top of page
Search
  • SL resident

Are telecom giants, U.S. regulatory agencies and global health organizations engaged in a cover-up regarding health risks?

Republished with permission from Children's Health Defense website.

In 2000, the ECOLOG Institute, a research organization founded in 1991 by scientists from the University Hannover, was commissioned by T-Mobile in Germany (parent company to T-Mobile in the U.S.) to study the risks of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) because of the rapidly expanding mobile telecommunications industry. The aim was to evaluate EMF risks and the need for implementing precautionary health protection. The results were twofold: (1) findings of adverse health impacts associated with exposure to EMFs and (2) strong precautions and warnings to significantly lower the power of the EMFs to which the public would be exposed. This 2000 ECOLOG Institute study was apparently never distributed nor translated into English until a copy was leaked almost a decade later to a nonprofit that commissioned its translation.

Some of the findings:

  1. Cancer: “The results of the studies for all stages of cancer development from the damage of the genetic material via the uninhibited proliferation of cells and debilitation of the immune system (see below) up to the manifestation of the illness prove effects at power flux densities of less than 1 W/m2. For some stages of cancer development, intensities of 0.1 W/m2 or even less may suffice to trigger effects.”

  • Central Nervous System: “electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer. This is particularly notable for tumors of the central nervous system, for which there is only the one epidemiological study so far, examining the actual use of mobile phones. The most striking result of this study was an obvious correlation between the side at which the phone was used and the side at which the tumor occurred.”

  • Leukemia: “Higher risks were also demonstrated for several forms of leukemia.”

  • Testicular Cancer: “The epidemiological findings for testicular cancer also need to be interpreted in conjunction with the results of the studies of fertility problems occurring in relation to high frequency electromagnetic fields.”

  1. Debilitation of the Immune System:

  • “Damaging effects on the immune system which can aid the development of illnesses were demonstrated in animal experiments at power flux densities of 1 W/m2 (mouse, exposure duration 6 days, 3 hours per day, SAR (mouse) 0.14W/kg). In in vitro experiments on lymphocytes, defects of the genetic material were demonstrated at power flux densities of circa 10 W/m2. The presence of stress hormones, which when permanent can debilitate the immune system, was found to be increased in human experiments from power flux densities of 0.2W/m2. In animal experiments (rat) a similar effect was observed at a Specific Absorption Rate of circa 0.2 W/kg.”

  1. Influences on the Central Nervous System and Cognitive Function:

  • “Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on the central nervous system are proven for intensities well below the current guidelines. Measurable physiological changes have been demonstrated for intensities from 0.5 W/m2 . Impairments of cognitive functions are proven for animals from 2W/m2.”

  1. Electromagnetic Sensitivity:

  • “The sensitivity manifests in a variety of symptoms including: nervous symptoms such as sleep disturbances, headaches, exhaustion, lack of concentration, irritability, anxiety, stress, cardiovascular complaints, disruptions of hormones and metabolism, skin complaints. The composition and strength of the complaints varies enormously in different individuals. The correlation of the complaints with electromagnetic exposures and other environmental influences seems to vary strongly not only between affected persons but also in time, a fact that has so far impeded the conclusive scientific proof of a cause-effect relationship in provocation studies. The present results of scientific studies are often not conclusive and partly contradictory. On the other hand, however, there is a wealth of data by the self-help organizations of affected people, which has not yet been explored.” It concludes, “On the basis of current knowledge it is impossible to estimate the risk of electrosensitive reactions or to make recommendations for guidelines designed to avoid such a risk for the general population, which is composed of sensitive and non-sensitive persons.”

The ECOLOG Institute then went on to emphasize the importance of developing “a strategy for the research of the ‘electrosensitivity’ phenomenon and its incidence, which would acknowledge the failure of traditional scientific methods to address the problem and allow the inclusion of the data available from the self-help groups and associations of the affected.” The ECOLOG study recommended that when the risk is impossible to estimate, precautionary health measures must be implemented:

  • “If a security factor of 10 is applied to this value, as it is applied by ICNIRP and appears appropriate given the current knowledge, the precautionary limit should be 0.01W/m2. This should be rigorously adhered to by all base stations near sensitive places such as residential areas, schools, nurseries, playgrounds, hospitals and all other places at which humans are present for longer than 4 hours.”

  • “Given the state of technology now and in the foreseeable future, it is currently technically impossible to apply the recommended maximum value for mobile base stations also to the use of mobile phones. However, a lowering of the guidelines to a maximum of 0.5 W/m2 should urgently be considered.”

  • “A particular problem in this exposure group is posed by children and adolescents, not only because their organism is still developing and therefore particularly susceptible, but also because many adolescents have come to be the most regular users of mobile phones.”

  • “Advertising towards this population group should be banned. Furthermore, particular efforts should be made to lower the exposures during calls. It would be recommendable to conduct advertising campaigns propagating the use of headsets. It would also be important to develop communications and advertising aiming at minimizing the exposures created by carrying mobile phones in standby mode on the body.”

In direct conflict with these findings and warnings, 22 years later, T-Mobile (U.S.) states on its website under Radio Frequency Safety:

“Wireless phones emit low levels of radio-frequency (RF) energy during use. Based on scientific data currently available, T-Mobile has not determined that RF energy from wireless phones causes health risks. Nonetheless, we want our customers to be informed as the wireless industry and government agencies continue to monitor the ongoing scientific research on this important subject.” T-Mobile has chosen to not just ignore, but went on to purposefully misrepresent the study results it commissioned. This is an omission of the facts and findings of the ECOLOG Institute. The recommendations were replete with warnings to bring the levels of radiation down, particularly in vulnerable locations “residential areas, schools, nurseries, playgrounds, hospitals and all other places at which humans are present for longer than 4 hours.”

This narrative has been perpetuated by global health organizations and government agencies including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). A fourth website is the World Health Organization (WHO) which also has a similar bias due to conflicts of interests, since a number of ICNIRP members are also members of the WHO EMF Project. The damage this has caused the health and well-being of populations globally and particularly, the invisible and silenced EMS disability population, is unknown. But the outcome is easy to see. Many have been silenced, in very large part, because their friends, family members, physicians and local, state and federal government leaders get their information from the same four biased websites.

29 views

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page