"I am now convinced that EMF's pose a health hazard. There is a statistical association between magnetic fields and cancer that goes beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. I think there is clear evidence that exposure to EMF's increases the risk for cancer. This is most clear with leukemia and brain tumours, but in the residential studies, statistical significance increased for all kinds of cancer. And we're just beginning to have a whole body of evidence that reproductive cancers are increased by exposure." Dr David Carpenter, Dean of the State of New York School of Public Health

"In all my years of looking at chemicals, I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with ELF (extremely low frequency) electromagnetic fields. Clearly something is happening here." Martin Halper, Environmental Protection Agency (US) Director of Analysis and Support

"Based on the data base we have right now, I think the probability of hazards to human health from exposure to EMF's is high. It has been pretty well accepted by most scientists now...The issue is not whether there is biological effects or possible harm, but at what level and what duration of exposure - that question we have not answered." Dick Phillips, Director of Experimental Biology Division, Environmental Protection Agency (US)

"We will proceed on the assumption that there is a connection between exposure to lower frequency magnetic fields and cancer, in particular childhood cancer." Swedish National Board of Industrial and Technical Development.

"...Sweden has concluded that EMF's do lead to higher rates of cancer...I, frankly was somewhat impressed by the arguments made by the Swedes." President Bill Clinton

Cynicism of the mobile phone firms. - By James Chapman, Science Correspondent, Daily Mail.

Mobile phone firms are cynically targeting children despite fears that they are most at risk from radiation, a leading scientist claimed yesterday.

Sir William Stewart, who led the world's biggest investiagtion into mobile phone safety, said those who encouraged under 16s to buy handsets were irresponsible. There were also warnings that boys who use phones to send text messages could be putting their fertility at risk. An expert said they should hold mobiles away from their bodies, rather than in their laps, to avoid the risk of radiation affecting vital organs.

Children's brains are thought to be particularly vulnerable to mobile phone radiation because their skulls are thinner than adults'. The skull of a five year old, for example, is as thin as 1/2 mm at the ear whereas the skull of a 21 year is about 2mm.

As many as 9 in 10 British teenagers are thought to own mobile phones. They are regarded as must-have accessories and text messaging has reached record levels. "I said last year that I wasn't prepared to let my grandchildren use mobile phones and I have not changed that attitude", said Sir William, the Government's former chief scientist.

"The reason we don't recommend long-term use of mobile phones by children is that their skulls are not fully fixed, their nervous system is not fully developed and as youngsters they are likely to be exposed longer during their lifetimes to mobile phone radiation. It's up to parents to act responsibly and it's up to suppliers to act responsibly. But I've seen reports over the Christmas period where some commercial companies were not acting in a precautionary mode. Some suppliers and some shops are actively promoting the sale of mobile phones to children. I think it shows a lack of responsibility at this stage in the game."

A survey carried out just before Christmas suggested mobile phone retailers were failing to give proper advice about possible health hazards to children. A government leaflet issued last year advising about possible dangers was not available in most shops visited by reporters posing as shoppers buying mobiles for children.

The latest research programme aims to provide definitive answers to questions about mobile phone safety. Fifteen separate research projects are to be launched, including studies to assess whether using the phones increases the risk of developing brain tumours or leukaemia. Others will examine whether mobile phone radiation affects blood pressure, causes deafness or interferes with brain function.

The study, which was carried out on rats by Professor Leif Salford and colleagues at Lund University in Malmo, is the latest twist in the long-running debate over whether mobile phones are a health risk. "We have good reason to believe that what happens in rat's brains also happens in humans" said Professor Salford.

They experimented on rats aged between 12 and 26 weeks. Their brains are regarded as being in the same stage of development as teenagers. The rats were exposed to two hours of radiation, equivalent to that emitted by mobile phones. Their brains were examined under a microscope 50 days later. The researchers found that rats which had been exposed to medium and high levels of radiation had an abundance of dead brain cells.

Professor Salford said there was good reason to believe that mobile phones could have the same effect on humans. "A rat's brain is very much the same as a human's. They have the same blood-brain barrier and neurons," he told BBC News Online. "We have good reason to believe that what happens in rat's brains also happens in humans."

Professor Salford said that there was also a chance exposure to mobile phone radiation could trigger Alzheimer's disease in some people.

"What we are saying is those neurons that are already prone to Alzheimer's disease may be stimulated earlier in life. However, this theory is hypothetical. We do not have evidence yet that the human brain is affected in this way."

The study is published in Environmental Health Perspectives - the journal of the US government's National Health Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.Writing in the journal, the researchers concluded: "We cannot exclude that after some decades of often daily use, a whole generation of users may suffer negative effects maybe already in their middle age."

Professor Salford said mobile phone users should not be alarmed by the findings. "This is a negative finding and yes it doesn't seem to be particularly good. But this is one observation, in one laboratory with a small number of animals. This study will have to be repeated before we get alarmed. Nevertheless, it is strong enough to merit more research into this area."

But he added: "Perhaps putting a mobile phone repeatedly to your head is something that might not be good in the long term. Maybe we should think about restricting our use of mobile phones."

Each month we see more reports about mobile phone radiation effects - but what does it actually mean for you and me? Is there really a health risk? Here is a common-sense personal view from a physician and parent of four children who is also a major user of wireless devices of all kinds.

New reports continue to be published suggesting that there might be health risks from mobile phones electromagnetic radiation. There can be no doubt any longer that mobile phone radiation affects living cells. For example research shows that nematode worms exposed to mobile phone radiation produce more eggs, release stress hormones and grow larger. But what is the effect of mobile phone radiation on people? Could we see a mass court action in twenty years time against telecom companies by people claiming compensation for health damage caused by radiation? It's a possibility, even though at present the clear evidence suggests that if there is any effect on human health at all, it is a very, very low risk for the individual user.

However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in March 2003 a study in the International Journal of Oncology suggested that mobile phone users had a 30% increased risk of brain tumours - mainly acoustic neuromas - which occurred close to the ear used for mobile phone listening. Previous studies had shown that growth of leukaemia cells could be increased dramatically after exposure to mobile phone radiation./p>

What makes these studies difficult to evaluate is that other research has not shown the same findings. And the effects may be very different depending on the type of electromagnetic radiation. GSM and GPRS (2.5G) phones use what is known as pulsed radiation. The levels rise and fall very rapidly. 3G phones on the other hand use continuous levels. Some research suggests that pulsed radiation may have a greater effect on cells than constant exposure, which is important because different studies have used different types of radiation - perhaps an explanation for some of the more confusing results.

Short exposure to mobile phone radiation - two hours - has been reported in 2003 to destroy cells in parts of the brain important for memory, movement and learning, and could possibly conceivably premature onset of illnesses such as Alzheimers - although we have no evidence of a similar effect in humans. Lund University Hospital Professor Leif Salford says mobile radiation allows harmful proteins and toxins through the brain barrier in rats. He also has found significant degree of damage to brain neurons in adolescent rats.

He said: "If this effect was to transfer to young mobile users, the effects could be terrifying. We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age could get it much earlier." He used rats aged 12-26 weeks because their brain cells were still developing in a similar way to teenagers and younger children. They were exposed for just 120 minutes to radiation equivalent to typical intensive mobile phone use. Sections of rat brains were examined 50 days after exposure. Animals exposed to medium and high level radiation had many dead neurons in their brains - totally different from rats which were not exposed to radiation. (published Feb 2003).

The trouble is that similar studies cannot be carried out in humans because mobile phone radiation exposure would have to be followed by brain biopsy which can cause epilepsy later, permanent brain damage, stroke or even death. We can only get the answer in humans by doing studies on brain tissue of teenagers killed in accidents, and comparing brain tissue of heavy, medium, light and non-users of mobile phones. In addition, we have yet to see other centres replicate his work.

Dr Kjell Hansson Mild in Sweden studied radiation risk in 11,000 mobile telephone users. Symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, burning sensations on the skin were more common among those who made longer mobile phone calls. At the same time there are a growing number of unconfirmed reports of individuals whose health has been affected after chronic, frequent use of mobile phones, presumably from radiation effects on cells. See below for SAR data on mobile phone radiation levels. Once again, for every study with a positive finding of effect on cells, there is another that has found nothing.

As I say, from a physician's point of view this is all rather difficult to interpret. The truth is that no one knows for sure, but it looks as though the health risks for an individual person with normal patterns of use are extremely low, almost non-existent. I still use a mobile phone, as do our teenage children, and my home has a wireless network as well as hands-free local handsets for landlines. The only steps we have taken are to mount the wireless LAN connection a few feet from where anyone sits, and to encourage our younger children not to spend their entire lives chatting away on mobiles - there are other reasons for that too such as homework and of course cost.

As long ago as June 1998 the Lancet reported that radiation from mobiles caused an increase of blood pressure. Dr Braune and colleagues in Freiburg, Germany, attached mobiles to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing - so that any radiation effect could be separated from the psychological effect of holding a mobile phone. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from an electromagnetic radiation induced constrictive effect on blood vessels from the mobile phones.

This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe risk, but is harmless in the vast majority of people. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body. But what about longer term radiation effects of using mobile phones? Could mobile phone exposure trigger cancer? Birth defects? What about the health risks not just from mobile phones but the transmitter masts?

This work on human subjects follows other ealier mobile phone studies in animals suggesting that electromagnetic radiation from mobiles may cause brain tumours, cancer, anxiety, memory loss and serious birth defects. But different studies have contradicted many of these findings. As in so much of cutting edge science, there are real uncertainties about mobile phone radiation. Remember it has taken 30 years to work out the side-effects of oral contraceptives and even that is still debated. Here are some of the more negative reports.

An Australian study found that mice exposed to pulsed digital mobile phone radiation over 18 months had twice the risk of developing cancers. An American study found that learning and short term memory were impaired after 45 minutes exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones in rats. And other studies of electromagnetic radiation on pregnant mice suggest that high exposure to mobile phones can affect intra-uterine development, confirmed recently in chicks (double birth defects, see below). The effects of mobile phone radiation in human embryo development are unknown.

Mobile phones vary on radiation dosage: Following figures are for European mobile phones in SARS (watts of radiation from mobile phones per kg of brain), antenna extended / retracted. Safety is 10 watts/kg. Lowest radiation levels from phones with hidden antennae or ones extended away from head. Below that are SAR levels for US mobile phones. Note that there are different figures for SAR levels around for the same mobile phones, I suspect because some are official company data, and others independent lab measurements and that there may be other variables according to the exact conditions. For example the first table below shows big SAR phone radiation differences depending on the position of the aerial.

1. First of all there is the consistency of symptoms. People from all over Australia with no connections, produce a rather similar story.

2. Secondly, there are now reports coming from overseas, Scandinavia, Great Britain and America of people getting similar kinds of symptoms.

3.Thirdly, there is a statement from the Department of Communications recently out about the development of "hot spots" in the brain. This means a concentration of energy which would give a possible explanation for these symptoms.

4. Fourthly, and most interestingly, these symptoms were in fact observed over 30 years ago in a laboratory set up." The UK's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) confirms significant absorption of microwave energy in the eyes and their sockets, brain, nose, tongue and surrounding muscles. A senior adviser to the NRPB has been reported in the British press as saying: "It is not unreasonable to suggest that this might cause some damage." The worry is that these overt symptoms may be the precursors to more serious problems and not all users are getting these early warning signals.
Is the problem more serious?
Research funded by the New York Heart Research Foundation as early as 1992, showed that microwave radiation from a relatively low powered analogue mobile phone, caused chemical changes in the brain similar to those present in cancerous and precancerous situations, which were still measurable more than 7 days after just one 3 minute phone call. Research published in 1996 by doctors Lai and Singh of Washington State University, Seattle, demonstrates that exposure to extremely low level microwave radiation causes single and double strand breakages in DNA brain cells of rats. An accumulation of DNA breakages is known to be associated with the slow onset of diseases such as cancers, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's. The frequencies used in their experiments are known to be less penetrative than those emitted by mobile phones and the power levels were substantially lower. Adding to growing evidence that electromagnetic fields may be linked to Alzheimer's disease, a 1996 US study by Dr Eugene Sobel, published in the journal Neurology, found that people who are exposed to high electromagnetic field (EMF) levels on the job have, on average, three to five times the normal risk of contracting the disease. These results follow on the heels of a September report from the US Centre for Diseases Control and Prevention indicating that a broad variety of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimers, are more common among workers exposed to EMF on the job. About 50 studies have now reported statistically significant increased risks for several types of cancer in occupational groups with elevated exposure to electromagetic radiation. In microwave and radar personnel they have noted sharp increases in lymphomas, melanomas, leukemias, and brain tumours, high blood pressure, headaches, memory loss and brain damage. Immune system abnormalities were also noted: first an over stimulation, then later immune suppression after continued exposure to low levels of microwave radiation. A recent Australian study, funded by Telstra, conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital by Dr Michael Repacholi, Professor Tony Basten, Dr Alan Harris and statistician Val Gebski, revealed a highly significant doubling of cancer rates in a group of mice exposed to electromagnetic radiation equivalent to spending two half-hour periods each day on a digital mobile phone. How is microwave radiation absorbed by the body? EMR (electromagnetic radiation) is a form of energy which is emitted by amongst other things, electrical appliances. EMR in the form of microwave radiation is given off by a mobile phone through the keypad, screen, ear-piece and aerial when the phone is switched on, and particularly when in conversation. Unlike an ordinary phone, a mobile phone's power unit and transmitter is located in the handset. Research by the UK's National Radiological Protection Board has shown that microwaves penetrate through the skull and into the brain. In addition, the ear, the eye and its socket, the nose and other surrounding tissue, also show significant absorption. Radiation levels are always at their strongest closest to the EMR source. With a mobile phone in operation, the concern is that the user could hardly get any closer to the handset. "You would not put your head into a microwave oven, but people are quite happy to hold a mobile phone next to their head" Senior Physician, Danish Board of Health European Health and Safety Journal 1995

Manufacturers claim that their phones are safe because they comply with current safety standards. However the validity of these standards are now being challenged both within the scientific community and, increasingly, in the courts. The current safety standards are being questioned because:
1.Firstly, the standards are based solely on heating (thermal) effects of human tissue. This suggests that unless you are being cooked, you need not worry. However, the European Commission Public Health Directorate confirms that microwave radiation from cellular phones induces heating in tissues and organs and that temperature rises of only 1 degree Celsius can produce a variety of health effects which become more severe with higher temperature rises. (Tests carried out in Australian cellular industry laboratories have shown temperature increases of over 4 degrees Celsius) When asked in 1995 if it was still advisable to base standards solely on thermal effects, the chairman of the USA's National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurement Committee replied: "...the laboratory evidence for non-thermal effects of both ELF and RF/microwave fields now constitutes a major body of scientific literature in peer reviewed journals. It is my personal view that to continue to ignore this work in the course of standards setting is irresponsible to the point of being a scandal." Of note, two military research bases in the USA reduced their permitted levels of radio frequency exposure significantly (from 100W/m2 down to 1W/m2). This is because they acknowledged that there is now an overwhelming body of published evidence of the positive existence of non-thermal biological effects of high-frequency radiation.
2.Secondly, because the current safety standards are set on the assumption that microwaves are distributed evenly throughout the head. However, evidence is emerging that "hot spots" may be formed within the brain which could cause more damage than previously assumed. It has been shown that digital mobile phones can deliver well over the safety levels into head tissue in their output pulses, but they are said to comply because over each second the average power is only one-eighth of the pulse power. To give a clearer analogy, this is like the health department saying that it is safe to drink 14 standard drinks at one time because this averages out to only 2 standard drinks per day over a week. Unlike the earlier analogue mobile phones, the newer digital ones emit a series of radio frequency pulses. This has been shown to be more biologically active than a continuous radiation of the same frequency and power level. These pulses are picked up and detected by the cells inside the user's and other nearby people's heads. This means that the brain cells are being "hit" by these radiation pulses, and this is what is now raising concern amongst researchers. To use another analogy, while a constant light does not harm anyone, if it is switched on and off like a strobe, serious neurological symptoms can be triggered. It is also important to consider exactly who is setting these safety standards. In Australia, the Standards Committee consists of 12 representatives, of which nine are users or sellers of the technology. Thus it could be said that there is a conflict of interest for those who set the standards. When Dr Bruce Hocking, former Medical Officer for Telecom, was asked on the "7.30 Report" about the governments policy management on this issue, he replied: "First of all, I think it's a mistake to put the major responsibility for this issue into the Department of Communication and the Arts. They have a potential conflict of interest. They are a major revenue raiser for the government, from license fees as well as the proposed sales of Telstra and of future frequencies for mobile phones. They would not be wanting to create too much concern that some of these products may be unhealthy to the public, as that would impact on their revenues, and yet they are responsible for the dissemination of information regarding this. I think it would be fairer to the government and the public alike if the responsibility for all health public issues were moved firmly into the Department of Health Branch area and administered out of there." It appears that a "conflict of interest" situation also exists in the USA. The Wireless Technology Research (WTR) group, which is funded by the mobile phone industry has become embroiled in a number of scandals. The WTR was promoted to the public and to the US government as being an "independent" and "arms-length" body controlling $25 million in research funding. Recent leaked documents show that it has been under the direct control of the industry association, and it has long operated as a PR front. In the last four years it has spent $17 million "without wetting a test-tube" according to Microwave News editor, Louis Slessin. The WTR scientists recently went on strike for nearly a year, refusing to perform their contracted research until adequately covered for indemnity against law suits, by the mobile phone industry association. The US scientists' sensitivity to this issue follows the filing of 38 cases which are now before the courts over past tobacco-safety studies. Both the tobacco company lawyers and the scientists they funded have been charged as co-conspiritors with the Tobacco Institute and the cigarette companies in suppressing evidence and manipulating research results. If manufacturers genuinely believe that their mobile phones are completely safe then why: Do many of them suggest in their handbook that users may wish to reduce their exposure by spending less time on the phone? Why would three manufacturers have lodged their own patents to reduce radiation emissions which in the word of the patent abstracts are to "prevent the health of the user from being damaged"? Why has one manufacturer just launched a new low radiation mobile phone? Why are many manufacturers developing antenna which point away from the head? Why is the mobile phone industry spending millions of dollars on medical research looking for evidence of a problem which they categorically assure people doesn't exist and why have they refused funding to independent scientists whose research looks as if it might reveal damning conclusions? The answer to many of these questions probably lies in current litigation claims being filed against mobile phone manufacturers, marketers and service providers. While there may be no "conclusive scientific data" to prove that mobile phones are a health risk, it seems there are increasing numbers of people challenging in the courts the current ideology that mobile phones are safe. Kane v. Motorola In this case, Robert Kane, an engineer for Motorola, alleges that he developed a brain tumour from exposure to radio frequency EMF which resulted from his testing of an experimental mobile phone antenna. Also named as defendants are Kane's manager, the principal designer of the antenna, and Motorola's chief research scientist for mobile telephones and antennas. Rittman v. Motorola In August 1995, attorneys for the estate of Dean Vincent Rittman and family who survived him filed a lawsuit against several mobile telephone manufacturers and marketers and two cellular service providers, alleging that Mr Rittman's fatal brain tumour was caused by his use of mobile telephones. This case was filed in Tarrant County, Texas. Listed as defendants are Motorola, Inc; NEC USA, Inc; NEC America, Inc; General Electric Company; Ericsson, Inc; GTE Corporation; GTE Mobilnet, Inc; GTE Mobilnet Service Corporation; GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc; SBC Communications, Inc; Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc; Discount Communications, Inc; and Parkinson Electrical Company. The complaint contains claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, civil battery and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practises Act (DTPA). Also, a leading research laboratory in the UK has formally advised Motorola's German headquarters that it intends to file an action against Motorola for failure to comply with certain sections of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The impending action alleges that Motorola has failed to affix warning labels to its mobile phone handsets advising consumers that prolonged usage may give rise to adverse health risks. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is derived from a European Directive imposing, a duty on producers and distributors to ensure that products made available to the public are safe, or and that warning labels are affixed where there is any doubt.

A giant Swiss Insurance company, Swiss Re, has raised serious concerns for the insurance industry as to future liability for claims against health damage caused by electromagnetic emissions including mobile phones Up to now, the prevailing legal opinion is that industries can only be liable if science provides conclusive proof that weak electromagnetic fields impair health. The question on whether or not EMF's are a real hazard is no longer an issue when it comes to possible future litigation pay outs for insurance companies. The EMF problem is more dangerous and more threatening for the insurance industry than has generally been supposed. Swiss Re's report comes to the conclusion that on the basis of present knowledge alone, it must be expected that the plaintiffs will win suits dealing with this issue. There is obviously the risk that new research findings will demonstrate electromagnetic fields to be more dangerous than has been assumed. This follows a recent incident by Australia's leading insurance company, Mercantile Mutual, who objected plans by Vodaphone to build a transmitting tower on its Sydney office block. In its formal objection it said: "there is an increasing body of scientific and medical evidence of the risk to health posed by exposure to emissions from telecommunication base stations. The risk to health may expose us as owners of the property to liability for injury to persons who are even alleged to have been exposed to emissions from the base station". Of note, according to a recent Telstra report mobile phone handset signals are between 100 and 46 000 times higher than maximum base station transmitters !

Claim 1# Mobile phones comply with current safety standards However, as mentioned previously, the methodology of the safety standards are being called into question by leading researchers, as is the motivation of those setting the standards.

Claim 2# There is no evidence of a link between mobile phones and ill-health. The recent Telstra funded Royal Adelaide Hospital mice study, which found over a two fold increase in cancer in the mice exposed to a digital phone frequency, was called into question by its own researchers who stated: "mice and humans absorb energy from these fields differently, so we cannot conclude from this single study that humans have an increased risk of cancer from the use of digital mobile phones." It would seem to be a rather futile exercise then to conduct research on mice and then when damning results occur, call the whole study into question because it was based on mice!!! Essentially, what they are saying is that the only conclusive research will be when humans exposed to mobile phone radiation show a two fold increase in cancer. Dr Neil Cherry, a scientist from Lincoln University, New Zealand states: " Despite the impression that mobile-phone companies give in their literature, very little work has been done on the long term implications of mobile-phone use. In fact this type of research is really only starting to happen now. This means that current mobile phone users are acting as involuntary, and often unsuspecting, test subjects. Past research into microwave radiation effects certainly gives rise for concern. If you are completely healthy, and have a strong immune system, then mobile-phone use may well not give you long-term health problems. Some people can smoke twenty cigarettes per day for fifty years and not develop lung cancer, and yet the dangers of smoking are now generally accepted. Most of us regularly develop cancerous cells in our bodies. Normally the deranged cells are destroyed by our immune system. However, it has been repeatedly shown that a few minutes of exposure to cell-phone type radiation can transform a five percent active cancer into a ninety-five percent active cancer. Most of us remember the Thalidomide tragedy - the result of a product being used widely before adequate long term research had been carried out. The result has been such a misery for the families involved, and long drawn out and expensive lawsuits. Another example is asbestos which has been strictly controlled since 1970, and the most dangerous types banned. Despite this, deaths from mesothelioma (an asbestos induced cancer of the pleura/lungs) are rising consistently and the UK death rate is not expected to peak until about 2020. The time between the first exposure and death is now accepted as often being between 20 and 50 years. Most environmental cancers in adults take longer than ten years from initiation to when they are detected."

"I am now convinced that EMF's pose a health hazard. There is a statistical association between magnetic fields and cancer that goes beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. I think there is clear evidence that exposure to EMF's increases the risk for cancer. This is most clear with leukemia and brain tumours, but in the residential studies, statistical significance increased for all kinds of cancer. And we're just beginning to have a whole body of evidence that reproductive cancers are increased by exposure." Dr David Carpenter, Dean of the State of New York School of Public Health

" In all my years of looking at chemicals, I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with ELF (extremely low frequency) electromagnetic fields. Clearly something is happening here." Martin Halper, Environmental Protection Agency (US) Director of Analysis and Support

"Based on the data base we have right now, I think the probability of hazards to human health from exposure to EMF's is high. It has been pretty well accepted by most scientists now...The issue is not whether there is biological effects or possible harm, but at what level and what duration of exposure - that question we have not answered." Dick Phillips, Director of Experimental Biology Division, Environmental Protection Agency (US)

"We will proceed on the assumption that there is a connection between exposure to lower frequency magnetic fields and cancer, in particular childhood cancer." Swedish National Board of Industrial and Technical Development.

"...Sweden has concluded that EMF's do lead to higher rates of cancer...I, frankly was somewhat impressed by the arguments made by the Swedes." President Bill Clinton

What if I can't limit the number of calls I make or the length of my calls, because I use my mobile phone for work?
There are a few products available to reduce the amount of radiation recieved from mobile phones. As mentioned above, there are the hands free devices which are readily available from most telecommunication outlets. UPDATE:* Tests Confirm Hands Free Kits Not So Safe After All.(Click here for more info) With regard to shielding products, there are a few products available which substantially reduce the microwave radiation emitted by mobile phones. For more information on shielding products click here.

For more information on mobile phones and electro-magnetic radiation:
WEBSITES:
Letter on Bioeffects of Cellular Phone Use
The Electromagnetic Health Threat
Cellphones and Health
EMF-Link
Microwave News
Evidence for Tissue Interactions With Microwave and Other Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Fields in Cancer Promotion
FEB - The Swedish Association for the ElectroSensitive
Cellular Towers, EMR, and Health Effects

ARTICLES:
H.Lai, NP Singh 1996, Single and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation International Journal of Radiation Biology,Vol 69, No4, 513-521
Anne Davies, Fear of Frying Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 3 May, 1997
Stewart Fist, Cancer scare story you didn't hear, The Australian 6 May,1997 & More than a tale of Mice and Men, The Australian, Tuesday 13 May,1997

BOOKS:
Electromagnetic Fields : A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves

Cross Currents : The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of Electropollution

Health Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation : A Startling Look at the Effects of Electropollution on Your Health

Safe As Houses? : Ill-Health and Electro-Stress in the Home