Go to images.google.com and search for “George Carlo,” no quotes.   Or, if you prefer, just click here.   You can also search for it with quotes or Dr. George Carlo, but in those circumstances, the result of interest will not be number 1.

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

A:  The same way it causes rashes and headaches when its turned on – entirely due to psychogenics.

Or to put it another way, the tower does not cause any health effects at all, people just believe it does and their belief is so pervasive that it makes them believe they have an illness that they don’t.   Worse still, this kind of self-suggestion has a nasty tendency to compound when more than one person in an area becomes convinced that something is making them ill, creating a mass panic over something that isn’t even there.

Yes, this kind of a mass panic has happened many times in human history, but with more and more dishonest parties trying to convince everyone that the condition “electro sensitivity” is not complete fiction, it seems that radio towers are now responsible for just about every symptom you can imagine, even at distances that make the power density roughly the same as normal ambient levels.

This would seem to be exactly what is happening around one tower in South Africa.

(more…)

There are a number of products out there which claim to “absorb” or “scramble” the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by phones, wireless networking devices and other RF products.   Whether or not there’s any reason to worry about these emissions is another topic entirely, but the fact of the matter is that these devices don’t work and can’t work.   The products in question include stickers, buttons, bracelets, necklaces, pendants and other various charms, trinkets and small items.  They claim to “scramble” or “shield” the wearer from the electromagnetic emissions of their device.

The problem is that they defy the laws of physics.   Radio waves and microwaves, along with lower frequency electromagnetic waves, are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, the same spectrum that includes visible light and infrared.   Their wavelengths are longer and their frequency is lower, but otherwise, radio waves are the same as light.

If it were possible to use a device like a pendant to absorb or shield radio waves, then it would also be possible to have a “dark bulb” that reduces ambient light in an area when turned on.   However, this is not actually possible.   Short of a black hole, there’s no way to “suck up light” or otherwise pull the ambient light out of an area.   Some 3D rendering engines do have “light suckers” or “inverse lighting” options, but these do not exist in the real world.

Just like light, the only way to reduce any electromagnetic radiation is to have a shield of some kind between the source and the area that you want to reduce the radiative flux in.   The shield must be large enough to cover the area you want to shade.   Depending on the distribution of the light (or radio waves) the shield may cast a shadow larger than itself, but it must be oriented so that the shadow covers the entire area.

(more…)

As you may have recently read, there has been a “study” or rather meta-analysis (and apparently a very bad one) making the news recently about a review of studies on cell phones and cancer risk.   It has now been published in the Los Angles Times and on Fox News – both of which should be ashamed of themselves.    The ” Stud,” acknowledges that when 23 studies on cell phone usage and cancer risk are examined, there appears to be none.   It then goes on to state that when the eight “highest quality” studies are looked at, there turns out to be a risk of cancer.

This methodology seems very suspect on the face of things, since no explicit problem is found with the rest of the studies, but it becomes even more suspect when it becomes clear that the ones seamed “highest quality” were almost exclusively done by one researcher – and a very fringe one at that, whose results have generally been rejected by most scientists and who has made a living scaremongering in the media over cell phone usage.

Clearly such a stacked deck of studies negates the very point of looking at multiple study data.   Apparently this meta-analysis either decided not to bother with some of the other thousands of studies out there or simply did not care about them.   In either case, the quality of this is deplorable.

I’m therefore asking for a little help here:

I’d like to write a letter to the Journal of Clinical Oncology about this and I’d like to write to the editorial section of other journals about this.  I’d also like to see if I can get some professionals to write in about this.    BUT, I’d rather not pay for the data and support this crap, but to really critique this I need the study in full.

So, if you happen to be at a university that subscribes to a scholarly journal database or otherwise have access to this, let me know.

Here is the “study.”

This crap has really been getting out of hand recently.  The rather untrustworthy “Environmental Working Group” has been cashing in on this crap recently with a lot of scary news stories and their stupid list of phones.   The quality of the reporting on this has been deplorable and totally biased.   There really needs to be more critical review of this BS.

If you happen to be a statistician, don’t read any further.   This very well might kill you…

Via Mother Nature Network:

Just a month after Environmental Working Group released its online consumer guide to cell phone radiation, new studies suggest that cell phones are indeed a gadget to be concerned about — though how alarmed we should be still remains unclear.
The Los Angeles Times reports that when data from 23 different studies were pooled together, no link was seen between cell phone use and brain tumors. However, when data from the eight strongest studies from the 23 were singled out, “cell phone users were shown to have a 10 percent to 30 percent increased risk of tumors compared with people who rarely or never used the phones.”

That said, seven of those eight studies were conducted by a single Swedish researcher. And the data could be affected by the fact that many people in Sweden live in more rural areas, where more radio-frequency energy is generally required for cell phone use.

What can we take away from these findings? We need more and better studies that aren’t funded by the cell phone industry, according to the researchers. In the meantime, use Environmental Working Group’s online consumer guide to cell phone radiation to find out how the radiation level of your phone compares to that other phones — and what you can do to reduce cell phone radiation exposure.

Notice a in error in the logic here?   Does anyone not notice an error in the logic?

Yes, that’s right, the data looks really bad if you choose the worst data you can find.   The single Swedish researcher is Lennart Hardell, who is more of an assclown than a researcher.  

The data is not affected by the fact that many in Sweden live in rural areas.  Plenty of other nations have a high rural distribution and there are plenty of non-assclown researchers there and in Sweden.

In a related story, it has been shown in a study that cell phones cause cancer in 100% of users.   To demonstrate this, researchers looked at cell phone users and examined their medical histories to see if they had brain cancer.   If they didn’t, they were omitted from the study.  After removing all the non-cancer cell phone users, scientists were shocked to discover that 100% of their subjects developed brain cancer.

(Last paragraph is sarcasm)

I recently got an email from someone asking me if I could point them to good scientific information on the health effects of RF radiation, such as from cell phones and wifi devices and the relationship (or lack there of) to cancer risk.  There have been many posts on this site about RF Radiation and the trumped up charges of health effects, but none seemed to fit the bill for what this person was looking for.

It was then that I realized something:  protection from non-ionizing radiation is a concern to health physicists and HPS generally does an extremely good job of providing scientifically sound and easily understood information.   I’ve cited HPS before as being a scientific professional organization that is uncommonly good with outreach to the public and media and an organization that many others could learn from.

Sure enough, they have an excellent fact sheet on mobile phones.

The fact sheet is recent, adopted only last month.   If I had to nitpick anything with it, I might say that the statement “data regarding long-term use (more than 10 years) of mobile phones is very sparse and unreliable” is a bit misleading, because we do have numerous studies that looked at people who have been using mobile phones since the early 1980’s.   In general, there’s no reason to presume there are any dangers and this is something that the fact sheet makes clear.   Even if it takes an average of 40 years for an enviornmental stressor to produce an effect, we should still see at least the beginning of the trend after much shorter periods of time.

Additional information on wireless devices can be found from HPS here.

Here is one of my favorite “Expert Answers on the topic”

Recently a story has been making the rounds that the “Environmental Working Group” has released a guide to which cell phones are the “best” and “worst” in terms of RF emissions. Of course the “best” would be those with the lowest and the “worst” would be those with the highest.   Never mind that there’s no evidence that the emissions are actually dangerous in any way shape or form, apparently it’s still important to some to limit their exposure, just in case.   Of course, if it turns out that low exposure is actually dangerous, well then they’re screwed, aren’t they?

The reason that groups like the Environmental Working Group come out with these kind of lists and reports is simply to get media coverage.   The emissions by cell phones are no secret, in the United States, the FCC does a very comprehensive series of tests on all cell phones on the market, including the SAR to a human tissue stimulant.   These reports are a matter of public record.   Outside the US, the respective agencies of other countries do similar tests and issue similar reports as well as assuring compliance with the (extremely conservative) exposure standards.

It seems to have worked, because the story has made its way into the mainstream press.

Via ABC News (The American one, not the Australian one):

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, thinks you should know. To make things easy, this week the group released a list ranking more than 1,000 cell phones according to the radiation levels they emit.

Questions regarding health risks associated with cell phone radiation have persisted for years. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that scientific evidence does not indicate negative health outcomes from exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones.

But the Environmental Working Group disagrees.

“We would like to be able to say that cell phones are safe,” Olga Naidenko, EWG senior scientist and lead author of the study, said in a statement. “But we can’t. The most recent science, while not conclusive, raises serious issues about the cancer risk of cell phone use that must be addressed through further research. In the meantime, consumers can take steps to reduce exposure.”

The watchdog group created the list based on technical data provided by the manufacturers. The full list can be viewed here.

But check below to see if your phone made the list of the 10 best phones — or the 10 worst.

(more…)

The Earth Liberation Front – a group of criminals who claim to be fighting for the environment, but actually just go around torching SUV’s and committing various other cowardly acts of vandalism and destruction against the property of others – have claimed responsibility for the recent destruction of a number of AM radio towers in Washington State.

Via CNN:

A group cited by U.S. officials as a domestic terrorism threat claimed responsibility Friday for knocking down two radio station towers in Snohomish County, Washington.

The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) issued a statement saying opponents of the towers argue that “AM radio waves cause adverse health effects including a higher rate of cancer, harm to wildlife, and that the signals have been interfering with home phone and intercom lines.”

“When all legal channels of opposition have been exhausted, concerned citizens have to take action into their own hands to protect life and the planet,” Jason Crawford, a spokesman for the group, said in a news release.

Members of ELF have been sentenced for acts of domestic terrorism in the past.

Though no one is known to have been killed in ELF attacks, the government defines domestic terrorism as use or threatened use of violence by a domestic group “against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives,” the FBI’s then-domestic terrorism chief, James F. Jarboe, explained in congressional testimony in 2002.

The towers belong to radio station KRKO. “There’s quite a bit of destruction to the antenna system and it will probably take at least three months to get it back up and operational again,” station manager Andy Skotdal told CNN affiliate KIRO, adding that much of it was “flattened like a pancake.”

In this case, the attack isn’t even based on any real damage to the enviornment, but is primarily due to the groups concerns over those horrible radio waves and what they do to people and wildlife (absolutely nothing.)   The group is an especially violent and dangerous eco-terrorism operation.   They pop up every once in a while to claim that they have done something great in the battle for earth’s enviornment – really, they’re just a bunch of thugs and punks.   The group’s members are too cowardly to actually admit to what they’ve done.  (Even Bin Laden admits his actions.)   They call for violent action and respond with shock and rage when their members end up in prison for trying to blow something up – as they sometimes do.

Amazingly, they actually have a press office, with a website and everything.   The site claims that they do not encourage crimes (which they clearly do) and that they do not know who commits them and only get anonymous information.  Granted, I value freedom of speech, but I find it amazing that this “press office” is not being perpetually raided by officials to seize their IP logs and emails and interrogate the operators.   Since when does tacit support for a terror group and receiving communications from them not qualify as probable cause for a warrant?    The site is even “in memory” of a criminal who they state was “murdered by the state.”   In face, the person in question was actually caught after committing several acts of arson by the FBI.  While in jail, awaiting trial he took his own life, rather than face up to what he did.
(more…)

By now, there have been claims that RF radiation, such as that produced by wireless networking, cell phones and alike, causes everything from cancer, to intense physical pain.  There are those who say it is a weapon of the government to exterminate people or to control their minds.   There are some who make their living on making up new ridiculous claims on this topic.

But this just might bring things to a new level of ridiculous…

In case you missed the best of the quotes on that ridiculous video, here it is:

Yes, that’s right, the information, not the “heat.”   I suppose this is how they plan on explaining how it could possibly be that radio signals could cause damage even when the transmitter power and distance results in only minuscule amounts of energy being present.   Thus far, all real science has shown that the only significant danger associated with non-ionizing radiation comes from high power levels which can cause damage to tissue due to dielectric heating.

(more…)

There are a lot of news reports out there that sensationalize and mislead over the whole issue of cell phone and rf radiation and the claims of a link to cancer. There have been many studies done on this topic, including some of the most enormous and extensive in history and the data doesn’t indicate any increase in risk of anything due to exposure to non-ionizing radiation at the levels produced by consumer devices. This isn’t actually surprising at all, since no mechanism by which RF radiation could cause cancer has ever been shown to exist.

Based on over seventy five years of scientific data, we are about as certain as science ever gets that the only effects worth worrying about from UHF and microwave radiation are thermal in nature. Dialectic heating can cause severe tissue damage, and if extensive enough, can produce long term effects. However, this effect is negligible at the levels one would be exposed to from a cellular tower or handset. Current safety standards are orders of magnitude bellow the levels at which any health effect at all is observed.

And yes, microwave ovens do use the same kind of radiation to cook your food as cell phones and wifi use. That’s no reason to fear them. If the radiation were powerful enough it would do to you exactly what it does to food: heat it. It’s not nearly powerful enough to do this to any significant extent. Microwave ovens are related to cell phone radiation in the same way that convection ovens are related to a warm summer breeze.

Yet, you would not believe it from a report like this one, which aired in Australian…

(more…)