Author Archives: drdevraleedavis

Addicted to your cell phone? You may be harming your health

Environmental Health Trust: The Blog

New studies by the acclaimed chief of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, psychiatrist Nora Volkow show that just 50 minutes of cell phone radiation excites the brain. This important finding strengthens the need for a major research program on cell phones and health, for revamping approaches to setting standards, and for putting warning labels on cell phones.

Writing in the February 23 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, a team of researchers led by Dr. Volkow, found that cell phone radiation significantly affected brain function and metabolism of glucose–the brain’s main fuel–in those parts of the brain that received the most cell phone radiation.

These findings raise serious health concerns
Ronald B. Herberman, M.D., chair of EHT’s Board and a renowned cancer biologist and physician, indicated that this work offers an important clue about the ways that cell phone radiation can alter the brain…

View original post 1,235 more words

Advertisements

Keep mobile phones, tablets or laptops away from your body: Wireless devices may cause harm

the peper perspective

Did you ever notice the heat of your mobile phone against your ear?

Did you ever feel the warmth of the laptop against your stomach and thighs?

While recording muscle tension, we sometimes observe a signal that is NOT the actual muscle contracting.  It is an electrical signal that is recorded with sensors at the location of the body but not produced by the muscles.  In some cases, this artifact is caused by the client’s mobile phone or other wireless device being activated even though the ringer function was set to off.  Below is an example of an artifact signal that can be hundreds of times larger than the biological muscle (electromyography) or brainwave (electroencephalography) signal as shown in Figure 1.

Slide11

Figure 1. Surface electromyography recording showing the effect of cell phone located 1 cm (0.4 inches) away from the electrodes (from: Lin, I.M. & Peper, E.,2009).

The artifact…

View original post 1,471 more words

Why Parents and Children Should Practice Safe Phone

By Devra Davis, PhD , President and Founder, Environmental Health Trust, author of Disconnect:  the truth about cellphone radiation, Plume, 2011.

Children are growing up in a sea of radiofrequency radiation that has never existed in human history.  In America today, about twenty million children under the age of fourteen have cellphones.   Increasingly, scientists and policy makers in tech savvy nations like Israel and Finland are concerned that the ways these devices are used imperil the brain.   The iPhone plastic baby rattle case protects the phone’s glass screen from cracking when chomped on by teething babies,  but does not protect the infant’s young brain from the phone’s pulsed digital microwave radiation.

The proliferation of wireless gadgets overlooks a critical health issue for pregnant women, men who wish to father healthy children, and those they produce–non-ionizing or microwave radiation damages the brain and sperm of experimental animals.  A cellphone is a two-way microwave radio with intermittent and destabilizing pulses, unlike  microwave ovens that steadily operate at the same frequencies.  The weak and erratic microwave radiation from cellphones and tablets cannot directly break the bonds that hold molecules together, but does disrupt DNA,  weakens the brain’s protective barrier, and releases highly reactive and damaging free radicals.  A five-year olds brain, healthy or otherwise, is encased in a thinner skull and contains more fluid than an adults.  The bone marrow of a child’s head absorbs 10 times more  radiation than an adult, while those of infants and toddlers will absorb even more.

Few parents appreciate that infant apps of One Fish Two Fish, Peekaboo Farm, and Twinkle Twinkle Little Star may do much more than amuse and distract babies. The American Academy of Pediatrics cautions that children need more real face time than screen time, more laps than apps.  The capacity to learn how to tell the difference between mommie and me and learn to think about the other requires holding, touching, smelling, seeing and hearing real live people and cannot be supplanted by intoxicating technological bells and whistles.   Every major well-designed study ever conducted has found that those who use cell phones regularly for half an hour a day or more  for a decade have a doubled risk of brain cancer, and those who began using cell phones as teenagers have four to five times more disease in less than 10 years.  Exposure to radiation from cell phones  may also play a role for a growing spate of serious problems, including attention and hearing deficitsautism, behavioral changes, insomnia, ringing of the ears or tinnitus, Parkinsons, Alzheimer’s  and a broad array of disturbances to the nervous system.

Most disconcerting are findings from the highly respected Prof. Nesrin Seyhan, the NATO-supported founding chairman of the Biophysics Department at Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, whose studies repeatedly show that prenatally exposed rats and rabbits have fewer brain cells — and those that survive sustain more damage to their  brain, liver, reproductive system and eye.   Other research carried out by the dozen laboratory collaborative of the European Union Reflex project found that exposures to cellphone radiation directly impaired human brain cells.   Despite highly publicized charges of fraud against that work, the Reflex project has been exonerated and others have since independently confirmed their findings.

Experimental work completed by teams working with two distinguished experts in male reproductive health, Prof. Ashok Agarwal of the Cleveland Clinic and by Sir Robert John Aitken of Australia’s Newcastle University, have shown that cellphone radiation exposed human sperm die three times faster, swim significantly more poorly, become more deformed and develop significantly more damage to sperm DNA.  With one in every five couples having problems reproducing when they chose to do so,  the wisdom of the fine print warnings that come with all smartphones to not keep phones in the pocket  and avoid contact with the pregnant abdomen or those of teenagers should become standard medical advice.

There is no known safe dose standard of cellphone radiation for pregnant women, their developing babies, men who wish to become fathers,  or for young  children.  All safety warnings for cell phones (e.g., keep 2.54 inches from the abdomen ) are modeled on a very large fellow with a big head who talks less than half an hour a day.  The average toddler’s head weighs about half as much as the one for whom standards have been set.

Cell phones are just one source for microwave radiation exposure. iPads and other wireless tablet systems emit radiation as well,  although the former comes with automatic proximity sensors that reduce radiation whenever the device comes close to the body. The safety material that comes with an iPad recommends users hold it eight inches from an adult body—a distance far greater than most toddlers arms.  Yet nowadays even babies and toddlers are learning to read from wired devices and falling asleep to white noise played from phones placed under their pillows and connected to wireless routers.

What can you do to protect yourself from radiation emitted from high tech gadgets?  When it comes to using electronic devices, those hidden safety warnings have it right, so remember: distance is your friend.

  • Don’t hold a cell phone directly up to your head. Use a headset or speakerphone to talk on the phone.
  • Pregnant women should keep cell phones away from their abdomen and men who wish to become fathers should never keep phones on in their pocket.
  • Don’t allow children to play with or use your cell phone. Older children should use a headset when talking on a cell phone.
  • Turn off your wireless router at night to minimize exposure to radiation.
  • Eat green vegetables and get a good night’s sleep in a dark room to enhance natural repair of DNA that may have been damaged by radiation.

High tech gadgets beat out toys as the most desired Christmas gift for children ages 6-12, according to Nielsen Marketing and Research

For more information, including a Doctors’ Pamphlet about the need to Practice Safe Phone, written by Charlie Teo, one of the world’s top neurosurgeons, and other experts in the field see http://www.environmentalhealthtrust.org/content/downloads.

As seen on Healthy Child.

Vanishing Stories on Cell Phones–now you see them now you don’t

I woke up this morning to a remarkable front page story on Yahoo.com, featuring Dr. David Carpenter, former Dean of Public Health at Albany and Cindy Sage, electromagnetic(EMF) health expert, co-editors of the major report on EMF, www.bioinitiative.com NEW HEALTH WORRIES ABOUT MOBILE DEVICES Can Cause DNA Damage Quoting each of them at some length, the story noted the growing evidence that cellphone radiation from smartphones can cause irreparable genetic damage, even though it is non-ionizing. The absence of a brain cancer epidemic from phones today is hardly proof that phones are safe, the article explained. After the atomic bombings ended World War Two, no detectable increase in brain cancer occurred until forty years later. By 8:30, the story was gone. Perhaps I’d been dreaming?

The reluctance to acknowledge that this handy essential device should be used cautiously was something I once shared with much of the world. I wrote my book Disconnect–the truth about cell phone radiation–only after a painstaking review of other national actions revealed the case for precaution. The only indication I have that this YAHOO story was not a dream is this screenshot of its front page from early this morning. 
Screenshot of Yahoo Home Page 7:15 AM 12/3/10

What happened? I guess that’s for Yahoo to know and the rest of us to wonder. The story cannot be found anywhere on its site.

Something similar occurred with TIME magazine, where the online edition of October 26, 2010, featured
this story entitled “Pocket Watch” by Michael Scherer which as of the writing of this blog, December 3, 2010, 6:00 P.M. included this opening section http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2027523,00.html:

“We are a nation grown numb to the seemingly endless fine print that accompanies our purchases. But every now and then a product is sold with a warning that should command attention. Consider the little-noticed bit of legalese that comes in the safety manual for Apple’s iPhone 4: “When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips, or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) separation between iPhone and the body,” the warning reads.

Similar warnings against carrying cellular and smart phones in a closely sewn pocket show up throughout the industry. The safety manual for Research in Motion’s BlackBerry 9000 phone tells users that they may violate Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines for radio-frequency energy exposure by carrying the phone outside a holster and within 0.98 inches (2.5 cm) of their body. The safety manual of the Motorola W180 phone tells users to always keep the active device one full inch away from their body, if not using a company-approved “clip, holder, holster, case or body harness.”

“Skeptics of the safety of cellular phones have seized upon these warnings as evidence that the ubiquitous devices may be exposing Americans to far more radiation than regulators measure. “Nobody is watching,” says Devra Davis, the author of a new book called Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family. “Is the law broken if something is so complicated that nobody notices?”

“The answer, like the fine-print warnings themselves, is complicated, and likely has as much to do with corporate concerns over legal compliance as it does with health, given the current body of scientific knowledge. “The companies want to legally protect themselves,” says Robert Cleveland Jr., a former FCC official who worked on setting the current cellular-phone radio-frequency standard.”

“The warnings stem from an odd quirk in federal testing procedures designed to ensure the safety of cellular phones. In 2001, the FCC released a set of guidelines for manufacturers that required all cell phones sold in the U.S. to emit a specific absorption rate (SAR) of not more than 1.6 watts of radio-frequency energy per kilogram of body tissue, a standard deemed safe given the state of scientific knowledge about thermal harm from radio-frequency waves. The standard was considered a so-called worst-case scenario, accounting for the energy emitted when the phone was transmitting at full power all of its various signals — such as Bluetooth, wi-fi and cellular.”

“But the FCC testing regulations notably chose not to simulate a situation in which the phone was broadcasting at full power while inside a shirt or pants pocket flush against the body, an odd oversight given the known habits of many cellular-phone users. As a matter of physics, radio-frequency energy generally increases sharply as distance is reduced. “The exposure is definitely related to distance,” says Cleveland.”

“According to the 2001 FCC guidelines, testing of the device in a “body-worn” configuration should be done with the device in a belt clip or holster. If a belt clip or holster was not supplied with the phone, the FCC told testers to assume a separation distance of between 0.59 inches and 0.98 inches (1.5 cm to 2.5 cm) from the body during a test.”

“Clearly if it’s tested in a holster, it’s only guaranteed to be compliant if it’s used with a holster,” says one current FCC official familiar with these issues, who asked not to be identified by name. “Clearly a lot of people weren’t aware of this, and it probably does need to be addressed.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2027523,00.html#ixzz175ghb5nC
——————————–
But the printed edition of this same headlined story by the same author that appeared part in the print edition November 15, 2010, took a very different tack in its opening.

“FIRST, AN ADMISSION: I didn’t read the safety manual after I bought my Blackberry Bold 900. I was too dazzled by the device–my first 3G, afterall–to be distracted by legalese. The phone promised easy Web browsing and cameloaded with Texas hold’em games. And so, like millions of other cell-phone users, I carried it in my pants pocket all day long, everyday. After more than a year, I finally got around to reading the manual. That’s when I found out that I had been in violation of not only BlackBerry’s safety warnings but also my desire for self-preservation.

“When you carry the BlackBerry device on your body, use only accessories equipped with an integrated belt clip,” the manual stated on page 17. If not using a belt clip, the warning continued, “Keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 inches (25 mm) from your body” when sending or receiving data, in order to “maintain compliance” with the radiofrequency radiation standards set by the FCC.

Similar directives against carrying phones in body hugging pockets are common throughout the industry. Apples iPhone4 manual tells users to keep the phone “at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body.” Motorola cautions that an active W180 should be a full inch (25mm) from the user’s skin–unless it’s paired with a company-approved “clip, holder, holster, case, or body harnass.”

“Skeptics of cell-phone safety have seized on these warnings as evidence that the ubiquitous devices may be exposing Americans to far more radiation than regulators measure. And sure enough, it turns out these provision stem from an odd quirk in federal testing procedures. For some reason. . . .”
——————————————
Of course, there could be many reasons for these editorial changes. Any writer worth her salt can tell you that editing is the bane of our lives. I remember one famed literateuse confessing that when she got her editor’s final comments on a book, she dared not look at them. She would put them into a drawer, waiting a week for the courage and the right vintage to be able to open them. Perhaps TIME has especially stringent editing of its print edition,compared to online. We may never know.

But, we can be glad that despite what may or may not have happened with YAHOO and TIME, the story is getting out. The New York Times Business section piece by Professor Randall Stross on Sunday was the most emailed story of the week:

Should You Be Snuggling With Your Cellphone?
By RANDALL STROSS
Published: November 13, 2010

WARNING: Holding a cellphone against your ear may be hazardous to your health. So may stuffing it in a pocket against your body.

One of the earliest stories on the subject was that of the award-winning, take-no-prisoners science reporter, Sharon Begley formerly with the Wall Street Journal, now with Newsweek. This serious piece by a serious journalist never made it into print at all. It appeared only online right under a large banner ad for a new 4G smartphone.

The First Amendment provides for freedom of the press, but when traditional media are under attack and commercially sponsored “media” are ascending press freedom cannot be taken for granted. Knocking stories off pages and even off line has become a contact sport. In a day when telecom related firms provide much of the advertising revenue and political contributions to both parties, the modern variant of the golden rule applies. He who has the gold rules.

Dr. Devra Lee Davis, PhD, MPH
Founder of Environmental Health Trust