped on Japan in World War II led soon after to cancer radiation therapy and mammography – two of the most lucrative practices in modern medicine. Similarly, biological warfare weapons such as DDT and chemotherapy proved to be enormously lucrative in their peace-time applications – their deadly properties being undiminished despite re-packaging. Originally, the military objected to the declassification of both, but industry interests prevailed.

Today, it’s World War II radar technology that has been harnessed to create a near universal addiction and worldwide dependence on telecommunications. Anything that facilitates and enhances the human ability to communicate plugs into a powerful primal urge.

Very few people know that all these gadgets are allowed to proliferate on the basis of outright fraudulent research. Most don’t know that current safety standards are so completely at variance with genuine scientific evidence as to be truly absurd: in fact, our regulatory authorities are supporting the unfolding of a public health disaster. There simply is no research proving the safety of this technology as we know it. None at all. We can say no to radiation and chemotherapy, and we can do perfectly well without pesticides – but we cannot do without telephones, the internet, or electricity. Millions of people use cell phones as if they were an indispensable body part; thousands of households use microwave ovens daily, unaware that they are ruining the nutrients in their food; well-meaning parents irradiate their infants with baby monitors; and most of us are zapped continuously by smart meters. All things wireless have taken the world by storm, supposedly serving progress.

Wireless technology has undergone no genuine safety tests because existing standards only apply to anything above 2.4 gigahertz of the radio spectrum, and anything below that level was simply assumed safe when commercial standards were adopted in 1997. This rests on the assumption that non-thermal radiation is harmless; non-thermal means not-heat producing. Radio waves and microwaves do produce heat, but only at very high concentrations. At low concentrations they do not produce heat but, instead, cause other equally serious problems affecting all organs of the body.

This problem started with Hermann Schwan, inventor of the microwave oven. As a scientist who worked for the Nazi regime, he was brought to the U.S. in 1947 along with 1,400 others under “Operation Paperclip” which allowed them to escape war crime prosecution in return for employment with the U.S. government. Schwan became a professor in Pennsylvania and continued radar research. He believed that radio and microwaves could only be harmful at intensities above 100 microwatts per square centimeter when they produce heat. He added a safety factor of 10, and in 1953 announced the safety limit for humans at 10 microwatts per square centimeter (10 mW/cm2) which in 1965 was accepted as doctrine.

This “safe” level allowed the military to continue using radiation for their own purposes. This standard also saved the U.S. government untold millions in liability payments to injured soldiers and industrial workers from the war years and provided liability protection into the future. And real estate companies were delighted because the former restrictions on developing land too close to radiation facilities no longer applied. Had the already known facts about harm from non-thermal levels of radiation informed the making of this safety standard, some 498,000 acres of valuable real estate would have been lost to the market. (See Becker and Brodeur listed at end.)

Schwan and the scientists of his generation already knew of the “radiation sickness” reported by wartime radar technicians who often became blind from cataracts. Indeed, it was because of these reports that the discussion about a need for a safety standard began. At the very time that Schwan’s standard was developed, the Soviets were microwaving the U.S. embassy staff in Moscow to see if this wartime radar/microwave technology could disrupt information, addle brains, and mess with behaviour among the embassy staff. It sure did. The U.S. government was fully aware of this Soviet espionage project, but kept silent for years – just to see what would happen. After all, it was a perfect science project (for the sake of which the glaring ethical inconsistency with the 1940s US-led Nuernberg trials was conveniently ignored). The Germans doing medical experiments on people was evil; this project, however, could be massaged to aid some greater good. The U.S. ambassador died of cancer and many staff members developed those forms of cancer, birth defects, infertility and more which are characteristic of non-thermal radiation exposure. Not until 1976 did this government betrayal of its own staff become the subject of congressional investigation.

Today, the complete bibliography of more than 2,000 scientific reports on non-thermal radiation damage compiled before 1970 are available. They were declassified by the military in 1971 (see

When cell phones hit the market in the early 1990’s and WiFi for computers was invented, it was already known what damage these products were capable of causing. Most importantly, that early literature, now supported by an ever-growing body of high-tech and epidemiological research, negates the assertion that just “some” people are “hypersensitive”. That same myth was used for decades to downplay Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as well. The profit from war gadgets, communication technology, and pesticides is simply too big to resist; better to blame those few weirdos who stand in the way of profit.

To put this “hypersensitivity” of the few into perspective, consider Swedish and American research published last fall which shows that within the coming decade we are likely to face a 25-fold increase of brain cancer incidence worldwide. There is no way that any government or insurance company can pay for this. Not surprisingly, two of the world’s largest insurance companies, Lloyds and Swiss Re, have recommended exclusion clauses to the entire industry for damage from long-term use of such radiation-producing gadgets.

Researchers have found that cell phone use impairs DNA cellular repair, and has caused a sharp rise in brain cancer (documented from cell phone use over the past decade). The facts became so unavoidable that the usually arch-conservative World Health Organization had no choice last summer but to declare radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RE-EMF) produced by cell phones, Bluetooth, cordless phones, Smart Meters, baby monitors, and WiFi to be a Class B carcinogen (like asbestos and DDT).

True, the actual mechanism by which this low-level radiation caused harm was not understood in the 1940’s, even though the fact of harm was known and documented. Today, our understanding is so thorough, it exceeds the evidence we have of the harm done by DDT, asbestos, and smoking by far. Yet, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), established in 1992, continues to stick to Schwann’s standard and even deliberately misquotes, disguises, or ignores this enormous body of knowledge. It continues to provide guidelines to governments and industry based on research published before WiFi technology had even left the laboratory and become commercially available. To support these absurd guidelines, even fraudulent research projects were undertaken in the UK (see Mark Anslow).

In Canada an interesting case of suppression of evidence exists in the federal Report LTR-CS-98 of April 1973. It provided the evidence that microwave radiation is an “environmental pollutant” and a “threat to human health.” And yet Health Canada established its Code 6 by following ICNIRP guidelines for radio frequencies and publicly repeated the propaganda about non-thermal radiation being safe as recently as September 2010.

The many international resolutions presented by scientists to governments the world over demanding the public be protected from this technology are simply ignored, but their urgency is increasing. When cell phones first became available in the early 90’s, the Council of Europe, aware of the science since the 1930s about the dangers of radar to human health, requested that young people in particular be protected from such commercial devices. Last April, the Council did so again, in even stronger terms and armed with even more research. In February of this year, the Ontario Teachers’ Union came to the defense of their students’ safety and demanded a general WiFi blackout in schools. Some schools have done so already (Globe & Mail, Feb 13, 2012).

There is no doubt that we live in a time in which science consistently takes a back seat to industry interests and that governments consistently support industry, not public health or medical facts. If you suspect that government is selling us out, body and soul, to toxic industries for profit, you are not mistaken.

Just like the FDA’s Dr. David Graham, and Health Canada’s Shiv Chopra, the radiation industry too has its whistleblowers: Barrie Trower, as reported in the Toronto Star on August 26, 2010, is a former British Secret Service Microwave Weapons Specialist who recently spoke at the University of Toronto. He stated that Canada “is one of the world leaders in microwave radiation research,” having documented the first recognized symptoms of radiation sickness in 1932 in concert with the U.S. government. Canada shares 13 secret code names for this research which documents the damage. Trower also pointed out that “there isn’t a school in the world that hasn’t seen an increase in aggression [and other behavioural problems] when WiFi was introduced.” He stated: “By 1971 we knew everything that needed to be known. A 1976 document summarizing U.S. Defense Intelligence research is the saddest and most despicable document ever published in history.” The document lists all of the health hazards caused by wireless devices and concludes: “This should be kept secret to preserve industrial profit.” Trower also cited a 1950’s report stating: “If this paper becomes known around the world, it will threaten military and commercial interests.” He especially condemned Health Canada’s Code 6, stating that the science-based safety level published in the BioInitiative Report is 0.1 microwatts per cm2 – not Canada’s 600 to 1,000 mW/cm2!

Due to the determined suppression of the evidence over three quarters of a century, it is vitally important to get legal rulings that create a foundation for appropriate liability and the defense of public health through successful case law. That will force the invention of better technology. Last year the famous microwave activist Arthur Firstenberg brought a case regarding deployment of cell phone-related technology before the federal district court in New Mexico on the basis of the industry’s infringement of the Americans with Disability Act. The judge ruled “that the Telecommunica-tions Act preempts the Americans with Disabilities Act, even if such an interpretation would condemn a class of citizens to death because of their disabilities.” The judge also ruled that the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment was not applicable.

An appeal was launched on February 21. My hunch is that because of the denial of fundamental human rights, this legal action will now move out of the polarization between industry and science and into the territory of what lawyers call “first principles,” in this case liability law and established case law on harm done from whatever source.
Yes, the danger posed by EMF radiation is significant, but it is possible to save yourself and your loved ones. In Part 2 of this article, I will share the information and resources that I used to restore my health and make my home and workplace safe. Put simply, the answer to bad technology is not no technology, but good technology, just as bad medicine is cured by good medicine.


• M. Anslow, “The Gathering Brainstorm”, The Ecologist, April 25, 2008
• R. Baan et al. “carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields”, The Lancet, vol. 12, issue 7, July 2011
• BioInitiative Report 2007 (via google)
• P. Brodeur, “The Zapping of America – Microwaves, their Deadly Risk and the Cover-up”, Norton, 1977
• EM-Radiation Research Trust: Smart Meters-Smarter Practices: Solving Emerging Problems: UK: Dr. I. Jamieson, 2008
• R. O. Becker MD & G. Selden, The Body Electric – Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, Quill, 1985
• Canada Report LTR-CS-98, April 1973: Environmental Pollution by Microwave Radiation – A Potential Threat to Human Health, by J.A. Tanner et al., Dept of Anatomy, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
• Canadian Human Rights Commission, The Medical Perspectives of Environmental Sensitivities, May 2007. Google.
• Council of Europe April 11, 2011, - full report to EU Parliament
• D. Davis, Disconnect, Dutton, 2010
• H. Ferrie, The Damaging Effects of Electropollution, Vitality, April 2011
• A. Firstenberg, Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution, Cellular Phone Task Force, 1997
• T. Gutschi et al. “Impact on cell phone use on men’s semen parameters”, Andrologia, May 19, 2011
• O. Hallberg & L. L. Morgan, “The potential impact of mobile phone use on trends in brain and CNS tumors, Neurology & Neurophysiology, S5-003, 2011, Open Access Journal
• S. Milham MD, Dirty Electricity – Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization, iUniverse 2010
• L. Morgan, “High frequency transitions on electrical wiring: A missing link in increasing diabetes and asthma?” presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter – ICEMS Monograph of the European Journal of Oncology, Vol. 5, 2010 (via google)
• Royal Society Report for Health Canada, 1999:
• C.W. Smith & S. Best, Electromagnetic Man, J. M. Dent & Sons, 1989
• A. Terpstra, Concerned Parents Protest as Telecom Invades Schools, Vitality, October 2010
• B. Trower, Secret Report on Cell Phone Dangers and TETRA (Report for Police Federation of England and Wales), Nov. 25, 2004 (

Saturday, March 24, 2012



二零一二年三月二十日 晚上八时四十九分



商务学校、中华AB校三方家教协会于2009年初联合声讨童军与圣约翰救伤队总部的电讯站是因为家长们开始关心电磁波辐射影响在学校长时间活动的小孩。我们决定恳请槟州政府接受预警原则(precautionary principle),避免在校园附近设立电信设备。我们多次呈上家长与居民的联名请求书予槟州政府、槟州市政局、童军与圣约翰救伤队总部负责人及区内的国州议员。也请求当时来马的德国科学家Dr. Dietmar 前来学校测试,以了解学校的电磁波辐射情况。换来的是XX区国会议员带着MCMC人马到来,经过两天测试后,就公然的开骂我“制造白色恐怖”,居然叫教育局对付一个关心学校环境健康的家长。







我国电磁波辐射的“安全标准”---- 10,000,000W/m

国际防电磁波辐射联盟则要求----1,000W/m(Bio Initiative Report)

这是一个1万倍的差距啊!你采用的标准已遭多个国家及权威知名科学家挑战及否定了。测试结果“符不符合标准”已不是重点,重点是你选择使用哪一个标准?所以槟州电磁辐射公害防护联盟才提出7大诉求,以确保槟州有一个相对安全的电磁波辐射环境。此项诉求已于2010年呈交给槟州政府。而后我们也向联邦政府MCMC提交这些建议,记录在MCMC官方网站第22页 - 27页( )