Click here for story text or if your browser does not support the embedded video.

So the guy had brain cancer.  That’s too bad, really it is, and I don’t mean to say that sarcastically.  Luckily he lived through it, no doubt thanks to modern medicine and cancer treatment.    The fact that he survived cancer makes him a sympathetic character, but it doesn’t actually make him an expert on anything.

So why is this couple “convinced” that cell phones caused his brain cancer or cancer in general?   It may come down to seeking an explanation for what caused his cancer.   The vast majority of cancers have no attributable cause and cancer can strike anyone, healthy or not without warning.   It’s comforting to think have some kind of control, and for someone who suffered through brain cancer, blaming it on cell phones is a way to make sense of the events and feel like there is something to fight back against.   Given the attention it gets in the media, it also is the most obvious scapegoat.

The bigger question is why they are being sought for testimony by congress or any legislator.   They’re not experts in any way shape or form.   However, a cancer survivor fighting to stop people from facing the same disease does make for good political theater.  It’s always popular to go after the “big companies” and “protect people,” and there are few things the public fears more than cancer and radiation.   Just throw in a few more catch phrases like “for the children,”  “If we don’t, the terrorists win” and “to create jobs,” and you’ve got political gold!

For that matter, why did they ask an “environmental activist” about phone safety?   Although some seem to be trying to blur the line, human safety around RF devices has absolutely nothing to do with general environmental policy.  Issues like global warming, fisheries management, discharges into water ways and sulfur emissions standards are as related to RF radiation safety as they are to the price of pickles in Brooklyn.    Here’s an idea, how about someone who is an expert in these kind of things, like maybe a health physicist.

Should cell phones be labeled for radiation emissions?

These days this may sound a bit old fashioned, but I myself still subscribe to the idea that governments should not impose restrictions or requirements on private enterprise or individuals unless there’s some good reason to do so.  It may not be a huge burden to require phone manufacturers to put warnings on their product, but what reason is there to do so?   There’s no evidence at all that RF radiation is associated with cancer or any other health problem, at least at the levels produced by consumer devices like phones.   They all conform to extremely conservative and very thoroughly tested standards for exposure.

The report states that”it’s time for the federal government to conduct new studies; the last was in 1997.”  This is simply not true.  It’s possible that it has been that long since a study fully funded and conducted by the US Federal government, but there have been many other studies done by companies, private research institutions, world governments and universities.   Studies on the topic (literally thousands of them) go back decades.  No evidence of an increased risk of cancer has ever been detected.   At some point, one has to concede that enough research has been done.

If nothing else, adding warnings to safe products completely diminishes the credibility of the government for indicating when products really are hazardous.   If everything is labeled, then how is anyone supposed to make sense of what is worth concern and what is not?

The actual message may not contain the word “cancer,” but the implication is clear.   For the public, this is more confusion and concern over a non-issue.   Of course, for those who sell various quack products which are supposed to protect from radiation, this only helps their scam.

The rational for the Active Denial System:

The US military, like many militarizes around the world has found itself engaged in more and more complex peacekeeping and policing actions.   In areas like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, military activity is not limited to traditional battlefields, but rather involves security and policing of urban areas with large civilian populations.   Some of the greatest dangers and most difficult situations arise when crowds of civilians are involved.

A suicide bomber could easily hide in a mob of otherwise unarmed persons and even an unarmed crowd can potentially block movement of vehicles or endanger soldiers and civilians.  A heated protest can easily erupt into a riot.  Maintaining order in these type of situations has always been an extreme challenge.  The use of deadly force would undoubtedly work, but would be considered unacceptable in all but the most extreme situations.   Even well armed soldiers can find themselves cornered by a large group of angry civilians, and in such situations, they are faced with the limited options of doing nothing or using deadly force.

This problem has existed for both the military and police forces for decades and to this end, a number of non-lethal methods of dispersing crowds or suppressing entry to areas have been developed.   Some of the most common ones include the following:

• Tear gas and/or pepper spray
• “Rubber bullets” and less than lethal projectiles
• Acoustic deterrents (basically really unpleasant sounds)
• Water cannons or fire hoses
• Tasers and stun guns (for subduing a single individual)

While all of these methods have been successfully used around the world, they all come with major limitations and dangers.   Acoustic devices may not always work against those willing to endure the sound and even tear gas is no always effective.   Worse, these methods can cause serious injury or death.   This is especially true with rubber bullets and other projectiles.   While they are designed to only inflict bruises, if they are fired at the head or from too close  a range they can be deadly.   Water cannons can knock people over and cause broken bones, and have been notoriously been used against civil rights protesters, resulting in injuries.  Even tear gas and pepper spray can turn deadly, such as when it causes an asthma attack or impairs the breathing of those with respiratory conditions.

The perfect device for crowd control and non-lethal force would be capable of producing instantaneous discomfort or incapacitation while having zero potential for any long term injury.  It would require no direct contact with those being targeted, have unlimited ammunition and no potential for abuse of any kind.    The Active Denial System doesn’t quite reach this ideal, but it does come pretty close.

The Active Denial system is more similar to a big heat lamp than anything else, although it uses a frequency range slightly bellow the infrared that is normally used by such devices.    The ADS utilizes super high frequency microwaves in the range of 95 Ghz.   This frequency is much much higher than those normally used for communications or radar and is considerably less capable of penetrating materials or the human body.

Just as a microwave oven heats food the energy from the Active Denial system causes imediate heating of anything it encounters, including the human body.   However, unlike a microwave oven, which uses about 2.5 ghz frequencies, the 95 ghz energy is not capable of penetrating the body.   It will only heat the outer most layer of skin, maximizing the effect on the area where nerve cells can be found and avoiding any potential for damage to deeper tissues.

The ADS has a range of about five to seven hundred meters, as long as there is clear line of sight.   As with any directed energy beam  system, it must contend with the inverse square law.   To maintain effectiveness over distance, the ADS uses a narrowly-focused beam, resulting in low diffusion and beam spread.   Still, range is limited to local targets and the beam can be blocked relatively easily by most materials.   A person could therefore be protected from a the ADS by a variety of materials ranging from metal foil to thick multi-layered fabric.   The effect could even be defeated by wearing heavy winter clothing or thick leather.   However, this would require some level of advanced planning and all exposed skin would need to be covered.

The effect has been described as anything from a scalding water to a terrible sun burn.   It causes a reflex-like action to back away from the discomfort.   However, the effect is generally extremely temporary.   It was found during tests that most subjects had no injury at all if they immediately ran from the device.   Only those who forced themselves to stand and endure the device showed any sign of injury, which was limited to some redness of the skin.   In thousands of tests, only two subjects developed minor blisters.

Concern had been expressed over the potential for damage to the eyes, which are more sensitive.   In tests it has been discovered that those exposed to the rays from the ADS are generally unable to keep their eyes open and stare at it, as would be required for damage to occur.   In general, people will close their eyes in a reflex-like action.   The potential for damage was observed in experiments with rhesus monkeys, which sustained damage to the cornea of the eye after a few seconds of continuous exposure.   This damage was generally temporary, but longer exposure does carry the potential for more serious injury.

The potential for injury to the eye or skin is approximately zero when the operator of the system utilizes it with due restraint and avoids dangerous uses, such as disabling the safety features of the device or focusing the beam on individuals or groups who are trying to leave the area but whose passage is blocked.   Such missus of the device can, admittedly, result in injuries.

What the ADS Absolutely Cannot Do:

• Work as a “mind control” device by putting thoughts into someone’s mind or directly altering thoughts or emotion
• Penetrate walls or other obstructions to torture someone in their home
• Operate remotely and target individuals for torture, intimidation or mind control
• Track a person, spy on them or follow them remotely
• Operate at great distances
• Discretely target someone without detection (it’s a big machine and it has to be pointed right at you)
• Pick out a single person and follow them through a crowd while not effecting those right next to them
• Be used covertly (the unit is quite large and the reflector must be fairly large to generate a focused beam.  The frequency is too high for it to be hidden away.  Even most radome materials would block a large portion of the energy)
• Kill a person in anything other than the most extreme circumstances
• Modify the weather
• Cause earthquakes

Of course, the ADS does have potential for abuse, but that is entirely a question of how it is used. Just as the ADS could be used to disperse a violent and potentially dangerous mob, it could also be turned on a group of legitimately peaceful protesters who were observing all laws and not causing any trouble. The ADS could also be used to harass those going about their business or to enforce unjust restrictions on citizens. It’s even possible that the ADS could be used as a torture device, if the unit was turned on a prisoner who was restrained and unable to escape the beam.

While such uses would be a legitimate outrage and should never be tolerated, they are in no way unique to this technology. The potential for abuse is inherent to all non-lethal weapons and crowd control technologies and is entirely an issue of how they are used. Tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons can be turned on innocent and peaceful citizens. Tasers and pepper spray can be used to torture those incarcerated. Acoustic weapons can be especially potent when they are used continuously to deny sleep to those in a given area.

So yes, it could be used to unjustly persecute peaceful gatherings and take away the rights to free speech by individuals or groups – just as a water cannon or a tear gas grenade could.

Some have worried that the ADS may result in “trigger happy” operators, due to its lack of visible projectiles or other effects and its apparent reduced harm. Whether or not this actually turns out to be the case remains to be seen. However, in any circumstance it is important to remember that this is not an inherently unsafe, unjust or evil weapon. That depends entirely on the operator’s level of restraint (or lack there of) and the rules of engagement under which the device is operated.

Claims that the ADS is somehow intended to be used as  a weapon for mass extermination or even deadly force are absolutely ridiculous.   While it may be possible that the device could kill by severe burns,  if a person were to be restrained and subject to it for an extended period of time at a very high setting, it would be an extremely expensive, unreliable and complex way of killing someone.  A bullet would be far better at doing the job.

Seriously, if they wanted to kill a whole crowd of protesters, they’d be better off with a Gatling gun.  Apparently that does not convince some:

And before someone says that this is all based on what the government says about the ADS, it is not.  It’s also based on the physics involved.   95 ghz microwave energy can’t penetrate more than millimeters and directed microwave beams have limited range due to spread and atmospheric absorption.  That’s not just what the Pentagon says, that is verifiable fact.

The exact cause of the condition remains uncertain, but data indicates that the most likely cause is related to parasites or viral infection of the bees.   This may be exacerbated by other stresses on the species including localized pollution, insecticides and environmental changes. Israel acute paralysis virus has been suggested as a likely cause or contributing factor to colony collapse.

Unfortunately, the condition has also been a lightning rod for questionable scientific claims. For some time, a number of groups have latched onto this and claimed that it is likely the result of genetic engineering of plants or other organisms. Despite there being no evidence for this, the Sierra Club stated:

Highly respected scientists believe that exposure to genetically engineered crops and their plant-produced pesticides merit serious consideration as either the cause or a contributory factor to the development and spread of CCD

Well no scientist I have much respect for.

Needless to say, there’s no evidence for this and no reason to presume it would be the case. Others have blamed the feeding of bees with high fructose corn syrup or other sugars from genetically modified plants. This despite the fact that the phenomena has not been shown to have any relationship to this practice. It has also not been shown to be more likely to occur in areas where genetically modified crops are in use. Indeed, colony collapse has been seen across Europe, including areas where genetically engineered crops are all but non-existent.

Others have claimed that colony collapse is related to electromagnetic radiation, especially from cell phones. This claim too lacks any empirical evidence to support it and would seem to make even less sense than some of the others. Somehow these honeybees of the UK were able to whether World War II and the early Cold War, despite the Island nation bristling with high power RAF radar installations. The hundreds of kilowatts of FM radio and television didn’t phase them nor did the decades of microwave relay networks. Now, however, some are claiming that the minuscule amount of radiation from a cell phone tower is killing bees and thus endangering civilization as we know it.

There is also no explanation given for why there appears to be no coloration at all between cell phone coverage or signal strength and colony collapse. While colony collapse has been observed in rural areas of the United States (where cell service ranges from fair to poor) it has not been seen in parts of Asia that have extreme density of mobile base stations.  In Europe, CCD appears to be limited primarily to southern portions of the continent. The UK, Sweden and other countries have seen only sporadic and mild to moderate cases of CCD. This despite the fact that their mobile coverage is at least as good (or better than) that found in the rural US or other areas where CCD has been at its worst.

To this end, a study was conducted, and not surprisingly, it’s a very poor one.

Via the Telegraph:

Their disappearance has caused alarm throughout Europe and North America where campaigners have blamed agricultural pesticides, climate change and the advent of genetically modified crops for what is now known as ‘colony collapse disorder.’ Britain has seen a 15 per cent decline in its bee population in the last two years and shrinking numbers has led to a rise in thefts of hives.

Now researchers from Chandigarh’s Punjab University claim they have found the cause which could be the first step in reversing the decline: They have established that radiation from mobile telephones is a key factor in the phenomenon and say that it probably interfering with the bee’s navigation senses.

They set up a controlled experiment in Punjab earlier this year comparing the behaviour and productivity of bees in two hives – one fitted with two mobile telephones which were powered on for two fifteen minute sessions per day for three months. The other had dummy models installed.

After three months the researchers recorded a dramatic decline in the size of the hive fitted with the mobile phon, a significant reduction in the number of eggs laid by the queen bee. The bees also stopped producing honey.

Do I need to go any further with this? They came to the conclusion based on TWO hives. ONE active and ONE control. Three months, one experiment, two hives.

I am glad, however, to see that the Telegraph also published an opposing (and correct) viewpoint:

Mobile phones and bees: shoddy research helps no one

Riding high at the top of the most viewed list in the Telegraph earth section today is a story headed ‘Mobile phones responsible for disappearance of honey bee‘, which describes a study of hives in India and concludes that electromagnetic radiation is the cause of colony collapse disorder [CCD], the phenomenon – that has mostly affected the United States – of beehive populations crashing with no obvious cause.

As a beekeeper myself I’d be very glad to know what has caused the problems plaguing the almond and cotton fields of the US, but I’m afraid that this study does little to get us closer to an answer.

The researchers took four hives and placed two working 900MHz mobile phones (a very common frequency) in two of them and dummy, non-functioning phones in the other two. From February to April they were put in call mode for 15 minutes a day between 11am and 3pm, twice a week. The hives with phones were found to produce less honey, and their queens laid fewer eggs.

Combined with previous studies that found adverse effects on honeybees from electrical power lines, the researchers conclude that ‘the present study therefore suggests that colony collapse does occur as a result of exposure to cellphone radiations,’ but it does nothing of the sort.

Four hives is an incredibly small sample size, and every beekeeper will tell you that hives right next to each other can thrive or fail for a huge variety of reasons. No sensible conclusion can be drawn from such a tiny experiment.

It’s also the case that most colony collapse has been observed in rural America, where mobile phone coverage is poor. No attempt to measure signal strength in fields where colonies have been lost was made. The researchers note that the countries that have reported CCD (the US, areas of southern Europe) are all in the developed world, where mobile phones are ubiquitous, whereas countries such as India, where technology that generates electromagnetic radiation is ‘comparatively new’ are unaffected. As GSM 900MHz networks are very common in India and throughout the developing world, this is clearly false. The UK is also unaffected by CCD, and we have some of the best mobile phone coverage in the world.

Unfortunately, this “study” has been getting far more press than it deserves and articles critical of it have been getting all too little. Yet that seems to be the way it always is, doesn’t it?

Based on the headlines, you might think that the study proved a link between cell phones and cancer. You might also think it didn’t. You might think that it’s inconclusive. Here are just a few of the headlines from various news sources:

The Scotsman: “Study links mobile phone use to brain tumours”
CP24 (Toronto News): “More than 30 mins of cell use/day increases cancer risk: study”
The Australian: “Industry study shows brain tumour link to heavy mobile phone usage”
Sydney Morning Herald: “Mobile phone-cancer link possible: study”
Wire Update: “INTERPHONE finds no increased risk of brain cancer from mobile phone use”
AFP: “Study finds no brain cancer link to mobile phone use”
BBC News : “WHO study on mobile phone cancer risk ‘inconclusive‘”
CTV News: “Link between cellphones, brain cancer ‘inconclusive’”
ABC News Australia: “Calls for more phone cancer research”
CBS News: “Cell Phone-Brain Cancer Link Deemed Inconclusive”
Independent Online: “WHO: No clear answer on cellphones and cancer”
CourierMail: “Brain cancer link to mobile phones”
Boston Herald: “No proof of cell phone, cancer tie”
Time Magazine: “Cell Phones and Cancer: a Study’s Muddled Findings”
Montreal Gazette: “Cellphone users shouldn’t relax yet: Cancer study”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, ALL THESE HEADLINES REFER TO THE SAME STUDY!

So what did the study really find?

The study tracked more than 13,000 individuals over the course of ten years and compared phone usage to incidence of cancer in the brain and head.   The results were that absolutely no increase in risk of any kind was found between phone usage and any kind of brain cancer.   None.  Zip.  Nada.  Zilch.   Despite this, researchers (as usual) stopped short of calling their study conclusive and conceded that it was possible that there was an increase in risk that went undetected.    Others pointed out that the study shouldn’t be considered the definitive word on cell phones and cancer because of the fact that it did not look at children and that there were some forms of cancer that were beyond the scope of the study.

The portion of the study data that has generated talk of a link between heavy usage of cell phones and cancer is some of the interview data collected as part of the study.  This data is the most unreliable and subjective and thus the authors of the study used very tempered words when they described it as having “suggestions” of an association between heavy phone usage and glioma, a type of brain cancer.

The study found no increase in giloma among heavy users of cell phones. What it did find was that, when interviewed, those who were diagnosed with giloma were more likely to say that they were prone to holding the phone on the side of their head where the tumor was located. The trend was small but statistically significant. Of course, this is completely subjective and was even noted by the authors of the study noted “biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.”

That small piece of interview data is the entire basis for the study being stated as showing a risk between cell phone usage and cancer.

Now, I ask you. What side of the head do you usually hold your cell phone on? If you’re right handed, you might, at first, be prone to saying the right side. However, I’ve noticed that when I am making an outgoing call, I often hold the phone in my left hand and use my dominant right hand to dial the number, then put it up to my left ear. Also, I often am doing something else with my right hand. Then again, when I answer the phone, I do think I hold it in my right hand a lot.

The point being: off the top of my head, I can’t think of what side of my head I usually put my phone to and I bet many other people can’t either. Just throw in some selective memory and confirmation bias and you’d fully expect cancer sufferers to remember their phone usually being on the side of their head that has the tumor.

The study is officially “inconclusive” – that is to say, that it found no evidence of phone usage being linked to brain cancer – eventhough some otherwise reputable news sources have falsely reported that it did, apparently having some confusion over the side of the head interviews. The authors of the study, however, pointed out that the data is not compelling enough, entirely on its own, to put the issue to bed.

On this I have to strongly disagree. While scientists tend to be purists when it comes to levels of certainty (which are never really 100.00000000000000000000000%), this seems to be lost on most of the public and media when it comes to these kind of issues. When this study is added to the mountains of scientific data we’ve already accumulated over the past 70+ years, it only serves to confirm the well established fact that RF radiation does not cause cancer. As a matter of public health, policy and precautions, this issue is as certain as we can ever expect any issue to be.

I was going to wait until I could read the study to comment on it, but the amount of bad reporting on this is staggering!

Major Scientific Studies and Conclusions:

2001: A major study by the Danish Cancer Society and the International Epidemiology Institute reviewed the cancer incidence of over 400,000 Danish cell phone users who began using their phones between 1982 and 1995. The study included many early adopters who had been heavy users of the technology since the early 1980’s. The rates of cancer and other diseases were compared to the expected incidence for the Danish population within similar demographics. No increase whatsoever was detected in the cell phone users.

Further analysis found that cancer incidence showed no correlation to the number of years of cell phone use, the frequency of cell phone use, the age of the user or the type of service – analog or digital. Those who were heavy cell phone users, using their phones for an average of many hours a month showed no increase risk over those who rarely used their phones. Those who had been using their phones for many years also showed no increase in risk over those who had used their phones for only a short time.

2004: Data from the 2001 study conducted in Denmark was reviewed and the groups were reexamined to determine whether there had been any change in incidence since the 2001 study was published. Again, the results indicated no detectable increase in cancer risk associated with phone usage.

2005: A very large case-control study was conducted in Sweden to assess the possibility of a correlation between cellular telephone usage and cancer risk. The study involved over 1000 individuals between the ages of twenty and sixty who were diagnosed with brain cancer, specifically glioma and meningioma. The study collected detailed data including whether the individuals had owned a mobile phone, the type of phone, the length of time it was owned and the amount of time on the phone. This was compared to a random sample of the same demographics. The study concluded that there was no detectable correlation between the usage of cell phones and development of cancer. The cancer patients did not have a higher probability of being a heavy or long time user of a cell phone. The authors of the study concluded “the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma.”

2005: A very large study published in the British Journal of Cancer and the Journal Nature. This study was multi-part and used several different methodologies in an attempt to determine if any relationship between mobile phone usage cancer of the brain and head region could be established. It compared the mobile phone usage of hundreds of cancer patients to similar demographics and thousands of case controls, randomly selected to be of the same demographic. Like the Swedish study, no correlation could be found. The study also reviewed medical histories of those who had reported being long time mobile phone users and found that heavy use of a mobile phone could not be correlated with any increase in risk of cancer versus the expected incidence of those surveyed.

2006: A very large multi-year study was conducted in Germany and involved several major cancer research organizations as well as metaanlysis of data from previous studies. Although the study did involve mobile phones, it also include users of cordless phones and other frequent users of RF devices, including former users of 450 mhz C-Net radiotelephone and dispatch radio, which has largely been phased out of common usage since the early 1990’s. The study examined rates of glioma, meningioma and benign tumors of the head and neck region as well as overall incidence of cancer. The study found no correlation between usage of mobile or cordless phones or other RF devices of any kind and cancer risk.

Official Positions:

World Health Organization: The WHO has stated that the consensus of scientific data, it is “unlikely” that there is any causal relationship between RF radiation and cancer. The WHO has also stated that no scientific data exists to show any clear relationship between exposure to RF radiation and any medical condition.

Health Physics Society: According to HPS’s most recent fact sheet “Currently available evidence shows that use of mobile phones or exposure to their base-station emissions does not cause brain cancer or any other health effect.”

International Electrical and Electronic Engineers: The IEEE advisory committee on RF radiation exposure helped establish guideline recommendations that were adopted as national standards by a number of countries.   The IEEE recognizes no established risk between rf radiation and cancer, despite numerous studies into the area and states “In summary, there is no evidence, from laboratory or epidemiology studies, that exposure to RF energy at levels below recommended limits has any health significance for humans.”

National Cancer Institute (United States): The national cancer institute states that there is no evidence to indicate a link between RF radiation and increased risk of cancer.   NCI does, however, maintain that it is possible that there is an increased risk which does not manifest until after many years of exposure.    Thus far, all major studies reviewed by NCI have found zero significant increase in cancer incidence by users of cell phones or other mobile devices.

The American Cancer Society: The American Cancer Society does not consider RF radiation to be a likely risk factor for the development of cancer.   Like NCI, the American Cancer Society does cite the remote possibility that significant risks may exist after more than 20 years of usage, but stresses this is not likely both due to the fact that no risk whatsoever has been detected in existing studies.    ACS also notes that laboratory data supports this conclusion, stating “the RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren’t able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.”

The Centers for Disease Control (US): The official position statement of CDC on the topic of RF radiation like that produced by cell phone is “Although some studies have raised concerns, the scientific research, when taken together, does not indicate a significant association between cell phone use and health effects.”

Sense About Science (British Organization for Science Literacy and Science Reporting): A number of experts from Sense About Science have weighed in on the issue and released an excellent scientifically reviewed primer and position statement on the issue. (PDF) The scientists at Sense about Science stress the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation.   They state “There are no known biological effects from mobile phone RF Radiation” and “There is no evidence that ‘pulsing’ of EMF radiation is dangerous.”

The Royal Society of Canada: A report prepared by the Royal Society of Canada concluded that there is no reliable evidence of any human biological effects from RF radiation emitted from mobile phones or other consumer devices.   The expert review panel stated “it appears that exposure of the public to radiofrequency fields emitted from wireless telecommunication base station transmitters is of sufficiently low intensity that biological or adverse health effects are not anticipated.”

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (UK): The final report of the independent expert group, known as the “Stewart Report” examined all available data on RF radiation and cancer. While the panel did leave open the possibility that an increased risk may manifest after many decades of exposure, it could not find any scientific evidence that would indicate this is a likelihood. The report states “The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.” The report did, however, indicate that there is a significant possibility that cell phone usage could cause indirect health effects. The two examples cited were car accidents caused by distracted drivers and psychological stress caused by fear of radiation.

Several organizations, such as  ACS and NCI do temper their stand on the issue by invoking the possibility that there could be longer term risks, but acknowledge this is not indicated by existing data.    It should be noted that even when cancers take an average of decades to develop, one would still expect at least some increase in risk to manifest earlier in some patients.   For example, in cigarette smokers, the average time before cancer develops is about 20 years.   However, a person who has been smoking for ten years is still more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than a non-smoker and a smoker of 15 years is even more likely to be diagnosed with cancer.   There is a bell curve of time response.   There are no known carcinogens that produce zero risk of cancer increase until decades of exposure and then suddenly produce an increase risk almost overnight.

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones goes the furthest. While the group admits that there is zero evidence to indicate any increased risk of cancer, it recommends a “precautionary approach,” citing the remote possibility of an as yet undiscovered risk. Most other organizations do not agree with this stand and it is likely politically influenced.

Scaremongering special interest groups like “Bioiniative” and assclowns like George Carlo and Leonard Hardell are not reliable sources.   Any source that begins with the premise of a grand conspiracy and makes claims rejected by mainstream science should be regarded as unreliable.   No credible mainstream scientific bodies agree with such organizations.   While these organizations may claim that they can produce scientific data that prove their claims, their ability to do so is simply a case of dishonesty.

If they are going to put that kind of message on a phone, I’d insist they also put a message saying that it may reduce the risk of brain cancer and children and pregnant women should place the device as close as they can to their head and body to increase the protection it provides.   There is, after all, at least as much evidence that that statement is true.

Via PC Magazine:

A Maine lawmaker’s bid to label cell phones with cancer warnings has failed.

Back in December, Rep. Andrea Boland, a Democrat, announced that she was prepping a bill that would require cell phones makers to label their phones as potential brain cancer risks.

The bill, L.D. 1706, was introduced in January and called the “Children’s Wireless Protection Act.”

It called on any retailers who sold cell phones in the state of Maine to affix a label to the phones that would have read: “Warning, this device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body.”

The warning would also have included a color graphic depicting the brain of a 5-year-old, with red arrows pointing to a “cell phone” and “radiation area.”
It earned co-sponsorship from 13 members of the House and five senators, but the bill failed in both houses of the Maine legislature and is considered dead.

The debate over whether cell phone radiation causes cancer has been raging for years, but most experts agree that there is simply not enough data to determine whether the mobile devices pose a health risk.

“We are glad to see that the state legislature in Maine has taken a stand by recognizing that the body of scientific evidence as a whole does not indicate a public health risk caused by mobile phones. Requiring unnecessary labels on wireless devices sold there would have only misled consumers by implying that the federal safety standards are insufficient,” according to a statement from industry group TechAmerica.

I just love how they always say it’s “too soon to put warnings on phones” or that it’s “premature.” It seems to imply that we have to wait to put them on, because, presumably, we’ll eventually have the data to prove how dangerous they are.

Next time a bill like this is introduced, perhaps the legislator should be advised to make it even more inflammatory and hit on more of those hot-button phrases. Sure, it has “children” and “pregnant women” in it, and it also has “cancer,” but it lacks the phrases “Or the terrorists win,” “Do it for Jesus,” and “Or else you’re a racist.”

As it has been menti0ned here before, there is a fairly large amount of data available, some of it going back more than 40 years.  It includes studies on animal subjects, in-vitro cell culture studies, human population studies and surveys of early adopters of cell phones and related technologies.   No well controlled studies by a respectable research body have indicated any hint of increased cancer risk, and this is no surprise, since the physics of radio waves does not indicate there is any mechanism by which this kind of radiation could possibly have the kind of chemical effects that might cause cancer.

While cellular phones have only been around for thirty years, if they did have this effect, it’s almost unimaginable that we would not have begun to see at least the beginning of this trend by now.   Even if the average period before cancer shows up were many years, there should be some increase by now.  There isn’t.

Even before cell phones, other devices were blamed for causing cancer, despite lack of any evidence.  In 1992, two State Troopers in Connecticut brought suit claiming that the use of radar guns, devices which have been in use since the late 1940’s caused testicular cancer.  Police unions demanded an investigation of the dangers, and they got their investigation.  After exhaustive investigation of the devices, no increased risk of any cancer was ever found in police officers who had spent decades using the devices. Similar studies have looked at radar, microwave relay communications and UHF radios, all of which have also been around for decades.

The jury is not on the question of microwave radiation and cancer.  There is no association.  We’ve looked really really damn hard for one, and it’s not there.

No, the graphic above and to the right is not real.  It’s a satirical dramatic overstatement, but does show the spirit of the argument.

Now imagine the following situation:  you’ve been diagnosed with thyroid cancer.   Your doctor tells you that the odds are good that you’ll beat it, but your thyroid gland needs to be removed.  After removal, you’re dosed with some iodine-131 to kill any remaining tissue from the cancerous organ.    You’ll be taking synthetic hormones for the rest of your life to replace the function of the thyroid, but thankfully, the procedures are basically over.

Now what do you want to do?   Probably go home and try to relax.   That’s what most people would want to do after that kind of ordeal, and in general they are allowed to do so.   But some now say that needs to change.

Via USA Today:

Report: Thyroid cancer radiation a public threat

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule allowing hospitals to discharge radioactive thyroid cancer patients to their homes and hotels poses a public health threat, a congressional report says today.

The report (pdf), released by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, which oversees the commission, also found that insurers routinely use the rule to deny hospital care even to patients whom doctors say may pose a radiation risk to others. Patients are often discharged to recover in self-imposed isolation.

“The United States simply cannot play radioactive roulette and gamble with public health and safety,” Markey says.

Radioactive iodine is a proven cancer fighter, with a five-year survival rate of 97%. The thyroid is the only body organ that uses iodine. Radioactive iodine kills any thyroid cancer cells that surgery might have missed. But radiation also poses a cancer risk, especially to children. Thyroid cancer patients give off radioactive iodine in urine, sweat and saliva for several days; traces may remain in the body for as long as two weeks.

In 1997, the NRC “weakened” its patient-release regulations from the global standard requiring hospitalization for patients whose bodies contain 30 millicuries or more of radioactive iodine to one that allows outpatient treatment, the report says. The report says the NRC repeatedly rebuffed efforts to get the agency to adopt stricter standards.

In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a petition by thyroid cancer survivor Peter Crane, a former NRC lawyer, to force a change. The court ruled that he “lacked standing to bring the case” because he is not undergoing treatment, the report says.

“I’m gratified that the committee is paying attention to this,” Crane said. “Patients are going home in this country with 200 millicuries of radiation in their system. In Germany, they would be hospitalized with 8 millicuries. This isn’t an academic matter, it’s about exposing children to cancer-causing radiation.”

Owen Hoffman, a radiation-risk expert at Senes Oak Ridge, says even though the risk is fairly low, about 1 in 1,000 for an infant boy and double that for an infant girl, “the right thing to do is to reduce unnecessary exposures.”

The report cites a 2007 USA TODAY survey, carried out with the Thyroid Cancer Survivors Association, showing that 4% of the patients treated with radioactive iodine checked into hotels or other accommodations, 2% took public transportation, and 14% failed to go directly home, which gave patients “plenty of opportunity” to “unwittingly” expose others to radiation.

NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner says the agency will examine the report, but he added in an e-mail, “I don’t want to set up false expectations about what we might do with the recommendations.”

Why am I not surprised that a former NRC lawyer got this all started?  After all, NRC lawyers are specially selected and trained in order to make sure they do everything to get in the way of progress and make descent people’s lives  hell, right?

And just what the hell do you expect to accomplish with this, rep Edward Markey? The proximity exposure from just being next to one of these individuals is generally nill, and the danger from somehow excreting some of the iodine-131 only to have someone else absorb it is nearly as small. Sure, some patients do check themselves into hotels or other isolation under the recommendation of doctors, but that’s a fairly extreme precaution. These are not people who need to be handled while wearing moon suits. Remember, radiation dose depends on time, and the clerk at the front desk who spends a few minutes checking in someone is not going to be in any danger from the gamma rays coming out of that person’s neck, nor is the person who sits next to them for a subway or bus ride.

Needless to say, we have “the children” thrown in here, just to make sure all rational thought is gone. A person who has iodine-131 in their system may be advised not to spend too much time cuddling with a child, but other than that, it’s not like they’re a walking, talking danger zone.

Patients are generally asked to take a few basic precautions to avoid contaminating others, although the risk is really not that huge. Patients are told not to have sex for up to a month after treatment. They may be told not to share a bed with another for at least a few days and to double-flush the toilet. But what could happen if they don’t adhere to this advice? probably nothing.

In the event that the tiny traces of iodine-131 in their sweat and skin secretions do contaminate anything, the half-life of I-131 assures it’s not going to be a big concern. With a half-life of about eight days, the iodine-131 dissipates fairly quickly. If they did manage to leave a detectable level of I-131 behind on a phone receiver or remote control, in about a week, half of it will be gone; in a month the vast majority will be gone and in about another month, there will be hardly anything left.

Most of the iodine is eliminated from the body within a couple of days. The remainder, though detectable, is quite low and will be gone in a month or so.

In conclusion, if I ever were to have a friend who had thyroid cancer and was left isolated while they let the iodine run its course, I’d have no problem keeping them company, because it seems exceptionally cruel to lock away someone in that condition over a small or non-existent risk. I might be a bit apprehensive about much close contact, at least for the first couple of days, but the idea that they are playing “radiation roulette” is insulting.

While it did contain some language about how long term harm, such as cancer, is not proven to be related to RF radiation, it reported about being “Allergic to radio Waves” is if it were conclusively proven as fact. Not surprisingly, the story has generated a lot of hype and has been championed by those who insist that the condition exists.

Well then, I’m going to make an offer.   I contend that electrohypersensitivity is not real.   The condition is psychosomatic.  RF fields do not produce nausea, headache, fainting, skin rashes or any other acute effect on the human body.   No person can, under controlled conditions, show that they manifest these symptoms more often around a low power rf transmitter than when away from radio sources.

Do you think I’m wrong?    Then prove it.   I’m willing to put up one grand of my own money to be proven wrong.   Honestly, I’m so confident about this, I’d put up more than that, but I want this to be a credible challenge and so I’ll put up an amount I know I can provide if I need to. I’m very serious and I’m willing to make the effort of setting up a test to conclusively and fairly settle the issue. And I will eat my words and fork over the money if you can prove me wrong!

The Challenge:

To prove that you manifest symptoms of electrohypersensitivity and that these symptoms are reliably linked to RF radiation by demonstrating the ability to detect the state of RF transmissions in a controlled enviornment.

The Reward:

1.   One thousand US Dollars, provided in the form of a certified check, money order or other mutually acceptable monetary instrument.

2.   I will admit I was wrong about electrosenstivity / electrohypersensitivity not existing.

3.  Your case will be brought to the attention of researchers, with whom I am in communication, and efforts will be made to report your condition and the verification in peer reviewed journals.

The Test Setup:

A number of sources of consumer-level RF emissions will be used, these will include such things as a wifi router, a cell phone signal amplifier, a smart phone, which is programed to begin transmitting as soon as it is turned on, a local FM transmitter and/or various other devices.   These will be placed in boxes which are relatively transparent to radio signals but which will hide any lights or other activity indicators on the devices.    They will be connected to a single power cord which will be connected to a single switch.

The switch will be connected to a power source located in another room, away from view of the room where the test will be conducted.   The individual being tested will not know whether the power supply is actually hooked up or not, the observer in the room with the subject will also not be aware whether the power supply is connected or not.   If the power supply is connected then closing the switch will result in the transmitters coming on, but if the power supply is not connected, the switch will do nothing and the transmitters will remain off.

Those in the room will not know whether or not the session was a dry run or whether the transmitters actually did come on.

The switch will be turned off after five minutes or may be switched off sooner if the test subject believes they know whether the transmitters are on or off.  After the test session, the individual will be asked to report whether or not they experienced any symptoms that would indicate the transmitters were on or not.

The test will be repeated a number of times to demonstrate that the individual can indeed detect whether the transmitters were on or off signifficantly better than they could by sheer chance alone.   The default number of test sessions will be ten, and each test will be randomly selected as being either a power-on test session or a power-off test session.

Additional Rules and Information:

1.   If the individual does not believe that they can detect the state of the transmitter with 100% accuracy, then it is possible that we can negotiate a test protocol in which they are only required to determine the state of the transmitter with a high, but not perfect, reliability.  However, this will require more than ten sessions to verify.   I’m willing to consider an extended series of sessions to determine this reliably.

2.  If the individual believes that their electrohypersensitivity is so severe that they will not be able to do one test session immediately after another, a rest period can be provided,as long as it does not prevent the test series from being completed in a reasonable amount of time.   If absolutely necessary, this does not all have to be done in one day, but more than three or four days will not be acceptable.

3.  I’m willing to be somewhat flexible about the devices used.  As long as they are consumer level RF sources that don’t produce a sound or other indication of their operation, they should be acceptable.   If you believe that there is a certain type of phone or device that is especially prone to causing symptoms, it may be considered.   Alternatively, if you feel that your EHS is so severe that having all those transmitters on at once would be intolerable, then lower power sources can be used.   However, higher power sources than consumer level will not be accepted – broadcast level transmitters will not be allowed.

4.  This is subject to availability on location.   If you live on the US eastern seaboard, you can be accommodated.   I will be traveling in the future to Europe, Australia, the West Coast, Florida and elsewhere, but this may take some time to happen.   I’m also willing to have a third party conduct this test at a location closer to the subject.   Regardless of the subject’s location, an effort will be made to accommodate them, but this can’t be guaranteed.

5.   Since the claims regarding this alleged condition are that it can be triggered by devices signifficantly above ambient rf levels and because the test subject will have a chance to acclimate themselves to the ambient level with the devices powered off, it is presumed that an RF isolated area will not be necessary.  The devices will produce a much higher RF flux than would exist in the area when they are not powered on and this will be confirmed with an isotropic power meter.

However, if the test subject believes that an RF isolated area is necessary to insure they can accurately determine if the transmitters are indeed on or off, arrangements can be made.  This will, of course, depend on the location of the test subject and whether or not they can travel.   If the test is conducted locally (in Connecticut, United States) then I have access to a professional RF test laboratory which includes a verified isolated RF test room.   If the test is to be done elsewhere, efforts will be made to find a similar location, but this can’t be assured.

If you believe that electricity such as mains AC current will cause these symptoms and therefore must be excluded, then we can take steps to use a test room that does not have other electricity service active.

6.   No devices of any kind, which could indicate RF emissions (such as field meters, wifi detectors etc) will be permitted.   If used, they will be considered cheating and you will be dismissed.

7.  This test is only to determine the acute physical effects of RF radiation and establish acute hypersensitivity.   Information about long term exposure or chronic issues is irrelevant and won’t be considered.

8.  Independent observation, verification and other such protection for the subject taking the challenge can be arranged, but ultimately this is my challenge and I reserve the right to stop the challenge and/or cut short the test if i believe that there is cheating involved, that there is a of harm to property, if the test subject becomes violent or unruly or if for any other reason, I deem it necessary.

Remember, this is a challenge.  I’m issuing it.  I make the rules.  I’ll do what I can to accommodate the needs of anyone who wants to apply, but I make the rules.   Every effort will be made to treat you fairly, but I am not going to open myself to any unreasonable  liability.

Of course, most rational people realize that these things happen.  Earthquakes have caused damage and loss of life since antiquity and Haiti is located right near the boundary of the small Caribbean plate – a seismically active area.   The fact of the matter is that places like this experience earthquakes and when these quakes are severe enough and occur close enough to human settlement, they can be disastrous.  It was well known that Haiti lacked the kind of construction and infrastructure that can hold up to an earthquake, but as the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, there wasn’t much they could do about that.  This wasn’t the first time this kind of thing has happened and it won’t be the last.

That explanation doesn’t seem to cut it for some.   They insist that the United States Government, the Illuminati, the Jews, the Freemasons, Major League Baseball, the Crabpeople or whoever else they choose to fear was actually behind the earthquake.   Why?    Perhaps so they could end up spending a lot of money on the relief effort or maybe they’re just really mean.

Their weapon for causing the quake?   HAARP, of course!

This crudely edited video, which implies that HAARP is the reason for the quake is not the only one that was posted on Youtube and there will likely be even more, as well as rantings on conspiracy theorist websites. Apparently the idea that earthquakes simply happen is not good enough for some.

The demonstrations shown have a few problems. For one thing, it’s certainly possible to excite or vaporize clouds of moisture with radio waves, if you have a reasonably powerful transmitter and the clouds are in an enclosed chamber less than a foot away from the radio source. This doesn’t really demonstrate much. It’s like claiming that HAARP could boil the oceans because you can heat a cup of coffee in your microwave. Even if HAARP was powerful enough to blow away clouds, it could only do so directly above it.

The other demonstration shown is even worse. The demonstration uses a subwoofer, but HAARP does not produce acoustic energy, it produces radio waves. You could bombard a rock with HF radio waves all day and night and nothing would happen. The only way you could get the rock to move, as in the simulated earthquake, is if you hit it with so much radio energy that it became hot enough to melt. Aside from that, they also have the scale entirely wrong. Yes, it is true you could cause an earthquake with a subwoofer – IF that subwoofer were the size of the entire state of Texas and about as powerful as a nuclear weapon detonating several times per second.

HAARP has been dealt with here before. HAARP is an “ionospheric heater” – basically a big HF radio transmitter that is aimed up at the ionosphere. The purpose of “heating” or exciting the ionosphere is to study the behavior of the ionosphere and especially the aurora that occurs in northern and southern area of the globe. As the ionosphere is excited it generates secondary radio emissions. By receiving these emissions, the altitude, density and other properties can be measured. Although powerful by radio transmitter standards, HAARP is a pea-shooter compared to the enormous energy that the ionosphere receives from the solar winds and cosmic radiation. HAARP can only excite a small part of the ionosphere, directly above the site and can only do that to a relatively small degree.

HAARP is not secret at all. The facility does open, general research in cooperation with a number of universities, especially the University of Alaska. If you so desire, you can visit HAARP and take a tour of the facilities.  If you wish to tour HAARP, you can attend one of the periodic open houses held at the site, or you can contact the program office to set up a tour date.  Tours are generally provided to groups, such as schools, community organizations, ham radio clubs and so on. Setting up a tour date, aside from the open houses, will likely require that you have a group and not just one or two people.  You will need to arrange the tour ahead of time by at least a couple of weeks and ideally a couple of months or more and the scheduled time will be subject to availability of staff and the facility.

The image to the right is from this blog and shows a group visiting HAARP visiting the facility.   The blog’s author attended MIT and apparently did some research work involving HAARP.  They don’t *look* evil.

Talks are also given on HAARP by researchers involved in the project.  They’re hosted at Prince William Sound Community College.   If you do go, please don’t heckle them about the non-existent conspiracies.

Jesse Ventura went to the HAARP site as part of his “Conspiracy Theories” TV show on TruTV. (note: The name does not mean it’s actually true.) When he got to the gate, one of the poor saps who had been working at the site that day was faced by a bunch of SUV’s and guys with cameras who hadn’t made any arrangements to visit the facility. Naturally, he told them they couldn’t enter. Sinister? Just try walking up to some random research facility and demanding to enter. If Jesse wanted to see HAARP, he should have called their public information office ahead of time instead of yelling at one of the guys working there.

HAARP is not an entirely civilian project. While civilian entities do participate at the site, it receives major funding through the Department of Defense. The US Air Force and DARPA are involved in the funding. That said, as far as military research projects go, this one is neither very large nor is the level of secrecy very high – most of the activities aren’t even classified. Some of the research is classified, although that doesn’t necessarily imply anything sinister, as if military research were all publicly disclosed, there wouldn’t be much point in conducting the research. It doesn’t give the military much advantage if any scientific and technical knowledge gained is also avaliable to potential adversaries.

Some of the areas of research conducted at HAARP includes:

• Attempts to improve the accuracy of HF direction finding by taking into account ionospheric distortion
• Development of next generation over the horizon radar
• Evaluation of communications jamming and jamming mitigation
• Evaluation of how ionospheric fluctuation, geomagnetic storms and similar events could impact military communications and GPS and potential methods for mitigating these unwanted effects.
• Research directed at the ability of communications systems to function during a nuclear war that could involve high altitude detonations, causing ionospheric disturbances.
• Generation of ELF and ULF waves, used for communications with submarines, by modulation of HF waves and excitement of the ionosphere, in effect using the ionosphere as an antenna.  This could offer an alternative to the use of conventional transmitters, which require very large antenna systems, potentially making them vulnerable to attack.

These are all legitimate areas of stratigic and tactical research. The US military, as well as other armed forces around the world, have been interested in ionospheric research since the beginning of wireless communications. While it is possible that HAARP also engages in other research activities which have not been publicly disclosed, it does not cause earthquakes, becasue it couldn’t even if operators tried.

I now know I have contributed something very real to the world.