The Force: Living Safely in a World of Electromagnetic Pollution

Scribe Publications THE FORCE Lyn McLean is Australia’s foremost consumer advocate on the issue of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). An author and educator, she has been monitoring and writing on the subject for more than 15 years. Lyn is the publisher of the quarterly periodical EMR and Health and the author of Watt’s the Buzz? (Scribe, 2002), a guide to reducing exposure to EMR. She has represented the community on various national committees related to this issue and is currently the director of EMR Australia, which provides services and assistance in connection with electropollution.

For Jacqueline and Alexandra

the

Forc e living safely in a world of electromagnetic pollution

Lyn McLean

Scribe Publications Pty Ltd PO Box 523 Carlton North, Victoria, Australia 3054 Email: [email protected] First published by Scribe 2011 Copyright © Lyn McLean 2011 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher of this book. The following images are reproduced with kind permission of the following individuals and organisations. p. 1 © Vladimir Popovic, fotalia image #1481286; p. 12, from Dalton, L., Radiation Exposures, Scribe Publications, 1991; p. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 49 © Jo Haggie; p. 21 © Northlight images, istock image 14826112; p. 24, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; p. 46, 47, 200 © Lyn McLean; p. 68, Gandhi, O.P.G. and Furse, C.M., ‘Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Cell Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz,’ IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 44 (10), 1996, pp. 1884–97; p. 82, www.next-up.org; p. 94 © Vodafone Australia; p. 100 © Gerd Oberfeld; p. 140 © Alisdair Phillips; p. 145 © aasha, istock image 10746920; p. 249 © DNY59, istock image 9561425; p. 316 © collection of Stanford University. Connecticut Environmental Month statement (p. 219) reproduced with kind permission of the City of Colwood. While every care has been taken to acknowledge copyright, the publisher tenders their apologies for any accidental infringement where copyright has proved untraceable. Where the attempt has been unsuccessful, the publisher welcomes information that would redress the situation. The author would like to thank John Lincoln for his technical assistance. Printed and bound in Australia by Griffin Press. Only wood from sustainable regrowth forests is used in the manufacture of paper found in this book. Typeset by J&M Typesetting in 10.25pt/13.6pt Sabon. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data McLean, Lyn. The force : living safely in a world of electromagnetic pollution. Rev. and updated ed. 9781921753633 (e-book.)

978-1-921640-29-2 (pbk)

Previous ed. titled: Watt’s the buzz. Published 2002. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Human beings–Effect of radiation on. 2. Electromagnetism–Health aspects. 3. Electromagnetism–Physiological effect. 4. Electromagnetic waves. 612.01442

www.scribepublications.com.au

Contents Foreword

vii

The Basics 1. The Issue 2. Energy Fundamentals for Beginners

3 11

The Technology 3. Powerlines and Appliances 4. Mobile Phones 5. Base Stations and Broadcast Towers 6. Computers 

23 53 93 125

The Link to Health 7. Electromagnetic Radiation and the Body 8. Electromagnetic Radiation and Health 9. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity 10. The Controversy

147 173 207 223

Living Safely with Electromagnetic Radiation 11. Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation 251 12. Design and Planning 303 13. The Way Forward 315 Appendix Acknowledgements Glossary Notes Index

327 341 343 349 373

Foreword My story began on Friday 28 April 1995. I went to lunch at an Indian restaurant with a work colleague, as I had many times before. In the middle of the meal I had a 45-minute grand mal brain seizure. I’m afraid some of the patrons must have thought it was the food. An ambulance took me to the closest hospital. I was admitted to the intensive-care unit, where I spent the next eight days in a critical condition. On the first morning Dr James Saadi, my neurosurgeon, had ordered an MRI. When the films were ready he told me my tumour was operable, but they first had to get the severe brain swelling down. He added that my brain might herniate before they could do so. I did not know what ‘herniate’ meant, but I knew it could kill me. (I learned later when a brain herniates, the pressure shoves the brain down into the stem. It is always fatal.) Yet somehow I also knew I was going to live and was being given a second life. I was in the hospital for a total of 11 days, leaving several days after having a 12-hour operation to remove the tumour. During the postsurgery follow-up, I asked Dr Saadi, ‘How did I get this thing?’ He answered, ‘Perhaps, electromagnetic fields.’ I was stunned. I had never heard of this as a cause, although I considered myself to be an informed person. My second life had begun. As an engineer with substantial scientific training, I went to the science literature to learn all I could. Almost immediately I found papers funded by industry and written by employees of the Electric Power Research Institute, along with other studies by electrical utility companies, which reported statistically significant risks of leukaemia and brain tumours resulting from exposure to electricity fields. It seemed clear to me that because industry has a large vested interest in not reporting this widely, there must be something to it. vii

viii  —  The Force

In September 1995, I attended my first meeting in bioelectromagnetics. I also wanted to learn all I could about my so-called ‘benign’ brain tumour, a meningioma. I was stunned to learn that data was not collected on ‘benign’ brain tumours; I was an engineer, and data is essential to our field. As a result I got a law passed in California in 2000 and a similar law passed federally in the United States in 2002 mandating data collection of all brain tumours, malignant and non-malignant. In 2002 I began to work full time in research and advocacy on the health effects resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. I have had success beyond my wildest imagination: although I have never been paid for my time, I am now invited to attend meetings on the issue worldwide. I have authored three epidemiology papers reporting risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields, and have three more in progress and many more ‘between my ears’. I have spoken at a conference on mobile phones and brain tumours, held in conjunction with a US Senate hearing, and worked with legislators toward passage of laws to regulate industry’s callous behaviours and allow funding of independent scientific research. Our world is in complete denial that a problem exists, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence. Why is there such denial? It is because the extensive evidence of the science domain has not been transferred to the public domain. The Force aims to bring that evidence to the public. It is a tour de force in which Lyn McLean covers an encyclopedic range of topics. It sets out our exposures to electricity, television, appliances, computers, and all things wireless, such as cordless phones, mobile phones, and wi-fi. In recent decades, the way in which we use electricity has fundamentally changed. Until the mid-1980s, electrical equipment used power continuously. Today, this equipment is designed to interrupt the flow of electrical power continually. First there were light dimmer switches. Then switching power suppliers were used to convert 50- or 60-hertz electricity to direct current in all electronic equipment. They turn the flow of current on and off many times per second, generating what the electrical utility industry calls ‘dirty electricity’. Working with Dr. Sam Milham at La Quinta Middle School in California, myself and others showed that dirty electricity is ‘a possible universal human carcinogen’. The impetus for the mad rush to all things wireless was the mobile phone. The Force exposes the ridiculousness of the ‘safety standards’ used by governments throughout the world. Lyn describes how the Australian government allows for the testing of mobile phones 25 millimetres away the head and body, in contrast to how they are actually used. Yet the amount of mobile phone radiation absorbed by the head or body is 625

Foreword  —  ix

times greater when the phone is held one millimetre from such areas, as compared to 25 millimetres away. Even the mobile phone companies are aware of the danger of using their products immediately against the head or body — they give warnings in the rarely read user manuals. For example, the BlackBerry Touch manual says, ‘Use hands-free operation if it is available and keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 in. (25 millimetres) from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers [AKA testicles]) …’ Yet when was the last time you saw an ad showing a mobile phone being used an inch from the head? I believe The Force’s most important contribution is its discussion of the health effects on children and the marketing of mobile phones to them. It is widely known that children are at greater risk than adults when they are exposed to carcinogens, as their cells are dividing at far higher rates. In reading The Force, you will discover that governments around the world are issuing warnings about children’s use of mobile phones. If you did not already know this, then it would be appropriate to ask the question, Why has the media ignored these global governmental warnings? If you are a parent, once you read The Force it will fundamentally change the rules you set for your children. I doubt you will ever allow them to sleep with their mobile phones beneath their pillows again. Lyn shows not just the reality of the telecommunication industry but also the pharmaceutical industry. She examines how scientists who find information the industry does not like are persecuted. This happened to the first modern scientist, Galileo Galilei, although he was only agreeing with Nicolaus Copernicus, who reported that the earth was not the centre of the universe. This contradicted the view of the Church, and Galileo was put on trial. Today, as The Force shows, the Corporation has replaced the Church. It took four centuries for the Church to admit it was wrong. How long will it take for the Corporation to admit fault? The Force is one of the most important books I have read in a long time. It opens with six personal stories of tragedies caused by ‘the force’, the ubiquitous electromagnetic fields to which we are exposed every day of our lives. These are stories of what can happen to any of us. Yet, as the subtitle suggests, the book gives guidance on how we can live safely in such a world. We can be in charge, but to do so we must act. And to act, we must be informed; this book will inform you. It is my hope that you, reader of The Force, will join with Lyn and myself to change our world for the better. — Lloyd Morgan senior research fellow, Environmental Health Trust

The Basics

Chapter 1

The Issue

‘We’ve arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology.’ — Dr Carl Sagan

It’s invisible and inaudible: you can’t smell, taste, or touch it. Electropollution is undetectable by the conscious senses — at least to most people — but its presence is everywhere. It is the unseen force that permeates the community, penetrating walls, buildings, and the body. There’s a growing body of scientific evidence that links exposure to electropollution with a range of negative effects on our health. It has been compellingly linked to serious health problems such as leukaemia, brain tumours, Alzheimer’s disease, allergies, stress, sleep problems, and depression. With industries constantly inventing and marketing new applications for a range of radiating devices, technology is racing way ahead of the research on safety. There are strong vested interests in this force being seen as harmless because industry influence permeates even the highest echelons of global research and policy-making. Currently, international standards protect against only a small range of effects, and only short-term ones at that. Effectively, there are no standards that protect against the long-term, continuous exposures that you and I receive in 3

4  —  The Force

everyday life. No one knows the consequences of decades, let alone generations, of exposure. We are all affected and, should the indications of harm that science has already found be validated, all at risk. Electromagnetic pollution is part of our daily lives. It can take the form of electromagnetic fields (EMF), which come from powerlines and electrical appliances, or electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which comes from mobile phones and other communications technologies. There are now millions of kilometres of radiating powerlines, millions of antennas transmitting radiofrequency radiation, billions of mobile phones, and countless appliances and networks of satellites, all bathing the planet with unnatural radiation, affecting everyone and creating a vastly different energy environment.

Odette’s story Eight-year-old Andrew is settled comfortably on the lounge-room couch, leafing through the book delivered a week previously by Santa. He is marvelling at the huge armour-plated stegosaurus and the flesh-eating tyrannosaurus rex leering from the pages in front of him. His concentration is soon disturbed by the arrival of his 15-month-old, auburn-haired sister, Tammy, who bounds noisily into the room and launches herself at her brother, burbling as she tries to extract the book from his grip. Andrew diverts her attention to the sound of The Wiggles, emanating from the stereo on the other side of the room. He leans back to enjoy a few minutes of respite as, distracted, she toddles away and begins to gyrate to the tuneful strains of ‘Nicky Nacky Nocky Noo’. Typical though this scene might be of thousands of lounge rooms across the country, it’s one that just a few years previously Andrew’s parents, Odette and Tony, despaired of ever experiencing themselves. When Andrew was four, his family moved to a house in Sydney, which, after a substantial facelift, was to be their dream home. It was close to school, shops, and a park, had a yard to play in, and was conveniently located around the corner from a scenic part of one of Sydney’s largest rivers. It was a new beginning, but not of the sort anticipated by Odette. Immediately after moving in, Odette began to experience enormous difficulty sleeping, although she constantly felt tired. She also experienced a sudden onset of depression for which she had no explanation. This was not just an occasional wave of despondency, but a souldestroying gloom that sapped her energy and interest. Odette also began to develop some worrying physical problems. First was a melanoma, which she had removed. Then came disappointment

The Issue  —  5

after disappointment as she and Tony tried unsuccessfully to extend their family. Despite having fallen pregnant with Andrew within four months of trying, Odette was just not able to conceive. Eventually, she and Tony hit the jackpot during a holiday cruise. Their joy, however, was short-lived, for not long afterwards they lost the baby and Odette became seriously ill with pneumonia. This was to be the first of three devastating miscarriages. Odette was suspected of having contracted Lupus, an autoimmune disease, since her pregnancy with Andrew. Odette was not the only one experiencing problems. Andrew, by now six, had been plagued with health problems all his young life. He was considerably underweight, had suffered countless colds and ear infections, and, after repeated bouts of tonsillitis, had had his tonsils and adenoids removed. He had come close to death with croup and recently developed the frustrating habit of wriggling down to the middle of his bed every night. Tony was not sick in the conventional sense of the word, but he did not experience an abundance of energy and wondered why his hair now stood on end every morning when he awoke. Odette began to suspect that the origin of the family’s problems might be the house itself. Searching for answers, she rang me for information about electromagnetic radiation. In a tone of incredible frustration, she described the family’s litany of health concerns. ‘Do you think our problems might be related to the radiation that comes from the wiring?’ she asked. I thought that it was certainly possible. ‘The energy from the power system is called electromagnetic fields and it’s associated with a whole range of health problems,’ I explained. ‘They include some of the concerns you’ve mentioned, such as immune problems, tiredness, and depression, and perhaps even miscarriage and difficulties conceiving. There are even reports of children sleeping in high fields wriggling away from the wall the way that Andrew does.’ Odette decided to have the fields in her house measured and contacted my colleague, John Lincoln, an electrical engineer who had been measuring electromagnetic fields in homes and workplaces for 20 years. When John measured the house, he found extremely high fields, particularly in the bedrooms. Odette and Tony’s bed was on the other side of the wall and just 50 centimetres or so away from the meter box, which was emitting a magnetic field of 88 milligauss (mG) when the off-peak hot-water system was operating at night. The average measurement in the room was around 70 mG, and the lowest reading was 12 mG.

6  —  The Force

Because Andrew’s bed was on the other side of the wall from the hotwater system, he was being exposed to a field of 12 mG during the entire night. These readings were well within the international guidelines, which allow people to be exposed to 2000 mG at home. However, they are far in excess of 4 mG, a level that is considered to be possibly carcinogenic. John also found high readings in other parts of the house. In the tiny kitchen there was the usual assortment of electrical appliances, all emitting fields. Around the digital clock on the electric oven there was a field of 20 mG, and the rear of the refrigerator measured 20 mG. In fact, wherever Odette stood in that room she was sure to be exposed to a field of no less than 20 mG. On John’s advice, Odette and Tony implemented a number of strategies to reduce their exposure. They moved the old hot-water heater out of the laundry, away from Andrew’s bed, and installed a solar hot-water system that they set to heat between 5.00 and 7.00 p.m. so it would not be operating while the family was sleeping. By installing an earth stake, they rectified the problem of an unearthed meter box (one whose wiring was not connected to the ground). Because it was too expensive to relocate the box, Odette and Tony moved their bed to another wall. Odette began to run the washing machine during the day rather than at night so it would not be generating fields through the wall against which Andrew was sleeping. She also unplugged the microwave oven when it was not in use to help reduce the ambient field in the kitchen. These measures considerably reduced the fields the family was exposed to, although the kitchen still remained something of a hot spot. Nevertheless, the family noticed the effects soon after. First, there was a period of adjustment, a week in which they felt unsettled and lacking in energy. After that, however, their health began to improve steadily. Tony found that his hair no longer stood on end each morning. Andrew’s health and energy levels increased, and he no longer wriggled to the centre of the bed at night. To his parents’ relief, he gained weight, and family friends began to notice the change in his health. Odette conceived soon after and produced a healthy baby girl. Could the high fields in their house have accounted for Odette and her family’s ill health? After all, Andrew had experienced health problems ever since he was a baby, before they moved to the house. When Andrew was born, his parents were living in a unit in an inner-western suburb of Sydney. Andrew spent long periods in a bouncinette against the external wall of the lounge room — a location where Tony also spent many hours. Upon visiting the units, Odette and Tony

The Issue  —  7

noticed that the wall in question contained the power supply for the entire block of flats — four meter boxes! So Andrew and Tony had also been exposed to high fields for long periods at their old address. While living there, Tony had experienced excruciating migraine headaches, which had disappeared some time after they moved. Odette’s problems were alleviated by reducing her family’s exposure to the electromagnetic fields from their meter box and household appliances. Yet sometimes high fields in the home can emanate, believe it or not, from the household plumbing.

Dr Lee’s story Dr Lee and his family moved into a beautiful brick home in Sydney’s Lane Cove. After living there for six months, they learned the house had a history of serious illness that had touched all of the last four families who had occupied it. Two former residents, a mother and a young child, had died from leukaemia. Another child had developed leukaemia while living there but had since moved away, so her fate was unknown to the Lees. A father and a third child had each developed glioma (a type of brain tumour) while living in the house. John found high fields connected with the wiring in the house. First, the wiring was earthed to the water pipes, and they were conducting an extremely high field through the house — he measured 538 mG at the water meter. This meant that anyone spending time in parts of the house adjacent to the pipes — working, studying, or sleeping — was being exposed. The pipes ran not only downstairs, but under the upstairs bedroom and up the wall into the adjacent bathroom, so that a person sleeping next to the bathroom wall would have been exposed throughout the night. In addition to the water pipes, the wiring itself was generating high fields. Power entered the house near the upstairs bedroom and ran across the ceiling and down the wall to the meter box, which was on the outside of a bedroom wall downstairs. On the other side of the wall, the field from the meter box measured 45 mG — not a good location for a bed. Dr Lee and his family had, fortuitously, arranged their furniture so that their beds were not exposed to the high fields of the meter box or the water pipes. Nevertheless, John measured fields of 18 mG at one bed, 8.8 to 15 mG at another, and 5.7 mG at a third. While these fields were already too high for comfort, it is likely that they increased at night when the off-peak electric hot-water system cut in, using substantially more power.

8  —  The Force

To reduce his family’s risk of developing the problems experienced by former occupants, Dr Lee organised an electrician to install an earth stake and a plumber to insert a plastic section in the water pipe so that it was no longer conductive. Not only did this stop the fields in the pipes, but it meant that the currents travelling into and out of the house through the wiring were now balanced, and so the wiring emitted lower fields. This was a simple but effective solution.

Murray and Susan’s story Naturally, homes situated close to high-voltage powerlines are particularly exposed to electromagnetic fields. Murray and his wife Susan wanted to know the field levels at a property they were interested in buying. It was a beautiful home with a delightful aspect, situated on a bushy peninsula that jutted into a particularly scenic part of Sydney’s Georges River. However, there was a potential problem: a high-voltage powerline ran right through the property before eventually spanning the river. In the backyard, the space inside one of its pylons had even been utilised to accommodate the clothesline! The powerline ran along the entire side of the house, about ten metres away from all of the bedrooms. Inside the house, in the rooms adjacent to the powerline, John measured magnetic fields of between 8.4 and 10 mG during the day. On the side of the house furthest from the powerlines, he measured an average of 5 mG. These fields were likely to be very much higher during the evening, when the line was conducting more current to feed the demand for heating and appliances, and off-peak hot-water heating later in the evening. John provided the couple with the readings and explained the risks that had been identified with fields at these levels. Murray and Susan still went ahead with the purchase and moved in with their young children. John later learned in a conversation with the estate agent that the son of the previous owner had died of leukaemia.

Kate’s story Sometimes problems are caused by electric fields, which are emitted by electrical equipment and wiring. Kate, a secretary, rang me, desperate to find a solution to a string of difficulties she’d been battling for several years. First, she had severe dermatitis on her hands, which had persisted with barely a reprieve for over three years and made performing even simple tasks painfully difficult. Second, she was plagued by incredible tiredness, which made functioning after 6.00 p.m. almost impossible — to the point where she was often unable to string coherent sentences

The Issue  —  9

together. Yet even though she was constantly tired, Kate had difficulty sleeping, and the quality of her sleep was poor. Third, Kate had been experiencing pain when she used her office computer. By the time she spoke to me, Kate’s difficulties while working at the computer had increased to the point where they had become intolerable. She now experienced a burning sensation when using the mouse. Moreover, the sensation travelled up her arm and persisted overnight. It was only alleviated by keeping away from the computer for days on end — which was quite difficult, given that her job required regular computer use. She also began to develop pain behind her right eye, and the condition of her hands deteriorated to the point where they had constant open cuts that bled easily upon impact with just about anything. When John visited Kate’s workplace, he found extremely high electric fields. The highest were from the keyboard, which measured up to 300 volts per metre (V/m) — in comparison, most keyboards John had measured were about 5 V/m. Although 300 V/m was substantially smaller than the 5000 V/m allowed by international guidelines, it was far above the 10 to 40 V/m that some studies have associated with leukaemia. High electric fields were also coming from wiring that ran under the floor beneath Kate’s workstation, and inside the wall at the rear of her desk. In this case, the solution was simple. With the cooperation of Kate’s employer, John moved the computer to an alternative location and found that the fields immediately dropped from 300 to just 5 V/m. Within a week, Kate’s dermatitis had cleared and her tiredness greatly reduced.

Ed’s story Not all health problems are caused by the electromagnetic fields from the power system; electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones can often contribute to such problems, too. Ed was a successful businessman who often conducted his work from overseas locations such as Singapore and Paris. Needless to say, his mobile phone use was extremely heavy: he made calls that lasted up to an hour, and ran up bills of around AU$1000 per month. He invariably held the phone in his left hand so that he was free to work with his right. Often during calls he experienced a sensation of heat about two or three centimetres inside his head, near where he held the handset, and this feeling often persisted for up to 20 minutes. In 1997, Ed was diagnosed with a Merkel Cell tumour on the left side of his head, at the location where the aerial of his phone had touched his scalp. Merkel Cell tumours usually start in the lungs and then spread to other parts of the body. However, there was no indication of a tumour

10  —  The Force

in Ed’s lungs — something had caused the tumour to appear in his head. Ed had the tumour surgically removed, but the following year he was diagnosed with a tumour in the left parotid gland, located on his neck and shoulder just below the ear — directly and precisely adjacent to the position of the mouthpiece of his mobile phone. This was a very aggressive tumour that required radiotherapy and radical surgery, which removed a sizeable chunk of the left side of his neck and shoulder. Ed was told he had just two more years to live. Thankfully, Ed outlived the forecast time limit, but the scars remained with him: the physical and emotional legacy of his romance with technology. For Ed, there was no doubt that his tumours were caused by the microwave radiation from his mobile phone. The match between the position of his mobile phone and the location of the tumours was too perfect to be pure chance. And so it often is. The connection between high levels of electromagnetic exposure and health problems is just too frequent, too compelling, to be mere coincidence. The names of the individuals in these stories have been changed, but their experiences are true and they are not isolated incidents. Time and again, John, myself, and others who work in this area find that people living or working near high fields develop health problems. In our experience, they are exhausted and unwell, sometimes greatly so, and often immensely frustrated at the difficulties they’ve had in finding a solution to their problems. Fortunately, in our experience, many of their problems can be solved by reducing their exposure. Individually, none of us can change the global picture on EMR, but every one of us has a choice about how much exposure to accept in our own lives. In Chapters 3 to 6, you will discover what fields are generated by equipment such as powerlines, appliances, mobile phones, base stations, broadcast towers, and computers. In Chapters 7 to 10 you will read about how they have been linked to a range of serious health conditions, including leukaemia, brain tumours, Alzheimer’s disease, allergies, and depression. In Chapters 11 to 12, you can read about simple measures you can take to reduce your exposure, both in the home and in the workplace, and ways to minimise exposure in new buildings through design and planning. The force is already with you. The questions are, what are the risks and how can you protect yourself, your family, and your employees? Read on to find out.

Chapter 2

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners

‘All matter, living and nonliving, is ultimately an electromagnetic phenomenon. The material world, at least as far as physics has penetrated, is an atomic structure held together by electromagnetic forces.’ — Dr Robert Becker and Gary Selden

We are surrounded by electromagnetic radiation. The sun emits EMR, which we experience as light and heat. The earth has a static magnetic field that regulates our body cycle and helps living creatures to navigate their environments. Even people emit electric and magnetic fields, which can be measured with records such as magnetoencephalograms and electroencephalograms. Humans have added a host of artificial emissions to the naturally occurring electromagnetic radiation our bodies have adapted to over eons. In the last 100 years, society has witnessed the proliferation of huge power-distribution networks, the advent of radio and television, the widespread use of computers in industry and homes, and, more recently, the emergence of a large and constantly evolving telecommunications network. If EMR were visible, we would see ourselves enveloped in a complex web of tightly woven emissions. 11

Figure 1. A chart showing how electromagnetic radiation is associated with various medical, telecommunications, nuclear, and other activities.

12  —  The Force

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  13

To understand the impact of EMR on our bodies, it is useful to understand something of the nature of this energy itself. The following description is a fairly simple outline that will be helpful in understanding some of the concepts used elsewhere in this book.

The electromagnetic spectrum Electromagnetic radiation is classified according to its frequency (the number of wavelengths to pass a given point in one second), and these are measured in hertz (Hz). In most countries, electricity networks operate at a frequency of 50 Hz, but in some, including the United States and Canada, they operate at 60 Hz. GSM mobile phones operate at frequencies between 890 and 915 million hertz (MHz), third-generation mobile phones at around 1800 MHz, and microwave ovens at 2450 MHz. Looking at Figure 1 on page 12, you can see that EMR ranges from extra-low frequency through the radiofrequency band in which our telecommunications system, microwave ovens, radios, and televisions operate, up to infra-red and visible light. This part of the spectrum is known as non-ionising radiation because the energy here is insufficient to break covalent chemical bonds directly. However, that does not mean that this energy is inert — there are other types of chemical bonds and other ways that energy can interact with them. The energy in each part of the non-ionising spectrum is known by a particular name: extra-low frequency (ELF), generated at low levels; electromagnetic fields (EMF), generated by the power system; and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) or microwave radiation (MR), generated by mobile communications technology. Beyond the non-ionising part of the spectrum is ionising radiation, which includes ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays — all of which are known to cause health problems but are beyond the scope of this book. Electromagnetic radiation has an electric field and a magnetic field.

Voltage and current Without going into a complicated physics lesson, in order to understand an electric field it is necessary to first understand the concepts of voltage and current. Think of a bucket of water with a hole at the bottom. The pressure (voltage) of the water causes it to escape from the hole in a stream (current). If the pressure is great, the water will gush from the bucket. If it is not, the water will just trickle out. If it is variable, the current will vary, too. The same principles apply with voltage and current.

14  —  The Force

pressure (voltage)

flow (current)

Figure 2. The pressure of the water creates a flow, just as the voltage of electricity creates a current.

Electric fields Electric fields are the result of voltage, and they are present whenever appliances are turned on. A coffee percolator, for example, will give out an electric field as it prepares its tantalising brew first thing in the morning. What many people do not realise is that the electric field is also present when an appliance is plugged in but switched off, so that coffee percolator is likely to be generating a field throughout the day. Let’s return to the bucket analogy for a moment. When the hole is plugged, water cannot gush out as it did before, but the pressure forces minute amounts of water to escape from any imperfectly sealed holes.

pressure (voltage)

leakage (electric field) Figure 3. Moisture seeping through an imperfectly sealed hole in a bucket is similar to an electric field emitting from an electrical appliance.

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  15

In the same way, when an appliance is turned off at its switch, a small electric field ‘escapes’ along the wire. Just as a greater water pressure will cause more leakage, a higher voltage will result in a higher electric field. This means, of course, that the only way to eliminate the electric field from the wiring of an appliance is to remove the plug from its socket. This tendency for electric fields to ‘escape’ can be observed on a rainy day near high-voltage powerlines. That crackling sound you will hear is the corona, the noise made by minute amounts of current as it escapes from the wire through the moist air. Some solid objects — for example, buildings, trees, and furniture — can partially block electric fields by diverting the energy back to the earth. The fields are most effectively diverted with earthed sheets of metal, which can be used in the home to block the electric field from, for example, a meter box. They can also be blocked with insulation such as rubber or PVC, which is one reason why wiring is encased in PVC conduit. Electric fields are measured in volts per metre (V/m).

Figure 4. Electrical fields occur at right angles to the active wire.

Magnetic fields Whenever an appliance is operating, its electrical current produces a magnetic field. This means that your coffee percolator is generating both an electric and a magnetic field while brewing the morning pick-me-up, but only an electric field while it is idle during the day. Unlike electric fields, magnetic fields are difficult to block, and can pass through the human body, most objects, and even the earth. Powerlines that have been laid in underground trenches can, depending on the way they are laid, still produce a measurable magnetic field on the nature strip. In general, the greater the current, the higher the magnetic field will be. Magnetic fields are measured in gauss (G) and milligauss (mG) or tesla (T) and microtesla (µT).

16  —  The Force

Figure 5. Magnetic fields radiate out from the conductor in circular waves. The strength of both magnetic and electric fields diminishes with distance from the source, so the further away you are, the weaker the fields.

Electromagnetic waves The length of an electromagnetic wave — the ‘wavelength’ — varies according to the frequency, and can extend for long distances. Incredibly, the wavelength for a 50-Hz wave from the electrical distribution system is 6000 kilometres, and for a 60-Hz wave it is 5000 kilometres. The 50- or 60-Hz signal that is produced by the power station is a pure, gently undulating wave, known as an alternating sine wave, which can be shown on a graph such as the one below. As you can see, alternating waves are quite symmetrical, with half positive and the other half negative. This is the sort of signal that most laboratory animals and cells are exposed to by scientists attempting to ascertain the safety — or otherwise — of electromagnetic fields from powerlines. However, the signals that people are to exposed in real life are quite different, because they’re modulated.

Figure 6. Power stations produce alternating waves with a relatively symmetrical pattern.

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  17

Modulation A modulated wave is one in which the sine wave carries another wave superimposed on it. This means that two often quite separate frequencies travel together, either along a powerline or through our airways. Amplitude modulations, frequency modulations, transients, and other ‘hash’ signals all combine to produce a wave that is substantially different from the one that left the power station and the one to which luckless laboratory mice are subjected. Amplitude and frequency modulations Modulation usually occurs deliberately, in order to convey information. For example, in many areas powerlines are used to collect data about electricity consumption so that workers no longer have to check individual electricity meters manually (and brave ferocious guard dogs). Sometimes modulation occurs unintentionally, when powerlines — particularly high-voltage lines — act as antennas for a telecommunication system. In this situation, the powerline acts like a receiver/transmitter, albeit an inefficient one. Our radio networks use two different systems of modulation: AM and FM. The AM system is amplitude modulated, which means that the signal has the same frequency but variable amplitude. The FM system is frequency modulated, so that the amplitude is constant but the frequency varies. This occurs when the wave is compressed or stretched, so that there are more or less waves than usual number of the carrier signal. In a FM system, the receiving system interprets this complex signal and uses it to reconstruct the original transmission exactly. Consequently, it allows a complicated signal to be transmitted with fewer errors — and therefore more clarity — than the AM system.

Figure 7. The signal from an amplitude modulated (AM) wave is regular but varies in amplitude.

Figure 8. The signal from a frequency modulated (FM) wave has a constant amplitude but occurs irregularly.

18  —  The Force

Transients Transients are a type of unwanted interference caused by motors, switches, and electrical devices being turned on and off throughout the power grid. One type of transient, a spike, is rather like a pimple on the sine wave, lasting only for a fraction of a single cycle or less and often followed by smaller reverberations. This can be compared to the action of a diving board, which dips low and springs high during a dive and bounces several times afterwards. So, by the time the 50- or 60-Hz signal reaches us, it looks more like the image below. This is a far cry from the signal that was originally emitted from the power station — and a far cry from what is often tested in laboratories. It is sometimes referred to as ‘dirty electricity’.

Figure 9. These tiny transients are effectively high-frequency signals that have been superimposed on the original sine wave.

Thyristors Transients are often produced by the use of thyristors. These are electronic switches on appliances with speed control, such as drills or hairdryers, which enable the alternating current of the power system to run appliances at variable speeds. Operating an appliance containing a thyristor causes a distortion of the wave through the power system.

Pulsed signals The telecommunications network operates at a higher frequency than the power system, so it produces waves of shorter lengths. Whereas the old analog mobile phone system operated using a steady sine wave, digital networks utilise sharp pulses of power so that the signal looks a little like the figure below.

Figure 10. The waves from a digital mobile phone network are sharp and irregular.

Energy Fundamentals for Beginners  —  19

However, as in the power system, the signals are not even but consist of a series of tiny peaks and troughs, caused by, for example, mobile phones emitting signals. This means that, once again, our bodies are not being subjected to an even or regular pattern, but to a series of jarring signals of varying intensities. Yet in constructing standards for radiofrequency protection, there has been a tendency to estimate the impact on the body by averaging out the signal over six-or-so minutes, rather than considering the effects of brief but intense bursts of energy. This may be rather like claiming that a bullet to the heart is not harmful because averaged over six minutes it would cause nothing more than a slight bruise.

Direct current So far we’ve looked at electromagnetic signals that are generated in waves. However, there’s another type of field that does not have this feature. Direct current travels in a single direction, as opposed to the undulating sine waves of the power system. The current and its field have no waves and therefore no frequency. Direct current is produced by batteries, direct current generators, and solar cells. Sometimes it is used for transporting high-voltage electricity over long distances. After it has been transported, it is converted into alternating current for consumption.

Static electricity Unlike alternating current and direct current, static electricity does not involve the flow of current (hence the name ‘static’). It’s generated when certain materials are rubbed against each other, causing electrons on one surface to transfer to the other. The surface that has lost electrons will then have a positive electrical charge, whereas the one that has gained electrons will have a negative charge. These charges can either attract or repel objects — like charges repel while opposite charges attract. You can test this for yourself by running a comb through dry hair and holding it next to a piece of tissue paper. The comb will gather a negative charge from the hair, and this charge will attract the paper. Alternatively, combing hair on a very dry day will leave the hair with positive charges that cause strands to separate, giving a flyaway effect. (This doesn’t happen with damp hair because water reduces static charges.) Sometimes the attraction between two objects close to each other is so strong that it generates a small spark. You have probably experienced the effects of static electricity when you have walked across a nylon carpet, climbed onto a metal-framed

20  —  The Force

trampoline, or opened your car door. Sometimes the sensation can be quite uncomfortable. The body discharges accumulated static electricity when it comes into contact with the earth. Therefore, working in the garden, walking barefoot on grass, swimming in the ocean, or touching a tree literally ground us, and this is probably explains why we feel so good afterwards. On the other hand, working in artificial environments, wearing synthetic fibres, and using electronic equipment enhances the build-up of static. Rubber-soled shoes are insulators, so wearing them prevents the build-up from discharging naturally to earth. These effects are accentuated on dry, windy days, as our bodies and clothes pick up charges from the air flowing past. Now that you have an understanding of electromagnetic waves, it’s time to see them in action.

The TEchnology

Chapter 3

Powerlines and Appliances

‘I hypothesise that the 20th-century epidemic of the so-called diseases of civilisation, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and suicide, was caused by electrification, not by lifestyle.’ — Dr Samuel Milham

From the night light in the baby’s room to the digital alarm clock on the bedside table, from the microwave oven in the kitchen to the wiring that runs through the walls, you and your family are constantly surrounded by electricity. DVD players, entertainment consoles, computers, printers, scanners, stereos, electric blankets, heaters, air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, fridges, ovens — there’s an amazing array of electronic gadgetry that has become part of our daily lives. Each of these appliances is emitting electromagnetic fields while it is operating. Some of these fields in your home or workplace are likely to be well above levels that have been connected with risk.

The power network Electromagnetic fields are to electricity what night is to day — you can’t have one without the other. Every time you turn on a power point you activate an electric field, and every time you use an appliance you are 23

24  —  The Force

exposed to electric and magnetic fields. The electricity used for your morning cup of coffee has travelled great distances — perhaps hundreds of kilometres — to power the circuitry of your coffee machine. It began life at the power station as a young and innocent sine wave, smooth, regular, and uncorrupted. From there, it was transported through hightension wires at between 10 and 500 kilovolts (kV) to your neighbourhood, and then transformed by a series of substations until it reached the lower voltages of the domestic power supply. As it moved, the formerly pure sine wave was modified: as people switched appliances on and off, it was interrupted; as stray radiofrequency signals reached the powerlines, it carried them. As a result, its shape became less rounded and smooth and more irregular. It became what some people refer to as ‘dirty’ electricity. From the substations, this ‘dirty’ electricity travelled along the domestic power poles that run outside many homes. These poles normally carry either four or three lines or wires. In the four-wire system, three of these wires distribute electricity to the homes and workplaces in your street (which is why this system is also sometimes referred to as a ‘three-phased system’) and these are called active wires. The fourth wire, the neutral, carries the return current. In the three-wire distribution system, two of the wires are active and one is the return. The same principle applies to underground powerlines, where a three- or four-wire system has been installed beneath the ground and insulated.

Figure 11. Illustration courtesy National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health.

Powerlines and Appliances   —  25

A wire from one of these active lines connects to a service point in the home. From there, electricity flows to the meter box and then to the fuse box, which contains fuses, or circuit-breakers, for different circuits within the house. (Your home will probably have separate fuses and circuits for power outlets, lights, an electric hot water system, and perhaps an electric stove.) Electricity travels from the fuses along the active wire inside the home and into the coffee machine. And voilà — a morning pick-me-up is ready. But this is not the end of the story for the electrons that have heated your breakfast — they are not consumed by use, but live to work another day. Most of them will now travel through the return wire to the service point in your home, then back along the return wire on the street until they eventually reach the power station. If the amount of electricity running through the active wire in the home is similar to the amount of electricity running through the return wire, the fields from the wiring through your house will be balanced and therefore quite low. This is the ideal situation. However, there is another possible scenario: after the ever-efficient electrons have powered your coffee machine, some will travel from your meter box to the earth stake in the ground. The ground is not a good conductor and so this current, having come to a dead end, will generally look for another pathway back to the power station. Quite often it finds a conveniently placed metal pipe (metal is a conductor of electricity) on which to hitch a ride. This is the household water pipe, to which the wiring has been earthed for safety. If you have metal, rather than plastic, water pipes in your home and current is travelling along them, you may find the pipes are generating reasonably high electromagnetic fields. This can be a problem if your bed, favourite chair, or desk is located over the pipes. (The problem, of course, does not occur in houses with plastic water pipes.) Fortunately, this situation can be resolved by eliminating the current from the pipes, as we will see in Chapter 11.

Health concerns Electricity generates electromagnetic fields at every step of its journey from the power station to the home. Everything that involves electricity — from the transformers and powerlines on the street to the wiring in the home, from the household appliances to the electronic equipment at work — generates electric and magnetic fields. Even cars, buses, trains, and planes generate electromagnetic fields as they travel. Although you are not consciously aware of them, these fields are detected by your body,

26  —  The Force

and they cause certain biological changes. The question is, how significant are those changes for your health? The internationally recognised authority on the health effects of electromagnetic fields is the World Health Organization (WHO) and in particular its offspring, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In 2005, the WHO convened a task force to consider this question. It concluded that ‘there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public’.1 The authorities in most countries of the world have adopted this view in some form or other. On the surface, this seems reassuring. It suggests that if we comply with international guidelines, we have nothing to worry about. However, in reality that is far from the case. We will see on page 31 how the WHO justifies its position, but for now let’s look at what has been happening to people’s health.

Childhood leukaemia ‘There is definite scientific evidence that exposure to magnetic fields from powerlines greater than 4 milligauss … is associated with an elevated risk of childhood leukaemia. Some scientific research indicates an elevated risk at levels of 2 milligauss.’ — Dr David Carpenter

John once measured a home owned by Sydney couple Matthew and Stella, located close to a high-voltage powerline in the city’s west. Inside the house, fields were generally in the order of 12 milligauss (mG). In the course of discussion, John remarked that the two seemed to be in good health. ‘We’re concerned about our health and we take pretty good care of ourselves,’ replied Matthew. ‘But I wouldn’t have my grandchildren living here for quids.’ ‘Why not?’ asked John, surprised. ‘Because the neighbours on each side of us have both lost children to leukaemia.’ In the developed world, the first hint that electromagnetic fields might pose a risk to health came unexpectedly during the 1970s. Dr Nancy Wertheimer, an epidemiologist investigating childhood leukaemia, happened to notice that children with the disease lived near wiring configurations that suggested high exposures. After several years of checking

Powerlines and Appliances   —  27

and re-checking her work, she and fellow scientist Ed Leeper published a paper in 1979 — to a fairly universal chorus of dissent. It was clear that virtually no one wanted to consider that this ubiquitous environmental presence might pose a risk to health.2 However, despite the persistent efforts of nay-sayers, other studies began to vindicate Wertheimer’s findings. In the next two decades, researchers in locations such as the United States, Sweden, Thailand, Britain, and Canada also found a connection between childhood leukaemia and electromagnetic fields from the power system. Moreover, this link was found even with fairly typical levels of exposure — levels that were just 1/250th of international guidelines! The cat was truly out of the bag. By 2000, there were a substantial number of studies into the link between powerlines and childhood leukaemia. Researchers had begun to conduct larger (‘meta’) analyses, which allowed them to use a far bigger database than was available for individual studies. One such study was conducted by Dr Anders Ahlbom of Sweden. He found that children exposed to just 4 mG had double the risk of developing leukaemia.3 In 2001, a review was conducted in the United Kingdom by the prominent epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll, who had some decades previously made the connection between smoking and lung cancer. It also found a doubling of the risk of childhood leukaemia among children exposed to fields of 4 mG or more.4 In a different type of study conducted that same year, US epidemiologist Dr Samuel Milham cast his attention backwards for a historical perspective on the link. What he found was alarming — he showed that childhood leukaemia rates had increased in children aged between two and four just after electricity had come to their neighbourhoods. He also found that the greater the degree of electrification of an area, the higher the leukaemia rate. And this was occurring not just in one country but many. Milham concluded that ‘the childhood leukaemia peak of common acute lymphoblastic leukaemia may be attributable to electrification’, and that 60 per cent of childhood leukaemia may be preventable.5 By 2002, the body of evidence linking electromagnetic fields with childhood leukaemia had grown again. The International Agency for Research on Cancer published a monograph in which it classified magnetic fields of over 4 mG as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’. The strength of the association was limited by lack of supporting evidence from animal studies.6 We shall shortly see the reason for this. Since then, other studies have strengthened the connection between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. In 2005, the largest

28  —  The Force

study on the topic to date was carried out in Britain. Conducted by Dr Gerald Draper from Oxford University, it analysed the records of over 29,000 children with cancer, and found that those born in homes within 200 metres of a high-voltage line had over one and a half times the relative risk of leukaemia of children who were born further away.7 In 2006, another particularly telling study was conducted in Japan by Dr Michinori Kabuto. It covered a wide geographical area that was home to over half of the Japanese population below 15 years old, and involved 312 children with leukaemia. The researchers took careful measurements in the homes, particularly the bedrooms, of the leukaemia patients. They found that children exposed to 4 mG or more had two and a half times the usual risk of developing acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. But the real surprise was regarding children with acute myelocytic leukaemia: Kabuto found that children exposed to 4 mG or more had, incredibly, over four and a half times the usual risk of developing this disease.8 The following year, Australian and UK researchers announced the results of their collaborative study on leukaemia rates in Tasmania, Australia’s smallest state. The researchers found that people who lived closest to high-voltage lines had a greater risk of leukaemia than those who lived further away. They also found that the more time people spent living close to high-voltage lines, the greater their risk of leukaemia, and every year lived within 50 metres of the lines increased the risk of developing the disease by 7 per cent. In addition, they discovered that the higher the voltage, the greater the risk: for example, living within 300 metres of an 88-kV line increased the risk of leukaemia by 33 per cent, but living within 300 metres of a 230 kV line increased the risk by 45 per cent. Finally, the study found that people who had lived near high-voltage powerlines as very young children had a higher risk of leukaemia than those who had done so later in life.9 Below is what other key studies have found. • Children exposed to 2 mG in the United States had nearly double the risk of leukaemia and those exposed to 4 to 5 mG had over six times the risk.10 Children in California living near very high-current wiring configurations had double the risk of the disease.11 • Canadian children living in high-current wiring configurations for two years had 1.7 times the risk of leukaemia.12 Children under six years old exposed to 1.5 mG had nearly three and a half times the risk of leukaemia.13 • Children in Scandinavia exposed to 2 mG or more had double the risk of leukaemia and those exposed to 5 mG or more had five

Powerlines and Appliances   —  29

times the risk of the disease while in Germany, children exposed to over 2 mG at night had over three times the risk of leukaemia.14 • Children living within 100 metres of a high-voltage powerline in Taiwan had an elevated risk of leukaemia.15 • A review found ‘a consistent risk of childhood leukaemia’ from residential magnetic fields.16 Another review found that children exposed to over 3 mG had 1.7 times the risk of leukaemia.17 • In Mexico, children with Down syndrome exposed to 6 mG or more had nearly four times the risk of developing leukaemia.18 The link between childhood leukaemia and electromagnetic fields is the strongest evidence we have so far that these fields may pose a health risk. However, the WHO has not factored it into the setting of international guidelines because the link has not yet been proven conclusively. For this kind of proof, international authorities would need to see similar results from animal experiments and, by and large, this has not been forthcoming. However, there’s a reason for this — experimental animals and cells are usually exposed to a simulated field. It’s often a pure, simple, uncomplicated sine wave like that generated at the power station. On the other hand, people are exposed to quite different signals in real life, as we have seen in Chapter 2: all sorts of ‘hash’, or distortion, is added to the pure sine wave when people turn switches on or off, use equipment with thrystors, or operate appliances which use powerlines to conduct highfrequency signals. As long as scientists try to test the link between powerlines and leukaemia by exposing animals and cells to signals that are quite different from those to which people are exposed, they are doomed to failure. Some might say this is a convenient outcome. Another reason why studies showing effects from EMF have not been factored into the WHO guidelines is because researchers have not yet found a ‘mechanism’, an irrefutable scientific explanation to account for how these fields could cause the disease. Without such an explanation, there’s no reason to assume that EMF ‘causes’ childhood leukaemia. In other words, in the world of science what scientists don’t understand doesn’t exist; it’s a bit like saying that God doesn’t exist because he/she can’t be measured and confirmed in the laboratory. Even so, there are some scientists who believe that there is already enough evidence to show that electromagnetic fields cause childhood leukaemia. As early as 2002, three scientists commissioned by the California Department of Health Services presented their verdict on the likelihood that electromagnetic fields had an impact on public health. After eight years and an expenditure of US$7,000,000, they released their report.

30  —  The Force

It concluded: ‘To one degree or another, all three of the DHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukaemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and miscarriage.’19 Another independent review was the BioInitiative Report, the results of which were published in 2007. A group of 14 scientists and health experts analysed the available research and concluded that ‘[t]here is little doubt that exposure to ELF [extra-low frequencies] causes childhood leukaemia’. Their findings suggested that these fields are also a risk factor for adult leukaemia, Alzheimer’s disease, and genetic damage, among other problems, as we will see in Chapters 7 and 8. If governments and industry admitted there was a risk at 4 mG they would be accepting liability for the dangerous standards and practices that are currently in place. It would mean expensive changes to infrastructure for industry, redesign of commonly used equipment, reclassification of risk in existing occupations, and a massive reduction in the value of homes situated along high-voltage corridors. Even if the link between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia is accepted, there’s a convenient escape clause that appears at regular intervals — that childhood leukaemia is a rare disease. If leukaemia affects only a small percentage of the population (estimates suggest there are about 42 cases per million) then is it worth taking costly action to protect the population at large? Your view on that will depend, I expect, on whether someone you know happens to be one of these vital 42 cases. Unfortunately when economic and political considerations such as these enter the health debate, what seems like a straightforward observation — that exposed children are getting sick — is obscured behind a smokescreen of confusion.

Anecdotal evidence of other health concerns There are hundreds of reports from people claiming to be affected by electromagnetic fields. Separately, these case studies prove nothing — they are certainly not scientific evidence. But, together, they paint a picture that these fields may be affecting the health and wellbeing of some of the people exposed to them. Irene had consulted her local GP, without success, for a number of uncomfortable symptoms. She suffered from severe depression, as did her husband; she had also been having difficulties sleeping for many years and was taking medication for sleep apnoea. Irene had also frequently

Powerlines and Appliances   —  31

experienced a strange sensation of pressure over her temples, which she described as feeling like she was wearing a tight cap around her head. After hearing me speak about electromagnetic radiation on the radio, Irene realised that she was sleeping on the other side of the wall from a meter box and next to an answering machine and a clock radio — all of which generated electromagnetic fields. That night, Irene moved her bed away from the meter box and the appliances away from the bed. She noticed an immediate improvement in the way she felt, and six weeks later reported that she felt healthy, no longer needed medication for sleep problems, and believed she no longer suffered from depression. As an additional bonus, the feeling of tightness around her head had disappeared. Dane was a normal, active 14-year-old with a problem: he was continually exhausted. He needed excessive amounts of sleep and would often come home from school and go straight to bed. Dane was sleeping on an electric blanket that generated fields of around 25 V/m. After his mother removed the blanket from his bed, Dane’s energy levels improved and his sleep patterns returned to normal. These are the real experiences of people living with electromagnetic fields. They may not have the force of laboratory-based scientific evidence, but they do support the connection which science has already identified — that electromagnetic fields are interfering with our bodies and impacting on our health. If this is the case, the obvious question to consider is how much exposure is safe?

Guidelines, standards, and safe levels There are two recognised sources of guidance on setting standards for EMR around the world. The first is a set of guidelines updated in 2010 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which are endorsed by the World Health Organization. The second is a standard developed in 2002 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a society of technical and professional engineering with headquarters in the United States. Most countries in the world have based their regulations on one or both of these documents. However, both only provide protection against a limited number of short-term effects. The ICNIRP guidelines claim to provide ‘protection against all established adverse health effects’. While this sounds reassuring, the reality is that the only established health effects it considers are acute, short-term effects such as ‘shocks and burns’, ‘surface electric-charge

32  —  The Force

effects’, and the occurrence of phosphenes (flickering lights in the peripheral vision).20 It does not protect against ‘everyday chronic low-intensity ... power frequency magnetic fields’, such as those associated with childhood leukaemia, because it does not accept that the fields cause leukaemia (as we will see in later chapters). Similarly, the IEEE addresses only ‘established’ short-term effects. When it comes to problems from long-term, chronic exposure, both documents state that there is ‘insufficient’ evidence to set protective limits. In other words, neither international standard provides protection against long-term, continuous exposure. However, this is exactly the sort of exposure that you and I receive if we’re living or working near powerlines or electrical equipment. The levels that ICNIRP and the IEEE allow for general public exposure and for workers are shown in the following table. These are for frequencies that are relevant to the power system. General public and occupational exposure levels Magnetic field General public ICNIRP guidelines (2010) Occupational

IEEE standard (2002)

Electric field

2000 mG

5000 V/m

10,000 mG

10,000 V/m

General public, head and torso

9040 mG

5000 V/m

Occupational

27,100

20,000 V/m

These international guidelines are often referred to as if they provide public health protection. However, let’s be clear about what they are really saying: they do not state that complying with these levels will guarantee safety. They do indicate that compliance prevents a person from experiencing acute short-term effects such as electrostimulation and flickering lights, but if you want safety in the long term, there’s no guidance for you in these documents. As we have seen in relation to childhood leukaemia, a survey of the relevant research suggests that the ICNIRP’s 2000 mG exposure threshold for the general public is not really ‘safe’ at all. Over the last three decades a number of studies have found evidence of health problems at levels of exposure of 4 mG and under. This is what led the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify magnetic fields of 4 mG and more as ‘possibly carcinogenic’. The BioInitiative Report concluded:

Powerlines and Appliances   —  33

Increased risk for childhood leukaemia starts at levels almost one thousand times below the safety standard … The existing ICNIRP limit … is outdated and based on faulty assumptions. These limits can no longer be said to be protective of public health and they should be replaced. It recommended a limit of 1 mG for locations near powerlines and 2 mG for all other new buildings. It also recommended a limit of 1 mG for areas that will be occupied by children or pregnant women. Based on these findings, it makes good sense to keep exposures below 4 mG and as low as 1 mG where possible. Unfortunately, it is not as easy to arrive at a ‘safe’ level of long-term exposure to electric fields, as less research has been done on this question. One of the few researchers to focus on electric fields is UK biologist Roger Coghill. He measured electric fields at the beds of children who had been diagnosed with leukaemia and found that sleeping in a field of 20 V/m gave almost a five-fold risk of developing the disease.21 Another relevant study was conducted in Canada and the results were published in 2000. In their research on over 31,000 workers at Ontario Hydro, Paul Villeneuve and his colleagues found higher rates of leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma than among the general public. They were particularly high among workers exposed to fields between 10 and 40 V/m. Those who had worked in high electric fields for the longest periods had eight to ten times the risk of developing leukaemia.22 As you can see, these levels are significantly lower than the 5000 V/m or more allowed by international guidelines.

Prudent avoidance ‘Precaution, whether or not described as a formal principle, has served mankind well in the past and the history of public health instructs us to keep the spirit of precaution alive and well.’ — John Graham

The evidence on childhood leukaemia suggests that even extremely low electromagnetic fields — as low as 1/2000th of those allowed by international guidelines — may be a risk factor for health.23 Add to this the fact that international standards do not protect against continuous, long-term exposure, and you have a very real public health problem. To solve this conundrum, many administrators are turning to a policy of ‘prudent avoidance’.

34  —  The Force

Prudent avoidance, or the precautionary approach, embodies the idea of preventing exposure where possible. It’s a sensible method that’s applied in many areas of life to prevent unnecessary risk. For example, it’s common to wear seatbelts while driving, enclose backyard pools with a childproof fence, buy products free of artificial additives or pesticides, and practise safe sex.

Use of ‘prudent avoidance’ The term ‘prudent avoidance’ was first applied to electromagnetic fields by doctors Morgan, Florig, and Nair, from Carnegie Mellon University. In their 1989 report to the US Office of Technology Assessment, an advisory body to the US president, the authors defined prudent avoidance as ‘taking steps to keep people out of fields by rerouting facilities and redesigning electrical systems and appliances’.24 In Australia, the term was used by former chief justice Sir Harry Gibbs to mean ‘doing whatever can be done at modest cost and without undue inconvenience to avoid the possible risk [to health]’. In his 1991 report into high-voltage powerlines, Gibbs recommended that electrical authorities adopt a preventative policy of prudent avoidance regarding the selection of routes for powerlines: The epidemiological studies into the effects, if any, of electro magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies support the view that it is possible that exposure to those electromagnetic fields causes an increased risk of developing cancer in childhood and an increased risk in adults of developing leukaemia, lym phoma, and brain tumours.25

Prudent avoidance of electromagnetic fields is something that can be practised at every level of society. Legislators can enact regulations to reduce the public’s exposures at home and work to below 4 mG. They can encourage the local generation of electricity to avoid the need for high-voltage powerlines to transport electricity long distances. Power companies can locate infrastructure away from homes and schools. Manufacturers can design products to reduce exposure. Town planners can design for separation between infrastructure and living areas, and architects can require appropriate wiring configurations and the placement

Powerlines and Appliances   —  35

of meter boxes away from bedroom walls. Businesses can keep workstations away from equipment that generates high fields, and reduce the time that workers spend in high fields. And you and I can prudently avoid exposure by following the suggestions you’ll find in this book.

What’s being done about the risks? While there’s almost universal support for the concept of prudent avoidance, the important question is how this can be achieved in practice. In the last few decades there have been some bold initiatives by governments, business, unions, and legislators in many corners of the world to help reduce people’s exposure.

Action around the world To address the issue of fields from powerlines and appliances, a number of countries and organisations have adopted precautions to reduce exposure. Australia In 1992, the Victorian state government commissioned a panel, chaired by Professor Hedley Peach, to report on the link between electromagnetic fields and health. It recommended the following prudent avoidance strategies to reduce public exposure to EMR from power sources. • Substations located in buildings should be designed to reduce magnetic fields within the occupied areas of the building. • Design of new transmission and distribution facilities should be based on a policy of prudent avoidance and consideration should be given to the proximity of houses, schools, and other sensitive locations. • New double-circuit transmission lines should be reverse-phased.26 • New suburban lines should be undergrounded or strung overhead and bundled. • Research should be undertaken into ways to reduce fields from transmission lines, home wiring systems, and household appliances.27 Following this report, several unions implemented precautions to protect their workers. On 22 June 1995, library supplier Raeco signed an agreement with the Australian Services Union stipulating that no library worker would be exposed to an average magnetic field above 4 mG — although in practice higher exposures have been known to occur.28 In 1998, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) developed a policy that recommended workers be exposed to an average of no more

36  —  The Force

than 2 mG during an eight-hour day. It also recommended precautions to reduce exposure from desktop computer monitors and laptops. Some of Australia’s power companies have also adopted precautionary approaches to reduce unnecessary public exposure. In 1991, the country’s peak electrical body, the Electricity Supply Authority of Australia (as it was then called), adopted a policy of prudent avoidance. In 2002, Queensland power company Energex found itself entwined in a legal tussle with Logan City Council over the construction of a new substation adjacent to housing. During negotiations with the council, it agreed to restrict magnetic fields from substations and transformers to 4 mG at defined points in order to reduce public exposure.29 However, surely the most significant development for prudent avoidance in Australia is the formulation of the first Australian standard, which is expected to be finalised in 2011. The draft standard allows exposures of up to 3000 mG for members of the public — three times the limit of Australia’s previous guidelines and higher than those recommended by the ICNIRP. However, recent versions of the draft have included strong precautionary recommendations, including an annex listing precautions that can be taken by home owners; builders; architects; electricians; planners; managers of childcare centres, schools, and businesses; and the electricity supply industry. If these precautions are included in the published version of the standard, the document could raise the bar for public health protection. If not, it will be among the weakest EMF standards in the world.

Canada Like the United States, Canadian municipalities have introduced stricter limits for public exposure adjacent to high-voltage powerlines. In 2006, the state of Ontario considered legislation to eliminate the problem of ground-current pollution. You will recall from Chapter 2 that ground currents occur when electricity fails to return to the source via the neutral wire and instead finds its way back to the power station by an alternative route. This form of pollution is a particular problem in locations where electricity is distributed by a single active wire with no neutral return, such as that used in many rural areas. (The electricity’s only way back to the power source is through another conductor, such as the earth.) It has for many years been the source of complaints from farmers, who have blamed it for problems experienced by farm animals. The bill, known as the Ground Current Pollution Act 2006, required electrical utilities to address consumer complaints about ground currents within six months

Powerlines and Appliances   —  37

and to eliminate the problem in the state within ten years. The bill went as far as a second reading on 19 October 2006, but was not endorsed by parliament.30 In 2008, Toronto City Council delivered a report aimed at reducing public exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage powerlines. It stated: ‘Given the possible link between the exposure to EMF and leukaemia in children, taking practical actions that can reduce exposures to children is prudent.’ Among the recommendations were requirements for EMF management plans in new developments to minimise exposure among young children and that electricity provider Toronto Hydro report on ways to reduce emissions.31

France As part of the wave of growing public awareness about the risks of electromagnetic radiation, the country’s Green Party adopted a policy advocating lower exposure standards for powerlines and electrical equipment. In a motion announced on 14 June 2009, the party advocated adopting the recommendations of the BioInitiative Report, which are 2.5 milligauss for powerlines and electrical equipment. This is 1/800th of the ICNIRP’s guidelines. In announcing the new limits, the party referred to the ‘modification of ecosystems caused by the uncontrolled development of techno-science, such as the technologies using electromagnetic radiation’. Holland In 2005, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment developed guidelines limiting magnetic fields from high-voltage lines. It required magnetic fields to measure no more than 4 mG in new buildings. In order to comply with this, Dutch electricity-transmission operator TenneT, which is responsible for the supply of electricity in the Netherlands, developed a new style of high-voltage powerline. The design, known as Wintrack, features slender pylons that allow lines to be spaced closer together than on conventional high-voltage lines. This significantly reduces the magnetic field they produce at ground level, too.32 Israel Although the Israeli government has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP guidelines of 1000 mG for public exposure as its official standard, the Ministry of Environmental Protection has adopted a much stricter limit. In 2001, it recommended that fields from electrical facilities should be no higher than

38  —  The Force

10 mG in public and populated areas. In 2008, it issued a warning on its website encouraging people to keep mobile-phone chargers and transformers away from their beds while they sleep. ‘Placing a transformer less than half a metre away from the body in general and the head in particular is tantamount to sleeping under a [high-] tension line,’ said Dr Stalian Ghelberg, head of the Noise and Radiation Abatement division of the ministry. The warning, which was widely reported in the press, came after the ministry found in a random survey that most people sleep with their phone chargers beside their beds. It had measured fields of around 1000 mG directly next to the chargers, and fields of less than 2 mG half a metre away.33

Sweden The Swedish government has adopted a 2 mG limit in its official policy on prudent avoidance in planning. This means that new children’s facilities can be built only in areas where the ambient EMR exposures are less than 2 or 3 mG. It also obliges builders and engineers to construct or renovate buildings in such a way that exposures are reduced to 2 or 3 mG. The guidelines state: ‘Where new electrical installations and buildings are concerned, efforts should be made already at the planning stage to design and position them in such way that exposure will be limited’.34 The Swedish government is also the first in the world to recognise the condition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which we will read more about in Chapter 9. United Kingdom As early as 1999, the UK’s Local Government Association, which represents 50 million people, issued a strong statement on the need to adopt precautions to protect community health from electromagnetic fields. The document commented: it is surely unacceptable that the public’s health should be subjected to the possibility of compromise through the application of arguments which appear to be based on the need to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, a causal link in terms of absolute scientific proof. It recommended that restrictions be placed on new developments near powerlines and called for further research into the health effects of EMR.35

Powerlines and Appliances   —  39

During 2006 and 2007, five members of parliament considered the link between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia in a crossparty inquiry. In its report, the panel asked the government to ‘recognise the potential risks to children’s health caused by exposure to EMF’. It recommended a moratorium on the construction of new homes and schools near high-voltage powerlines and a moratorium on the construction of new high-voltage powerlines near homes and schools. It also advocated greater consumer education, increased research funding, and local generation of electricity to avoid the need for more high-voltage lines.36 In 2007, the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE), established by the Department of Health in 2004, released a report suggesting practical precautions for reducing exposure to electric and magnetic fields. The group recommended halting the construction of new buildings near powerlines and of new powerlines near existing buildings, and advised the government to provide information to householders on ways to reduce exposure.37 The government’s response to the SAGE report, which appeared in October 2009, recognised the value of equipment manufacturers and power companies taking precautions to reduce fields, but failed to implement any effective strategies to achieve this.38

United States In 1999, after six years of evaluating the science, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) released a report, which recommended low-cost precautions to reduce exposure: NIEHS suggests that the power industry continue its current practice of siting powerlines to reduce exposures and continue to explore ways to reduce the creation of magnetic fields around transmission and distribution lines without creating new hazards. We also encourage technologies that lower exposures from neighborhood distribution lines provided that they do not increase other risks, such as those from accidental electrocution or fire ... finally, the NIEHS would encourage the manufacturers of household and office appliances to consider alternatives that reduce magnetic fields at a minimal cost. We feel that the risks do not warrant major and expensive redesign of modern electrical appliances, but inexpensive modifications should be sought to reduce exposures.39

40  —  The Force

While the country’s official limits are in line with the IEEE and 1998 ICNIRP limits for exposure, some states have adopted more precautionary limits for the edge of high-voltage corridors.

Other European countries • While the Swiss government has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG, it has also instigated a lower exposure limit of 10 mG for locations of ‘sensitive use’, which include children’s playgrounds and rooms occupied for ‘significant periods of time’, although what constitutes a significant period is not defined. • In Luxembourg, local governments have been encouraged not to approve building projects on land near high-voltage lines. • Since 1993, Denmark has had a precautionary policy in place that stipulates that high-voltage electrical installations are not to be built close to existing homes, and homes are not to be built near high-voltage installations. However, it does not stipulate just what degree of separation is required. • Russia has electric field limits that are 1/10th the ICNIRP level in living areas outside buildings. • While Italy has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG, it also has lower limits in place for locations with exposures of more than four hours a day (30 to 100 mG). Some regions have adopted even lower limits of 2 mG for sensitive areas where people spend more than four hours a day, such as schools, homes, nurseries, and hospitals. • The Slovenian government has adopted the 1998 ICNIRP limit of 1000 mG. However, a more precautionary limit of 100 mG is in place for ‘protected areas’. These areas include ‘hospitals, health resorts, residential areas, tourism buildings, nurseries, schools, playground, public parks and recreational areas, public centres which include services and restaurants’.40 Other concerned bodies European Parliament The European Parliament is an influential body that has 27 member countries and represents over 500 million people. The parliament expressed concerns about electromagnetic radiation, and on 2 April 2009 it adopted a report calling for precautions to reduce public exposure. Among the recommendations were ‘reasonable’ distances between

Powerlines and Appliances   —  41

powerlines and homes, schools, creches, and health-care centres; consultation before the construction of new lines; and the devleopment of a new standard for high-voltage lines. It also recommended protecting workers from electromagnetic fields and investigating the effects of these fields, particularly from powerlines.41

World Health Organization While the WHO has not admitted that electromagnetic fields may be responsible for public health problems, it has recommended the following precautions for governments and power companies: Government and industry should monitor science and promote research programmes to further reduce the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the health effects of ELF field exposure. Through the ELF risk assessment process, gaps in knowledge have been identified and these form the basis of a new research agenda. Member states are encouraged to establish effective and open communication programmes with all stakeholders to enable informed decision-making. These may include improving coordination and consultation among industry, local government, and citizens in the planning process for ELF and EMF-emitting facilities. When constructing new facilities and designing new equipment, including appliances, low-cost ways of reducing exposures may be explored. Appropriate exposure-reduction measures will vary from one country to another. However, policies based on the adoption of arbitrary low-exposure limits are not warranted.42 Elsewhere, legislators have taken opportunities to restrict public exposure to electromagnetic fields by implementing rules that offer a higher level of protection than that provided by international standards. Several countries have introduced limits that are much stricter than international standards, as you can see from the table on the following page. In addition, Ireland does not permit powerlines or substations within 22 metres of schools, and Sweden and New Zealand support voluntary measures to reduce exposure. The result is great variation in the levels that are considered to be acceptable. The table shows the range of maximum magnetic fields that different authorities consider appropriate for general public exposure.

42  —  The Force

Maximum short-term exposure to magnetic fields Magnetic field

Country or agency

9040 mG

IEEE standard (2002)

3000 mG

Australian draft standard (2007 version)

2000 mG

ICNIRP guidelines (2010)

Maximum limits or levels for the general public

150–200 mG United States

Limit from high-voltage powerlines at the edge of right-of-ways or other specified locations (regulations, policies, or practices that apply only in certain states)

100 mG

Italy (2003)

Limit for locations where people spend more than four hours per day (legislation)

30 mG

Italy (2003)

Limit for new powerlines and homes where people are likely to be exposed 24 hours a day (legislation)

10 mG

Switzerland (1999)

Limit for ‘sensitive-use’ locations such as schools and hospitals (legislation)

10 mG

Israel (2001)

Limit for 24-hour exposure (government guidelines)

4 mG

Netherlands (2005)

Limit for new buildings and powerlines (government advice)

2.5 mG

France (2005)

Limit recommended by the Green Party

2 mG

Italy (2003)

Limit for locations where people spend more than four hours per day (regulations that apply in three regions)

2 mG

BioInitiative Report (2007)

Limit recommended for new facilities

1 mG

BioInitiative Report (2007)

Limit recommended for new facilities near powerlines

>4 mG

IARC (2002)

Level classified as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’

Powerlines and Appliances   —  43

Dr Martin Blank, Associate Professor in the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, has been researching the effects of EMF for years. From a review of the literature, he has concluded that the threshold for triggering stress in the body occurs at just 5 to 10 mG.43

Forms of exposure You, your family, and your employees may be subjected to many forms of exposure in the home or workplace, including exposure from appliances, powerlines, substations and transformers, and ‘dirty electricity’.

Exposure from appliances Unless you are living or working near a high-voltage powerline, the main sources of exposure inside your home or workplace are likely to be appliances and the wiring that feeds them. You have the opportunity to control these exposures. We can compare appliances to the street lamps in your neighbourhood. Each lamp casts a small pool of light and, depending on their location, some will be more intense than others. As you stand beneath one of them you are able to see the time on your watch, but visibility diminishes when you are even a short distance a way. Like the street lamp, each appliance in your home or workplace casts a field of electromagnetic energy that dissipates with distance. Your exposure depends not just on the intensity of this field but how long you spend in it. Many common household appliances — toasters, electric ovens, and stereos — do not cause significant exposure because its rare to spend time close to them while they are operating. Sometimes electrical authorities have misleadingly compared the fields from highvoltage powerlines to those from typical domestic appliances such as hairdryers. While it’s true that the fields might be similar, because of the time of exposure involved the amount of exposure a person receives is not. Inside the home, the appliance that causes potentially the highest exposure is the meter box, which is often located on a bedroom wall. If the bed is positioned next to it, it’s possible for the occupants to be exposed to up to 100 mG all night as they sleep. John and I have observed over the years that people sleeping in locations such as this often have chronic health problems, depression, and sleep difficulties. You can often reduce your electromagnetic field exposure considerably by making sure that you keep unnecessary appliances away from locations in which you spend long periods of time. For example, do not

44  —  The Force

keep digital alarm clocks, electric blankets, mobile phone chargers, or powerboards near the bed while you sleep; keep electrical equipment such as computers and televisions out of the bedroom; and try to keep your workstation as far away from electrical equipment as possible and your computer’s hard drive away from your body as you work. Of course, the wiring that feeds your appliances also emits electromagnetic fields; however, there are ways of reducing these, as we will see on page 48.

Exposure from powerlines You might be living, or considering purchasing, a home near a highvoltage powerline and may be wondering what electromagnetic fields it is emitting. The best way to ascertain your exposure is, of course, to have the fields measured. However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has compiled data on exposure from a range of high-voltage powerlines. The following table will serve as a rough indication of exposures at various distances. Typical EMR exposure from high-voltage powerlines Standing At approx. At approx. At approx. At approx. beneath 15 metres 30 metres 61 metres 91 metres (50 feet) (100 feet) (200 feet) (300 feet) away away away away 115 kV line Average use

30 mG

7 mG

2 mG

0.4 mG

0.2 mG

Peak use

63 mG

14 mG

4 mG

0.9 mG

0.4 mG

Average use

50 mG

20 mG

7 mG

1.8 mG

0.8 mG

Peak use

118 mG

40 mG

15 mG

3.6 mG

1.6 mG

Average use

87 mG

29 mG

13 mG

3.2 mG

1.4 mG

Peak use

183 mG

62 mG

27 mG

6.7 mG

3.0 mG

230 kV line

500 kV line

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Electric Magnetic Fields in Your Environment’, 1992.

Powerlines and Appliances   —  45

It’s not just how far you are from a powerline that determines the exposure you and your family will be receiving. As you can see from the table, the magnetic field varies considerably according to the demand for electricity. The more current flowing through the lines, the higher the fields will be. Don’t forget about the fields that are being generated inside the house, too. On one occasion, a real-estate agent watching John take measurements of the electromagnetic fields in a house told him that he felt powerlines contributed to health problems. When John asked why, he explained: ‘In my first six years in real estate, I sold new houses under large powerlines, and almost always they would be resold within two years. Families who would give a reason said that they had had nothing but sickness since moving in.’ Living near a high-voltage line certainly doesn’t guarantee health problems — many people have lived close to powerlines for years without any apparent ill effects. However, it does increase the electromagnetic fields to which a family is exposed. Some people believe the metal towers that support the lines are a risk to their health, but that’s not the case. It’s the lines themselves that emit electromagnetic fields, not the towers, which merely support the lines. In fact, there are often higher readings from the lines in the middle of a span, where they dip closer to the ground, than at the towers, where they are higher and therefore further away. Likewise, there’s a common belief that placing powerlines underground will reduce their fields. If only it were so simple! When cables are put underground, they are shielded by the earth and so they produce almost no electrical field. However, the magnetic field remains. It is conducted through the earth to ground level, where it can be measured. In fact, the magnetic field from an underground line may be even higher at ground level, because it is only a metre or so below the feet, than that from an above-ground line, which is further away. It is possible to underground a powerline in a way that reduces both the magnetic and electric fields: if the three active phases and the neutral wire are laid close to each other in a single conduit, their fields will largely cancel each other out. However, this does not always occur in practice — often the three active phases and the neutral are laid in separate conduits.

Exposure from substations and transformers Substations are the nodes in the electricity grid that connect high-voltage and domestic powerlines. High-voltage lines feed electricity into the

46  —  The Force

substation, where transformers convert it into the appropriate voltage for its journey into the powerlines in your neighbourhood. The lines themselves and the transformers within the substation generate relatively high electromagnetic fields. You may be wondering if living or working near a substation is a risk for you or your family’s health. What would your exposure be if you were living, say, next door to or across the street from a substation? That will depend to a large extent on how the substation is designed. Older substations are often bigger than their more modern counterparts, and this means that the equipment is generally located further from the boundary so that the fields at the perimeter are lower. Newer substations tend to be smaller and located much closer to homes and workplaces. Sometimes they’re located in the basements of offices or unit blocks. The fields emitted from these substations will depend on the amount of shielding, if any, that has been installed. The most accurate way to determine the fields from a substation is to measure them.

Figure 12. Freestanding transformers are usually located in areas where powerlines run underground. They tend to be encased in steel boxes, which provide some shielding and help to reduce fields. Nevertheless, these transformers can still emit high fields — I’ve measured over 200 mG at off-peak times.

It may be that there are no discernable fields at the boundary of the substation or the properties around it. But don’t forget the fields from the high-voltage lines that feed into it — electromagnetic fields from

Powerlines and Appliances   —  47

Figure 13. Pole-mounted transformers convert electricity to a voltage that can be used in homes. They service a small area in locations where there are overhead wires.

substations can affect the surrounding homes. You will recall that when the electricity in your home has completed its work it aims to return ‘home’ to the power station via the neutral wire in your household wiring, but some becomes diverted into the ground via the earth stake. The same is true for the substation: because it is earthed for safety reasons, there is usually a higher than average level of return current in the earth around it seeking a way back to the power station. If there are conductive metal pipes nearby, such as water pipes, the current may hitch a ride as it travels through the house. This may result in high fields in your house. These can be eliminated, as you will see in Chapter 11. Your local electricity system includes strategically placed transformers, either mounted on poles or free standing. Their job is to transform the voltage of the electricity from the substation. They can convert a high voltage of, say, 11,000 volts (V), to a voltage that is suitable for home use: 240 V in Australia, 230 V in the United Kingdom, or 120 V in the United States. In addition to the transformers that are part of the power grid, some transformers are located in large buildings. They convert the high-voltage power that is often transported in underground lines to the lower voltages necessary to operate equipment in the building. At the same site, there is often a profusion of electrical equipment, such as switchboards,

48  —  The Force

circuit breakers, and switchgear. Together, these produce high electromagnetic fields that permeate the walls, and can reach those in neighbouring rooms. John has measured fields of up to 700 mG in some office buildings! Are the fields from these transformers a risk factor for health? According to a study from the United States, they may be. In the mid1990s, Dr Samuel Milham studied a group of workers in an office situated above three 12-kilovolt (kV) transformers. Fields were 190 mG at floor level, and 90 mG at just over a metre above the floor. He found that over a 15-year period there were eight cases of cancer. Only one occurrence was in a person who had worked in the office for less than two years — the other seven were found in people who had worked there for two or more years (156 workers fell in this category). The risk of developing cancer, Milham found, increased with the length of employment.44

Exposure to dirty electricity ‘Dirty’ electricity is the hash that interferes with the smooth, regular sine wave that leaves the generating plant. It is caused by people turning equipment on or off, or appliances switching from one power source to another. Some people believe that ‘dirty’ electricity contributes to health problems and that health improves when it is eliminated. Dr Magda Havas from Trent University in Canada found that over 60 per cent of teachers in three schools in Minnesota reported feeling better after dirty electricity was eliminated from the school. They reported fewer headaches and skin problems; less weakness, dry eyes, flushing, asthma, depression, and anxiety; and improved mood. However, 30 per cent reported feeling worse after the changes.45 Dr Havas has also documented cases where eliminating dirty electricity improved the symptoms of people with diabetes and multiple sclerosis.46 Dr Milham found that at a school in La Quinta, California, which had what could only be described as extremely ‘dirty’ electricity, 16 of the 137 teachers had developed cancer.47 Dirty electricity may well contribute to health problems, and there are tips for dealing with it in Chapter 11, but it is unlikely to be the only factor involved.

Reducing fields from wiring In order to lower the electromagnetic fields from the wiring in your home, there are two factors to consider. The first is to ensure a balance

Powerlines and Appliances   —  49

between the amount of current running into your house along the active wire and the amount running out through the return wire. The more balanced the current, the lower the fields. This means the fields will not travel to earth through the return wire and the water pipe. The second is to ensure that when the house is being wired the active and return wires are run close to each other. If they are separated — as happens, for example, with some lights that have dual switches — the fields are increased. If they are spaced alongside or close to each other, the fields to some extent cancel each other out. This is why wires are often bundled or grouped, and sometimes twisted around each other, as you will see on some overhead poles. In an experiment, John ran three active wires separately and measured a field of 300 mG. The same wires moved closer together produced a field of 30 mG. When twisted, the field they emitted was just 2.1 mG — so obviously twisted cabling will produce the lowest emissions in your home. Other ways that you can limit your fields from wiring are described in Chapter 11.

Figure 14. The magnetic fields around an active and a return wire should, to an extent, cancel each other out if the wires are placed close together.

Effect on property values It is not just health that may be put at risk from living close to a hightension powerline or substation. As many people have found to their cost — literally — over the last few decades, this infrastructure can depress the value of their properties.

50  —  The Force

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

In 2010, property prices were reported to have fallen as much as AU$400,000 in the Australian Sunshine Coast town of Eerwah Vale, following plans by company Powerlink to construct a highvoltage powerline.48 In 2001, a real-estate agent from the Melbourne suburb of Moonee Valley said that homes near transmission lines could be up to AU$20,000 cheaper than comparable homes elsewhere. While his agency did not have trouble selling these properties, he noted that buyers tended to rent them out rather than live in them.49 In 1999, the UK National Association of Real Estate Appraisers advised valuers that overhead powerlines devalued properties. This was because of the perceived risks of electromagnetic fields, as well as their visual impact. Electricity companies, it said, were required to compensate owners for such losses.50 In 1998, a US bank refused to mortgage a property next to a substation on the basis that it could cause the property ‘to suffer from environmental conditions’ (that is, according to one bank representative, it may cause a loss of US$50,000 because of its location).51 A survey of real-estate agents in US cities found that being located near a high-voltage powerline devalued a property.52 In 1997, a Canadian court ruled that fields from a substation devalued an adjacent property, justifying an annual reduction of several thousand dollars in the owner’s tax.53 In 1996, a US court ordered Virginia Electric and Power Company to pay US$967,000 to property owners John and Janet Dolzer for devaluation of their property due to EMFs from two 230-kV transmission lines.54 Peter Colwell, writing in the American publication Journal of Real Estate Research in 1996, said that the value of properties near high-voltage powerlines had been reduced.55 Robin Gregory and Detlof von Winterfeldt also found reductions in the value of real estate near high-voltage powerlines.56 In 1993, a New York court ruled that when part of a landowner’s property is seized for the construction of high-voltage powerlines, he or she be compensated for the loss of value to the remainder of the property due to ‘cancerphobia’, whether or not that fear is justified.57 In the same year, a study by a Houston appraiser found that the value of ten properties adjacent to a high-tension line was 13 to 30 per cent lower than those of comparable homes nearby.58 In 1985, a Texan court awarded damages of US$104,275 to a

Powerlines and Appliances  —  51

school district after an electrical company constructed a hightension powerline 40 metres (130 feet) from one school and 76 metres (250 feet) from another. The line was later moved, at a cost of US$8,000,000.59 These examples are not surprising. Over the years I have often been contacted by prospective homebuyers wanting to know whether it is safe to purchase a property near high-tension powerlines. Most report that the home they wish to buy is extremely cheap by usual standards. If powerlines are above ground they will be obvious, but those located underground can often only be detected with a meter. If you’re looking to buy a property, look for fields from powerlines at ground level. If electromagnetic fields from powerlines, wiring, and appliances impact on people’s health — and the evidence suggests they do — then you have a choice to make. If you choose to ignore the evidence and do nothing, the consequence will be continued exposure to the current fields in your home or workplace. If you choose to find out just how much you and your family are being exposed to and want to do something about it, you will find helpful suggestions on ways to limit your exposure in Chapter 11.

Chapter 4

Mobile Phones

‘Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled.’ — Lloyd Morgan

It is sleek, colourful, compact, and convenient; it is your umbilical cord to society. With it you can be instantly available to friends, work outside the office, look up directions on the internet and, as the industry so often reminds us, call for help in emergencies. Mobile phones have transformed the way we work, play, and live. They have also captured the popular imagination: more than communications tools, they are fashion items, status symbols, and statements of membership to peer groups. There is such a demand for the accessibility mobile phones provide that people are buying them in droves. There are now more than five billion mobiles in use worldwide. In the first three months of 2009 alone, the industry clocked up sales of over 269 million mobile phones. In Africa, 90 per cent of telephone users use mobiles rather than landlines, and in Europe there are now more mobile phones than people.1 As mobile telephony continues to grow and develop, people are using their phones for longer periods and to perform an increasing range of functions. 53

54  —  The Force In 2008, the country with the highest mobile phone subscription per capita was the United Arab Emirates, where there were more than two mobile phones per person.2

Radiation ‘Existing safety guidelines governing exposure of the public to the radiation employed in mobile telephony are totally inadequate, and the philosophy underlying their formulation is fundamentally flawed.’ — Dr Gerard Hyland

Wherever you are located, whatever kind of phone you use, and wherever it is positioned on your body, you will be absorbing radiofrequency radiation — the sort that is used to cook food in microwave ovens. When you turn on your phone to connect to a friend, it sends a signal of radiofrequency radiation to the nearest phone tower, even before you begin to talk. When you begin speaking, a microphone inside your phone converts the vibrations of your voice into low-frequency electrical signals. These signals are then added to a radiofrequency signal. This combined signal is divided up into short pockets of information that your phone transmits through its aerial to the closest mobile phone base station. The base station transfers the signal to a telephone exchange, which passes it on to another base station and this, in turn, sends the signal to your friend’s phone. Your friend’s phone removes the highfrequency signal, leaving the pulsed low-frequency signal with your message. The earpiece converts this into the sound of your voice and your friend probably doesn’t recognise the difference. If you hold the phone against your head while you make this call, your head will absorb a good part of the radiofrequency signal. If you have a headset and hold your phone against your body during the call, your body will absorb the radiation. In fact, if you hold your phone directly against your body during a call, your body may absorb up to three times as much radiation as allowed by international standards. In 2008, Australian current-affairs television program Today Tonight organised independent testing of four models of mobile phones to find out how much radiation was absorbed when they were held against the body. The tests showed that radiation absorption from three of the four phones was well above the levels allowed by international guidelines of 2 watts per kilogram (W/kg) for the head and trunk (0.08 W/kg for the

Mobile Phones   —  55

whole body). Radiation absorption from the Nokia E65 reached 3.35 W/ kg at 1800 MHz and 5.84 W/kg at 2100 MHz. Absorption from Telstra’s HTC Dual Touch 850 was 2.46 and 2.92 W/kg; from the Sony Ericsson W910, 2.16 W/kg; and from Vodafone’s 226 Sagem, less than 2 W/kg.3 Yet all four phones complied with the Australian standard. This is because Australian regulations allow phones to be tested at a distance of 25 millimetres from the body, rather than directly against the body, as they might be in a shirt or trouser pocket. The situation may be worse if you place the back of the phone against your body because this is where the antennas are usually located. If you check the fine print of your phone’s user manual, you’ll probably find that the manufacturer advises holding the phone a few millimetres away from your head when you use it. If you hold it flat against your head during a call, as most people do, you may be exposed to more radiation than allowed by international standards. Your phone also continues to send sporadic signals to the closest base station while it is turned on, even when you are not making a call. This means that if you leave your phone on while it is in your pocket or handbag, it could irradiate the parts of your body that are closest to it. Any metal near the phone, such as a belt buckle or zip, will increase the amount of radiation that your body absorbs. The amount of radiation that your phone emits during a call will vary according to your location. When your phone is a long way from a base station, it will transmit signals at a higher power to ensure they reach the station. This means that mobile phones in rural areas generally operate at a higher power than in urban areas because the closest phone towers are usually further away. Similarly, if you make a call inside a building, your phone will require more power to penetrate the walls than if you call near an open window or outside the building. If the glass is tinted, it will require even more power. Studies from Spain, South Korea, Britain, the United States, Germany, and Australia all show a high incidence of mobile phone addiction. In Europe, one in ten people now admit being addicted to their mobile phones.4 In 2004, German psychotherapist Dr Andreas Herter found that addiction to text messaging led to depression and personality disorders and had already affected 380,000 Germans. He referred to a married couple who only communicated through SMS, even when in each other’s company!5

56  —  The Force

Cordless phones You might try to limit your exposure to mobile phone radiation by using a landline. But what if your landline is a cordless phone — have you ever thought about whether it emits radiation? Cordless phones are similar to mobile phones in that they transmit microwave radiation between the handset and the cradle — it’s like having a mini mobile phone system in your home. Many cordless phones operate at similar power to mobile phones, and this is more likely to be the case if your phone allows you to make calls while you are some distance from your home. A common cordless phone technology that is used in countries around the world is Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT). This third-generation phone system operates using highfrequency radiofrequency radiation similar to that used by mobile phones (1.8, 1.9, 2.4, and 5.8 GHz). DECT phones can be used to make calls and access the internet, and for an increasing variety of other functions. DECT technology is also used for some baby monitors. Most DECT base stations transmit a radiofrequency signal continuously and at maximum power. This means that you and those nearby are exposed to its signals whether or not you are making a call. If your phone is located near the bed, you are exposed to it all night as you sleep; if it is in the study or at your workstation, you are continually exposed as you work. (And similarly, if your DECT baby monitor is located near the cot, your baby is exposed continuously as it sleeps.) Electronic equipment It is common knowledge that the radiation from mobile phones interferes with delicate electronic equipment. After all, we are accustomed to being asked to turn off our phones or laptops on an aircraft or in a hospital. In fact, you can observe how the radiation from a mobile phone interferes with electronic circuitry in a simple experiment. Turn your phone on and leave it next to a radio. Whenever you hear static from the radio, you know the mobile phone is interfering with the signal. In much the same way, the radiation from a mobile phone interferes with the electronic circuitry of other devices — and perhaps with that of your brain. Electromagnetic interference from mobile phone radiation is a particular problem for those with pacemakers and cardiac defibrillators. Studies have shown that mobile phones, along with walkie talkies, cause interference with the devices, and some have recommended that wearers

Mobile Phones   —  57

keep them away from the heart or avoid them altogether. The World Health Organization admits: Mobile phones may interfere with certain electromedical devices, such as cardiac pacemakers and hearing aids. In hospital intensive care departments mobile phones should not be used as they can be a danger to patients.6 As health specialists develop more implantable electrical devices, the issue of electromagnetic incompatibility is likely to become an increasing problem in the future.

Health concerns ‘Insurance companies do not insure cell phone providers because of the incalculable health risks.’ — Aviva insurance company

The key question that most of us want answered is whether radiation from mobile phones has a harmful effect on health. After decades of study and the expenditure of millions of research dollars, there is still no consensus among scientists. It is clear that high levels of radiation cause changes in the body. They can stimulate nerves and muscles, and cause heat stress and microwave hearing (the ability to hear radiofrequency signals) by heating the tissue. International standards are designed to protect against these thermal effects. It is also clear that low levels of radiation, too low to cause heating, nevertheless have important effects on the body. These athermal, or non-heating, levels of radiation are known to cause changes to the way that cells communicate, and alterations to enzymes, genes, hormones, and brainwave patterns. They have also been linked with serious diseases. Where scientific opinion differs is how significant these changes are for health. Some argue that such changes do not necessarily reflect health problems. Others take the view that these changes are detrimental to the body and can lead to illness or disease, particularly over a long period of exposure. Brain tumours, for example, take an average of 30 to 40 years to develop. Since mobile phones have only been in widespread use since the 1990s, we are still to see the full health impacts of the technology.

58  —  The Force

It may take decades for the effects to become clear, as was the case with cigarettes, asbestos, lead, and other environmental pollutants. Naturally, the telecommunications industry takes the former point of view. If these biological changes are not yet proven to be of consequence for health, then it can be comfortably said that there is ‘no conclusive proof’ of health problems, ‘no established evidence’ of harm, ‘no increase in temperature’, and other similar reassuring statements.7 The World Health Organization also takes the view that mobilephone radiation is not a health problem. Its advice to the public is that: To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1°C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.8 This, in one form or another, is the approach that has been taken by many radiation authorities around the world. However, if the low, non-heating effects of mobile phone radiation are insignificant for health, then how do we explain the uncomfortably large body of evidence that has been slowly but steadily mounting over recent years? There are now hundreds of scientific studies showing that athermal levels of mobile phone radiation have produced biological effects that are consistent with health problems. It has been associated with cancer, reproductive problems, changes to performance and sleep, and behavioural problems. As well as this, users have reported a range of other unpleasant symptoms.

The link to tumours ‘It’s possible that mobile phone technology is the 21st century’s tobacco.’ — Dr Vini Khurana

The big concern for researchers, and for users, is whether mobile phone radiation causes brain tumours. The link between mobile phones and brain tumours first gained public attention in the 1990s with some high-profile legal cases. In 1992,

Mobile Phones   —  59

US couple David and Susie Reynard took legal action against the telecommunications industry after Susie developed a brain tumour in the location where her phone antenna sat when she held the phone to her ear. ‘She had a tumour the size of a golf ball right here on the side of her head, which is where the antenna would go when you’re using the phone,’ David Reynard told CBS News.9 In 2000, US doctor Christopher Newman, a 41-year old neurologist with a brain tumour he alleged was caused by the radiation from his mobile phone, took legal action against a number of telecommunications companies for US$800 million. Newman said that he used his mobile phone ‘frequently for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, until the phone got hot, and my ear got hot, and my ear turned red. It hurt.’ According to Newman’s attorney, Joanne Suder: After Dr Newman was diagnosed and began treatment, his own physicians made the correlation between his longtime cell-phone use and his cancer. He also has documented, unfortunately, nine years of a vast amount of cell-phone use, and his terminal tumour is located in the exact anatomical location where the radiation from the cell phone emitted into his skull.10 Neither action was successful, and Reynard and Newman subsequently died from their cancers. But their cases, and their widely publicised beliefs about the cause of their tumours, ensured that media attention was firmly focused on the link between mobile phones and brain tumours. With pressure mounting to find answers about the connection, the International Agency for Research on Cancer initiated the world’s largest research project into mobile phone radiation: a five-year, 13-country study known as Interphone. Its aim was to discover whether mobile phone use was a risk factor for four types of tumour: the brain tumours gliomas and meningiomas, tumour of the acoustic nerve, and tumour of the parotid (salivary) gland. To test the link, scientists asked healthy controls and people with cancerous tumours to recall details of their mobile phone use. The study, which involved 21 scientists, was completed in 2005, although some individual studies from the project were published in 2004. However, the first official results were not released until 2010, owing to disagreements among researchers. Even then, they were ambiguous. When the Interphone study group finally published its results in May 2010, it considered only the risks of developing glioma and meningioma tumours.11 (At the time of publication, the report on studies of

60  —  The Force

acoustic-nerve and parotid tumours had still not been released.) It found that the 10 per cent of people who made the highest number of phone calls had a 40 per cent increased risk of developing gliomas. What is so alarming about this finding is that this group included people who used their phones for just 30 minutes a day. Overall, the researchers did not find an increased risk of brain tumours for short-term or ‘regular’ mobile-phone use, which, at first glance, seems reassuring. What they did find was a highly protective effect for regular users of mobile phones — in other words, they suggested that regular use resulted in less chance of developing a brain tumour. However, the study defined a regular user as someone who made just one call per week over six months or more — and this is anything but a regular phone user in today’s society. And before you rush to your mobile phone to offer this news to your friends, let me share some research on the reliability of the finding. The idea that mobile phone radiation protects against brain tumours is highly unlikely — in fact, so unlikely that this finding suggests some serious design flaws in the study. Lloyd Morgan, a former electrical engineer, brain tumour survivor, and author of many publications on EMR, wrote a critique identifying 11 flaws in the Interphone study. His report was endorsed by a team of international researchers, environmental consultants, and medical practitioners, among other experts. He claimed that the Interphone study significantly underrated the risk of brain tumours from mobile phones by limiting who they included, who they left out, and how they chose to classify exposure. He found, for example, that the study design had excluded people who had died or were extremely ill from brain tumours, which, of course, biased the results towards a null finding. Furthermore, Interphone considered only certain types of brain tumours and overlooked others, which also distorted the results.12 Even the Interphone project team admitted that their finding was unlikely and that selection bias appeared to have influenced the results.13 The Interphone study also reported that there was no increased risk of gliomas and meningiomas among long-term users. This would be extremely good news for such users if the finding was reliable. But, in an amazing twist, the Interphone team published a second analysis of the statistics as an appendix, and it came to quite a different conclusion. This analysis reassessed the data from the various studies, comparing low to high use in an attempt to offset the selection bias that had plagued the study. It showed that people who had been using a mobile phone for two to four years had 70 per cent greater risk of developing gliomas, and

Mobile Phones   —  61

those who had used a mobile phone for ten or more years had double the risk. It also found that those with the highest number of cumulative hours of use had over 80 per cent more gliomas. While scientists debate the findings of the Interphone study, there is another group of experts who believe there is a link between mobile phone use and brain tumours. One of these is Dr Charlie Teo, a courageously outspoken neurosurgeon from Sydney, Australia. Dr Teo has aired his concerns about the effects of mobile phone radiation on many current affairs television programs. ‘If the question is do I believe that mobile phones can cause brain cancer, the answer is yes, I do,’ he said on Australia’s Sixty Minutes program in early 2009. ‘I’m incredibly worried, concerned, depressed at the number of kids I’m seeing coming in with brain tumours. Malignant brain tumours.’14 Another eminent Australian neurosurgeon, Professor Vini Khurana, conducted an independent review of the research on mobile phones and brain tumours and concluded that: There is a growing and statistically significant body of evidence reporting that brain tumours such as vestibular schwannoma [tumour of the acoustic nerve] and astrocytoma [a form of glioma] are associated with ‘heavy’ and ‘prolonged’ mobile phone use. Professor Khurana recommended that people take precautions to reduce their exposure to mobile phone radiation, including restricting children’s use of the devices: There is currently enough evidence and technology available to warrant industry and governments alike taking immediate steps to reduce exposure of consumers to mobile phone related electromagnetic radiation and to make consumers clearly aware of potential dangers and how to use this technology sensibly and safely.15 The final link is the cancer sufferers themselves. People are developing brain tumours in the very part of their head against which they have been holding their mobile phones — the part that has been absorbing the most radiation during calls. Some have told me that before their tumour developed they could feel heat from the phone in just that part of their head after they made or received calls. For some sufferers, this is proof enough.

62  —  The Force

‘I reckon it’s definitely caused by those bloody mobile phones,’ said John Bryant, a farmer from northern New South Wales with a brain tumour behind his left ear. ‘I think this is what has killed me, or will kill me,’ said Brett Kelly, who used a mobile phone for three hours a day, about his brain tumour.16 In September 2008, Mrs Ellen Marks addressed a US congressional hearing on behalf of her husband, whose health did not permit him to attend, about the risks of mobile phone use. Alan Marks had used a mobile phone for over 20 years, averaging over 30 hours of use per month. He had developed a malignant brain tumour in the right frontal lobe of his brain, close to where he usually held his phone. Medical experts agreed that the tumour was likely to be caused by Mr Mark’s excessive phone use. Mrs Marks told the senators that the progress of the tumour had not only robbed her husband of his livelihood and would rob him of his life, but it had caused behavioural changes that made their family’s situation intolerable. She ended her statement with this plea: We are shocked that in light of studies and information suggesting risks that our government has allowed the cell phone industry to conduct business as usual. Cell phones need not be abandoned. The cell phone industry has the capability to make safer devices. In the very least the citizens of our nation should be told the truth concerning this risk so they can protect themselves and their families. I beg of you to take action immediately so that others can be spared the devastation that my family has endured.17 Despite the mounting evidence that mobile phone radiation may be a health risk, manufacturers are developing more and more innovative applications for mobile phone technology. A London fashion company has even designed a jersey dress made of soft circuitry that can be used as a mobile phone. To activate the dress, the wearer slips their SIM card beneath the label. When the dress rings, it can be answered by raising the arm; lowering the arm will terminate the call.18

Tumours and cordless phones If the radiation from mobile phones is a possible risk factor for brain tumours, then what about the radiation from cordless phones? Since 2002, a Swedish team including Dr Lennart Hardell has studied the effects of radiation from cordless phones. It found the following effects.

Mobile Phones   —  63

•

Cordless phone users had nearly one and a half times the number of brain tumours as compared to the general population and 1.8 times the average rate of astrocytoma brain tumours on the side of their head that their phone most often rested against during calls.19 • People aged 20 to 29 who had used cordless phones for five years or more had 4.3 times the normal rate of brain tumours.20 • Cordless phone users had 1.5 times the risk of developing acoustic neuromas and astrocytoma brain tumours and that risk increased with years of use.21 • Cordless phone users had more than double the risk of malignant brain tumours.22 • The risk of brain tumours increased by 8 per cent for each year of cordless phone use.23 • Long-term cordless phone users had five times the risk of astrocytoma brain tumours and more than double the risk of acoustic neuromas on the side of the head that their phone most often rested against during calls; risk was greatest for people who had begun using the phones before the age of 20.24 The risk posed by DECT cordless phones has worried some medical practitioners. In 2002, a group of German medical doctors and scientists signed a joint statement expressing concerns about the effects of cordless phone technology. In their appeal to the Federal Government, the doctors stated: ‘we can see … a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation … such as … installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the neighbourhood’. They called for a ‘ban on mobile telephone and digital cordless (DECT) telephones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, events halls, public buildings and vehicles (as with the ban on smoking)’. They also asked authorities to revise radiation standards for DECT phones. If cordless phones emit radiofrequency radiation that has been linked with brain tumours, then is it really appropriate to be using them? Many authorities think not. The German Office for Radiation Protection issued a warning about the use of DECT phones in January 2006. The agency advised that DECT phones are usually the greatest source of highfrequency radiation inside a home because the ‘base station’ is continually transmitting signals: According to current scientific knowledge nationally and internationally, there are indications for biological effects of high

64  —  The Force

frequency electromagnetic fields which are the means of transmission for DECT phones … To prevent possible health risks, the [agency] recommends minimising personal radiation exposure. It suggested locating the base station away from high-use areas and that cordless phone users make only short calls only and use the latest generation of cordless phones, which are emission-free when not in use.25 Similarly, the government of Salzburg issued a warning about DECT technology in December 2005. In an open letter sent to schools, teachers, and parents, Dr Gerd Oberfeld wrote, ‘The official advice of the Public Health Department of the Salzburg Region is not to use WLAN and DECT in schools or kindergardens.’26 Since then, many other authorities, medical practitioners, and scientists have added their voices to the growing swell of concern about DECT technology (see Appendix).

The link to changes in biology and behaviour ‘Long-term and cumulative exposure to such massively increased RF has no precedent in human history.’ — Dr David Carpenter and Cindy Sage

While brain tumours have been the focus of many researchers, they are, of course, not the only problem that has been linked to mobile phone use. Mobile phone radiation has also been associated with low immunity, behavioural problems, and reduced fertility, among other health concerns. The mobile phone industry continues to espouse the safety of the technology, taking refuge behind a considerable number of official reports that have issued reassuring conclusions about mobile phone use. These reports are the work of committees usually convened by governments or comprising bureaucrats employed by governments — and governments reap billions of dollars in revenue each year from the telecommunications industry. A cynic might call such committees biased. It is the independent reports, therefore, that carry most weight in evaluating the health impacts of mobile phone technology. The premier report in this category is the BioInitiative Report, a massive tome that was compiled by a group of independent researchers, scientists, and health professionals. It sifted the available research and drew some

Mobile Phones   —  65

conclusions as far from those of the telecommunications industry as could be imagined. It found increased risks of health problems at levels of exposure far below international standards, and recommended implementation of precautions to reduce exposure. The effects it found included genetic damage, reduced fertility, inflammation, and allergic reactions, stress responses in cells (which can lead to cancer), and freeradical damage (which can lead to disease, including cancer). Another significant independent report was conducted in 2000 by the ECOLOG Institute on behalf of the German telecommunications company T-Mobil. The report, titled ‘Mobile Telecommunications and Health’, found evidence that mobile phone radiation had harmful health effects and that international standards needed tightening. It showed that exposure was linked to DNA damage, chromosome aberrations, changes in enzymes and the brain, interruption of cell cycle and cellular communication, debilitation of the immune system, changes to the central nervous system, and increased risks of cancer. Moreover, it found that effects such as these were occurring at just a tiny fraction of the levels allowed by international standards.27 These are just two of the numerous independent reports that have come to similar conclusions, some of which are referred to elsewhere in this book. Low, non-heating levels of mobile phone radiation have been linked with: • single- and double-strand DNA breaks • changed protein kinases, which are associated with tumour promotion • increased levels of the enzyme ODC (ornithine decarboxylase), which can indicate that cancerous changes are taking place • cell proliferation (such as that which occurs in cancer) • changed behaviour of calcium ions • breaches of the blood-brain barrier • changed brainwave patterns • changed sleep onset, duration, and quality • changed immune function • changed synthesis of proteins • stress responses • tumour promotion in animals exposed to chemical carcinogens.

66  —  The Force

Mobile phones and children ‘It is necessary right now to limit the use of cellular phones by children and teenagers.’ — Dr Yuri Grigoriev

In recent years, mobile phone manufacturers have turned their attention to the lucrative youth market, as the adult market in most developed countries has virtually reached saturation. Mobile phones have been developed specifically for children: US-based company Firefly Mobile has a product called the flyPhone, which allows children to ‘make calls, play games, take pictures, listen to mp3s, watch videos, and text’,28 and Australian company Cicada Mobile has the Gecko phone, with a ‘kidsonly design, interchangeable see-through Gecko™ Skins, 12 unique ring tunes, 7 screen colours, 5 animations, flashing lights’; fireworks and accessories.29 Not surprisingly, children’s use of mobile phones is steadily increasing as a result of products such as these. In Australia, 69 per cent of children under the age of 18 have mobile phones, and in Morocco, over 90 per cent of children aged five to 14 are mobile phone users.30 Even very young children are users: in Britain, a quarter of three-yearolds now use mobile phones, and in Australia as many as 40 per cent of four- to seven-year-olds use the devices.31 In some cases, children reported that their mobile phone was their best friend.32 Not only are children using their phones during the day, but many are sleeping with them. Australian psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg found that millions of children are allowed to keep mobile phones in their bedrooms and that six- and seven-year-olds are staying up until 3.00 or 4.00 a.m. to send messages to their friends. By placing the phone, turned on and in vibrate mode, under their pillow, children are able to detect calls without waking their parents. This means, of course, that their heads are being irradiated as they sleep. Carr-Gregg believes that this sort of phone use also creates a generation of exhausted ‘zombies’ who are less able to learn at school.33 For today’s child, the mobile phone is more than just a means of social connection — it’s become a way to gauge self-esteem. It seems that young people regard the amount of contact they receive on their phone as a measure of their popularity. In a 2008 survey of mobile phone use, one in three Britons aged 16 to 24 said that they would feel unwanted if they didn’t receive a call or text every day.34 Children are choosing their

Mobile Phones   —  67

phones as much for their appearance as their usefulness because they feel under pressure to keep up with or outdo their peers by having the latest and most dazzling type of technology. In a study for the Australian Institute, Christian Downie and Kate Glazebrook found that this ‘competitive consumption’ caused dysfunction ‘in the form of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and psychosomatic complaints’.35

A reflection of personality In an interesting study from Australia’s Monash University, Jim Phillips found that the way people use their mobile phones is a reflection of their personalities. In a study published in 2006, Phillips analysed the connection between mobile phone use and personality among 112 volunteers. He found that people who were less agreeable tended to spend more time playing games on their mobile phones. In a previous study he found that people with problem phone use, such as addiction, tended to be extroverts with low self-esteem. ‘These people don’t appear to value what they are doing at a particular time,’ he said.36

Whether it is to boost self-esteem or to stay connected, more and more young people are becoming addicted to their mobile phones. ‘They’re actually beginning to interfere in the lives of users who don’t know when to turn them off,’ says Lisa Merlo, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida. She has identified signs of mobile phone addiction as the compulsive need to check for messages or agitation when asked to turn off the phone.37 Psychologist Maria Paz de la Puente, who works with addicts, says that ‘one of every three teens admit to being “hooked” by their cell phones’. She and biologist Alfonso Balmori believe that mobile phone addiction could have a physiological basis by interfering, as drugs do, with neurotransmitters in the brain.38 In March 2010, a London hospital launched a rehabilitation clinic for children addicted to technology — catering for some as young as 12. Is this prolific use of mobile phones good for our children’s social development? More importantly, is it damaging to their long-term health?

68  —  The Force

Concerns about radiation in children ‘The danger of brain tumours from cellphone use is highest in children, and the younger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone, the higher the risk.’ — Lloyd Morgan

In September 2008, Swedish oncologist Professor Hardell created a storm when he announced the results of his research on children. In his address to the Royal Society of London, Professor Hardell said that children have a higher risk of brain tumours than adults. (You will recall that Hardell found a 1.5- to 2-fold risk of tumours for ipsilateral phone use.) In fact, he told his audience, he’d found that people aged 29 had over a five-fold increased risk of developing gliomas if they were under 20 years old when they began using mobile phones. ‘This is a warning sign,’ Dr Hardell told reporters.39 Children are more vulnerable to the radiation from mobile phones for a number of reasons. They have thinner skulls, and therefore radiation is able to penetrate further into their heads. As children and foetuses grow, their cells are often dividing, and during this process they are more vulnerable to radiation. Because a child’s head can be similar in size to the wavelength of mobile phone radiation, the radiation can resonate in their heads, causing a greater impact. Some mobile phones emit signals that lie in the range of alpha and delta brainwaves, the very brain patterns that are constantly changing in children up to the age of about 12, when the alpha rhythm becomes established.

Figure 15. These images show that a child’s head absorbs more radiation than an adult’s. © 1996 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Mobile Phones   —  69

Add to this the fact that the current generation of children is the first to be exposed to radiofrequency radiation for potentially their entire lives, and that this sort of radiation has a cumulative effect, and the risks for children seem concerning. Even foetuses can be affected by the radiation from mobile phones. A joint study from Denmark and the United States surveyed the mothers of over 13,000 children who were aged seven between 2005 and 2006, and found that mothers who had used a mobile phone while they were pregnant were 54 per cent more likely to have children with behavioural problems, such as hyperactivity and difficulties interacting with other children.40 In 2008, an Egyptian study found that pregnant women’s use of mobile phones affected their unborn babies; the researchers measured increases in heart rate and decreased cardiac output in foetuses who had been exposed to mobile phones.41 For would-be fathers there is a further caution. A number of studies have now shown that men who use mobile phones have reduced sperm quality and motility and an increased risk of infertility.42 It’s worth keeping in mind that your sensitive reproductive organs may be absorbing the radiation if you carry a mobile phone in your hip pocket while it is turned on.

Hardell is not the only person to sound the warning about children’s use of mobile phones. There are now many scientists, doctors, governments, and agencies that have urged precautions to restrict use by children. Among the authorities that have made these recommendations are: • the European Environment Agency • the European Parliament • the French Green Party • Toronto Public Health • the Israeli Ministry of Health • the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection • the French Ministry for Health, Youth, and Sports • the Doctors’ Chamber of Vienna • the Irish Doctors Environmental Association • the British Ministry of Education • the British Health Protection Agency • the German Academy of Paediatrics • the Canadian Green Party

70  —  The Force

•

Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, former director general of the WHO and former prime minister of Norway • Senator Lyn Allison, chair of the Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation • the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Therefore, even though children’s use of mobile phones has not been proven conclusively to cause health problems such as brain tumours, there is evidence of an association — and to ignore this might not be in the best interests of your child. On 25 September 2008, Dr Ronald Herberman neatly summarised the situation in a presentation to the US Congressional hearing on cell phone use and tumours: I cannot tell you conclusively that phones cause cancer or other diseases. But, I can tell you that there are published peerreviewed studies that have led me to suspect that long-term cell phone use may cause cancer. It should be noted in this regard that worldwide, there are three billion regular cell phone users, including a rapidly growing number of children. If we wait until the human evidence is irrefutable and then act, an extraordinarily large number of people will have been exposed to a technology that has never really been shown to be safe.43

Driving and mobile phones The metal shell of cars, trains, buses, taxis, and lifts reflect mobile phone signals so that they bounce around the enclosed space, irradiating not only the user but also other passengers. You can reduce your exposure while driving a car by using a hands-free kit with an external aerial. However, it is definitely not a good idea to install an antenna near the rear window, particularly if a young child travels in the car.

How safe are ‘safety precautions’? Concerns about the health risks of mobile phone radiation have spawned a market for ‘safer’ phones and ‘low-radiation’ products. Consumers are looking for ways to protect themselves and their families, and manufacturers are seizing the opportunity to profit from their fears. While the concept of reducing exposure to mobile phone radiation

Mobile Phones   —  71

is to be applauded, not all methods claimed to do so are equally valid, nor all advice equally sound.

Specific absorption rate (SAR) The specific absorption rate (SAR) is the rate at which radiation from a phone is absorbed into the user’s head. A phone with a higher SAR would mean that more radiation is likely to be absorbed by the user, and one with a low SAR would mean a lower level of exposure is likely. SAR levels are expressed in terms of watts per kilogram (W/kg). The SAR limits in Europe and Australia are 2 W/kg, averaged over ten grams of tissue. In the United States and Canada, the limit is 1.6 W/kg, averaged over one gram of tissue. SAR levels are measured in purpose-built laboratories under very rigorous conditions. A model of a human head (a phantom) is filled with a mixture of water, cellulose, salt, sugar, and preservative to simulate the human brain. A mobile phone is placed in a precise position and set to operate at maximum power while probes are inserted into the phantom to record how much radiation has been absorbed. Many of the precautionary recommendations you have read include choosing phones with low SAR readings. The problem is that SAR levels are not always the best guide to how much radiation a user would receive from a phone. This is because laboratory experiments don’t always replicate what happens in real life: the amount of radiation that a user absorbs will change depending on how and where they use a phone — for example, different readings will occur depending whether they use it at low rather than high power, or if they tilt it this way rather than that way. It will also change according to the shape, size, and mass of a person’s body. For instance, shorter people, including children, tend to absorb more radiation than taller people. This means that the amount of radiation you will absorb from your phone will likely be different from the amount someone else would absorb using your phone. Furthermore, SAR measurements are not measured on the human brain — which, for ethical reasons, is a very good thing. However, this does call into question the value of these measurements when applied to real people. You can decide whether a phantom head filled with water and additives is a good approximation for your brain. Personally, I like to think mine is slightly more complex! Information about SARs can be found in packaging of many mobile phones and on manufacturer’s websites. However, using a phone with a low SAR does not protect the user as effectively as holding the phone

72  —  The Force

away from their head during a call. Lloyd Morgan, author of a report on the findings of the Interphone study, believes that distance is the key to reducing exposure. He claims that a person will absorb more radiation from a phone with low SAR levels held against the head than a phone with high SAR levels held just a quarter of an inch (less than one centimetre) away. ‘Holding a cellphone six inches [15 centimetres] from the head results in a 10,000-fold reduction in the radiation absorbed by the brain,’ he wrote to me in 2010.44

Phones with the lowest SAR levels The Environmental Working Group, a not-for-profit based in the United States, publishes a list of SAR levels for different types of phones. At the time of publication, these ten phones were listed as having the lowest SAR levels. 1. Sanyo Katana II [Kajeet] 2. Samsung Rugby (SGH-a837) [AT&T] 3. Samsung Memoir (SGH-T929) [T-Mobile] 4. Samsung SGH-t229 [T-Mobile] 5. Helio Pantech Ocean [Virgin Mobile] 6. Sony Ericsson W518a Walkman [AT&T, AT&T GoPhone] 7. Samsung SGH-a137 [AT&T, AT&T GoPhone] 8. LG Shine II [AT&T] 9. LG CF360 [AT&T, AT&T GoPhone] 10. Samsung Flight (SGH-A797) [AT&T] 45

Protective devices As concern about the safety of mobile phone radiation has grown, so has the proliferation of so-called protective devices that claim to reduce exposure. Be warned — there are some that don’t provide protection, some that may only possibly provide protection, and some that make people’s symptoms worse. Certain types of shields block some radiation from phones, but as a result the phones have to operate at a higher power in order to connect with the base station. Some devices, when dismantled, do not have any circuitry that could offer radiation protection. Some claim to ‘harmonise’ radiation using theories and concepts that have not been accepted by conventional science. The first thing to know about these devices is that there is no

Mobile Phones   —  73

requirement for them to be independently tested, so most testing will be paid for by the manufacturer. There are also no international standards covering these devices. This means that consumers have no way of ascertaining whether they work or of validating the manufacturer’s claims. Another important consideration is that using a so-called protective device can create a false sense of security, and you might feel tempted to spend longer on your phone than you otherwise would. If the device is not really providing the protection that is claimed for it, you risk being exposed to more radiation than you would had you taken more orthodox precautions.

Buyer beware! In 2000 I was involved in conducting an independent, double-blind study on a protective device in Sydney, Australia. It exposed volunteers to mobile phone radiation for ten minutes at a time with and without the device attached. (Users were not aware of whether or not the device was in place.) When the volunteers were exposed to the mobile phone without the device, there was evidence that their bodies were under stress. When they were exposed to the phone with the device in place the effects were, in some cases, worse.

Bluetooth connections Some precautionary recommendations include the suggestion to use a hands-free device with a Bluetooth connection. This allows users to hold a mobile phone at a distance during a call, and the information is transferred by radiofrequency radiation to a Bluetooth headset. Yet while it allows you to keep your phone away from your head as you use it, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is safe. Firstly, if you keep your phone in your pocket or on a belt while you’re talking, the parts of your body that are close to it will be absorbing radiation. Secondly, the Bluetooth signal is a radiofrequency signal (usually 2.4 GHz) that is very similar to a mobile phone signal. So you’re exchanging one form of radiation for another — you can decide whether this seems like a good idea. There are claims that Bluetooth connections are ‘safe’ because they operate at lower power than a mobile phone. That would be reassuring if low-power radiation were indeed safe. As it is, there’s evidence that it’s not just the power level that is significant for causing unhealthy reactions — more of that in Chapter 10.

74  —  The Force

International standards for radiation protection Standards have been developed to limit public and occupational exposure to the harmful effects of microwave radiation. The two leading world standards are those developed by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a set of guidelines that are endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO); and those formulated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Radiation authorities in most countries have based their own standards on one or both of these documents. The ICNIRP guidelines are the basis for standards in 54 countries, including Australia, Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Spain, Greece, and Brazil. The WHO encourages countries to adopt this standard and has developed a framework for the ‘harmonisation’ of international standards with the participating countries and eight international organisations. The IEEE standard has influenced the United States and Canadian standards. The WHO has assembled a database of standards worldwide. It can be accessed from the WHO website.46

In many ways the ICNIRP and IEEE documents are similar. Both protect from thermal effects, which can elevate body temperature above one degree Celsius, and both limit the amount of radiation that can be absorbed by the body. The general public limits they recommend for the whole body are as follows. ICNIRP and IEEE general public limits for mobile phone radiation ICNIRP

IEEE

900 MHz (GSM)

0.08 W/kg

0.4 W/kg

1800 MHz (3G)

0.08 W/kg

0.4 W/kg

2400 MHz (3G)

0.08 W/kg

0.4 W/kg

But let’s be clear: these international standards protect against only a small number of acute effects — shock, burns, and significant heating in parts of the body. They don’t protect against other effects, those caused by lower exposures that do not induce shock, burns, or heating but nevertheless cause changes in the body. They don’t protect against the sort of radiation that you are exposed to if you use a mobile phone for many hours over many years. They don’t protect against the cumulative

Mobile Phones   —  75

effects of radiation, and they don’t protect those people who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of radiation in the first place. The reason for this, according to ICNIRP and the IEEE, is that such effects have not been proven, according to their very stringent criteria for proof. We’ll see more about this in Chapter 10. If you think that these deficiencies are the only problem with international standards and the approach to setting them, you will be disappointed. There are, in fact, a number of other substantial concerns about their adequacy to protect public health. Firstly, these international standards make assumptions about how much radiation the body can absorb. For example, the ICNIRP guidelines assume the body can absorb 0.8 watts of radiation per kilogram averaged over six minutes without the average temperature rising and thus causing health problems. In other words, it’s okay to be exposed to a brief burst of radiation providing that your exposure remains low for the next five or so minutes. But is that true — how do we know that an intense burst of radiation will not create damage? Secondly, the standards assume that some parts of the body can be safely exposed to much more radiation than others. The ICNIRP guidelines allow for the body to be exposed to 0.08 watts of radiation per kilogram but allows the head to be exposed to 2 watts per kilogram, which is 25 times as much radiation. How do we know that there will not be localised damage? If, for example, you put a finger in a candle flame for more than a few seconds, your whole body would not heat up by one degree Celsius, but there would be some quite obvious localised damage. Your finger would burn and blister, reminding you to be more careful next time. The IEEE standard, like the ICNIRP guidelines, confines itself to protecting against what it calls ‘established’ effects. It admits that there is not enough scientific information available to protect people from ‘all possible combinations of frequency and modulation’.47 It does not take into account the fact that some groups of people seem to be more vulnerable to the effects of radiation than others or that damage from radiation is thought to be cumulative — even though there is evidence for both of these ideas. Neither standard accounts for important questions such as: can children absorb as much radiation in the head as adults? Do all people respond in the same way, or do we absorb radiation differently? Can pregnant women dissipate heat as effectively as other people? Do we dissipate heat as well in summer as we do in winter, or after exercise? How do we know that adverse health effects don’t occur if only parts of the body, particularly the brain, are heated more than others?

76  —  The Force

How the brain reacts to radiation There is evidence that different parts of the brain react differently to mobile phone radiation. Dr Henry Lai was interested in discovering how EMR would affect a system of neurotransmitters called the cholinergic system. He exposed rats to pulsed radiofrequency radiation at similar levels to that emitted by mobile phones (2450 MHz for 45 minutes). He found that in some parts of the rats’ brains – the striatum, hypothalamus, and inferior colliculus – the activity of the cholinergic system remained unchanged. However, in the hippocampus and the frontal cortex, there was actually a decrease in cholinergic activity. Proper functioning of the cholinergic system in the hippocampus and frontal cortex are important in memory and learning.48

Another concern about international standards is that they apply arbitrary ‘safety factors’, which they claim provide protection for workers and the general public. The ICNIRP guidelines allow workers in radiofrequency industries to be exposed to 0.4 watts of radiation per kilogram but keeps public exposures to 0.08 watts of radiation per kilogram. This is because such workers are aware of the radiation they are exposed to and trained to take appropriate safety precautions; the general public is not usually aware of the presence of radiation and has no training in minimising exposure. However, people who are exposed at home — for example, if their house is close to a base station — can actually be exposed for potentially many more of the 168 hours per week than the approximately 35 hours to which the average radiofrequency worker is exposed. In other words, in the case of a base station the public can potentially be exposed for almost five times as long as workers, and this negates the additional ‘safety factor’ of recommending a lower limit for the general population. And what about the long-term, athermal effects, you might wonder? Who’s protecting me from these? The answer is: no one. I emphasise there is no protection for you against low-level, athermal effects of radiofrequency radiation. While international authorities hide behind the façade of these highly dubious standards, an increasing number of researchers believe that there is convincing evidence that standards need to be tightened. A number of brave individuals have called for more responsible approaches to the setting of standards. One of these was veteran EMR researcher Dr Ross Adey, distinguished professor and award-winning

Mobile Phones   —  77

author of more than 400 scientific publications. Dr Adey believed that there was substantial evidence that athermal levels of EMR posed a risk: The laboratory evidence for athermal effects of both ELF and RF/microwave fields now constitutes a major body of scientific literature in peer-reviewed journals. It is my personal view that to continue to ignore this work in the course of standard setting is irresponsible to the point of being a public scandal.49 Since Dr Adey wrote this statement in 1995, significantly more evidence has become available to support his views. Dr Henry Lai made headlines with his discovery that the radiation from mobile phones leads to breaks in DNA strands. Does he believe that standards should be based on thermal effects of radiation? ‘My answer is “no”,’ he says. ‘Standards should base on at what level of exposure biological/health effects are observed.’50 The editors of the BioInitiative Report agree. They criticised the assumptions underlying international standards and called for biologically based standards to be introduced. ‘What is clear,’ the report concluded, ‘is that the existing public safety standards limiting these radiation levels in nearly every country of the world look to be thousands of times too lenient.’51 The report found evidence linking mobile phone use with stress, genetic damage, changes to brain function and immunity, and, in long-term users, brain tumours. There are many other researchers who have found evidence of risk from mobile phone radiation at athermal levels of exposure, and have subsequently questioned the adequacy of existing standards. There can be no doubt that radiation standards worldwide are not providing long-term protection for all dimensions of public health. However technically and scientifically dazzling the process of setting standards may appear to be, it is essentially a flawed bureaucratic process driven by political and economic considerations with more than an occasional dash of industry involvement.

Case study: Australia ‘I am astounded at the high degree of self-regulation in Australia. Industry and users of the technology are in the majority on the standards committee.’ — Dr Neil Cherry

The development of Australia’s current radiation protection standard illustrates this near-sightedness. In 1996, the interim Australian standard

78  —  The Force

(known as AS2772.1) allowed the public to be exposed to 2 watts per kilogram from mobile phones (and 200 microwatts per square centimetre for phone antennas). However, many third-generation (3G) mobile phones would not comply, and rather than limit the availability of the phones the Australian and New Zealand governments set about changing the standard. The committee responsible for this project was a joint Australian and New Zealand committee called TE7, under the auspices of Standards Association of Australia, the body responsible for most standards set in the country. After numerous meetings both in Australia and New Zealand, the final draft of the standard was prepared. It allowed people to be exposed to more than twice as much radiation from GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) mobile phones and four and a half times as much radiation from the newer, higher frequency 3G phones. If approved, there would be no reason to restrict the lucrative rollout of the new technology. As the TE7 committee members cast their vote, it soon became apparent that there were not enough in favour of the draft for it to be approved. If you imagine that the failed standard was relegated to the bureaucratic junk pile and forgotten, you are wrong. The committee was forcibly split in two, and the New Zealand members were asked to vote again. After one member of the group changed his vote, the document was approved and became the New Zealand standard. However, Australia was still without an updated standard and those lucrative 3G dollars. The standoff was resolved when the project was withdrawn from Standards Australia and given to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), which also has the regulatory authority to make standards. A new committee was set up, and the starting point for the committee was — surprise, surprise — the failed TE7 standard. After more years, more meetings, and more quoting of scientific studies, the new standard was ready to be approved. By an amazing coincidence, its limits allowed public exposure at the frequencies used by 3G technology and were closer to the levels in the ICNIRP guidelines. Just as the committee members were wondering when they would be asked to cast their vote, it became apparent that there was to be no voting for this new standard. The document was adopted by ARPANSA’s Radiation Health Committee and became enforceable. Success! The standard was safely ‘harmonised’ with the WHO and the future of 3G technology in Australia was assured.

Mobile Phones   —  79

What’s being done about the risks We now have a compelling body of research to suggest that the radiation wireless phones emit is problematic and there are a growing number of scientists and doctors voicing their concerns about it. Mobile or cordless, there is no doubt that radiating devices held next to the head for long periods of time are having an effect on people’s bodies, brains, and behaviour. Given the evidence of risk, and given its magnitude — there are approximately 5 billion users, many of them children — it makes sense to take precautions. Around the world precautions are being called for and, in some cases, put in place. This action to reduce people’s exposure is coming from national governments, local councils, and political parties, among other organisations.

Action around the world To address the issue of radiation from mobile and cordless phones, a number of countries and organisations have issued statements advising people to limit their use of these phones. Australia In March 2000, Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital made headlines around the country when it introduced a landmark directive on mobile phone use. It advised staff to use a landline phone or a pager in preference to a mobile phone, and suggested that those who choose to continue using mobile phones hold them at a distance of three to four centimetres from the head. It further suggested that mobile phones be used in the open or near a window to obtain a clear signal without having to increase power and advised staff not to use a mobile phone while driving unless they had a hands-free facility in a car fitted with an external aerial. The question of mobile phone safety was thoroughly debated when a senate inquiry was held in 2001 to address the health effects of EMR, the country’s radiation standards, and recent national research. The inquiry took several months and became a highly politicised event. The chair of the committee, senator Lyn Allison, later said, ‘I became aware that there has been pressure from industry on participating senators to discredit some witnesses.’52 As a result, the committee failed to reach consensus and three reports were handed down: one from the chair and dissenting reports from the other two senators. The chair’s report contained the following precautionary recommendations.

80  —  The Force

•

‘The Commonwealth Government considers developing material to advise parents and children of the potential risks associated with mobile phone use.’ (Recommendation 2.3) • ‘That shielding and hands-free devices are tested, labelled for their effectiveness and regulated by standards.’ (Recommendation 2.4)53 Interestingly, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) has also issued guidance on reducing exposure to mobile phone radiation. In 2009, it published on its website a guide for reducing exposure from mobile phones, which includes suggestions such as using a hands-free device.54 In May 2010, Australia’s official radiation authority, ARPANSA, issued a press statement with precautionary advice for parents. It recommended: due to the lack of any data relating to children and long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting’.55

Canada Although Canada’s official body on mobile phones, Health Canada, has not expressed concern that mobile phone radiation is a risk, Toronto has taken a stronger stand. Toronto Public Health recommended precautions in a fact sheet, Children and Safe Cell Phone Use, published in May 2008. It states: While cell phones are important for communication and for safety reasons, parents would be advised to use precautions with their children. Children under the age of eight should use landlines and only use cell phones for essential purposes. Older children and teenagers should limit their cell phone use whenever possible. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests limiting the length of phone calls, or using ‘hands-free’ devices like headsets or ear phones, to keep the cell phone away from the head and body. The amount of RF energy absorbed decreases quickly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user. People can also use the speakerphone mode if appropriate, or use text messaging instead. Parents who buy cell phones for

Mobile Phones   —  81

their children should look for ones with the lowest emissions of RF waves. It also advises children not to use mobile phones when reception is low (for example, when the base station antenna is far away) and when a phone is being used in high-speed travel (for example, while driving in a car) because in these situations the phone must emit more power to maintain reception.56

Finland In a position paper published in January 2009, Finland’s radiation and nuclear safety authority, Säteilyturvakeskus, published precautions for mobile phone use. As well as advising restrictions for children, it cautioned against using mobile phones in areas where they would be forced to operate at higher power and stated that they can interfere with the operation of pacemakers. It also warned about the possible link to cancer: ‘Since it takes years to develop a cancer and mobile phones have been in common use only for about ten years, the possibility that a link between mobile phone use and cancer might be found in later population studies cannot be ruled out.’57 France France, which has been the epicentre of the mobile phone safety debate, has taken strong action to reduce the public health risk of radiofrequency radiation, particularly for children. At a press conference on 26 May 2009, Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot announced new legislation for the manufacture and marketing of mobile phones that can only be used with an earpiece or for sending text messages. She also announced measures aimed at protecting children: bans on the use of mobile phones in primary schools and by children under six, and on advertising phones to children under 14.58 At the same time, the Green Party in Lyons, the country’s secondlargest city, conducted an advertising campaign warning parents to restrict children’s use of mobile phones. Billboards carried messages such as: ‘A mobile before the age of 12! No way!’.

82  —  The Force

Figure 16. This French billboard declaring ‘A mobile before the age of 12! No way!’ was part of an advertising campaign conducted by the Green Party.

Germany One of the early calls for precaution came from the German Academy of Paediatrics. In December 2000, the academy issued a statement advising parents to restrict their children’s use of mobile phones. While the statement encouraged all mobile phone users to keep conversations brief, it recommended particular limits be applied to children by virtue of the risk posed by their growing bodies: ‘Unnecessary, frequent and extended use are to be strongly discouraged. Children only need mobile phones to communicate very infrequently, in exceptional situations.’59 The German government recommends keeping exposures from radiofrequency radiation ‘as low as possible’. In response to questions asked by the Green Party in parliament, the Ministry for the Environment, Natural Protection, and Reactor Safety indicated it supported the use of wired rather than wireless connections because the latter exposed users to higher levels of radiation. It also advised that a number of national agencies were taking measures to encourage people to reduce their personal exposure. These included publishing information leaflets, informing schools about the potential risks for children, and developing lowradiation mobile phones, such as the HTC Blue Angel personal digital assistant.

Mobile Phones   —  83

India In 2008, the Ministry of Telecommunications issued a guide for reducing exposure from mobile phone radiation. It suggested that vulnerable people — such as children, pregnant women, and those with heart problems — avoid using mobile phones, and advised the industry to stop marketing to these groups. Warning about the risks of radiation exposure to the brain, the guide encouraged people to use hands-free devices instead.60 Israel The Ministry of Health has adopted a policy of ‘preventative caution’ for mobile phone use, particularly in regard to children. In 2008, it issued a series of guidelines that recommended limiting children’s use of mobile phones, using a wired rather than wireless earpiece (as wired connections don’t require radiation in order to work), and avoiding the use of phones in enclosed spaces such as trains. The guidelines were drawn up by Dr Siegal Sadetzki, who had earlier found an increased risk of tumours in the salivary glands of mobile phone users.61 The Ministry of Environmental Protection also warned against keeping mobile phone chargers near the bed while sleeping because of the high electromagnetic fields that they emit.62 Italy An Italian court was among the first to recognise the connection between mobile phone radiation and health problems. In 2002, successful businessman Innocente Marcolini began to use his mobile phone for up to five hours each day to conduct business. He subsequently developed a tumour and is now disabled, suffering from paralysis, eye problems, and difficulties talking and eating. Marcolini took his case to the industrial tribunal, which rejected it. However, the Court of Appeal of Brescia found in Marcolini’s favour, recognising that his injuries were caused by occupational exposure to mobile phone radiation. His claim was supported by a neurosurgeon and two neurologists.63 Russia Russia’s exposure limits are much more conservative than those in many European or American countries. Its limits for radiation absorption in the head are five times lower than the ICNIRP limits. On 14 April 2008, the country’s peak radiation authority warned of the risks of mobile phone radiation, particularly to children. The Russian National Committee

84  —  The Force

on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection identified as likely health hazards ‘disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to stress, increased epileptic readiness’. In addition, it listed a number of expected effects in the future such as ‘brain tumours, tumours of acoustical and vestibular nerves (in the age of 25–30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome, and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60)’.64

Sweden The Swedish government recommended precautions to reduce exposure from mobile phone radiation in 2007. It advised that, in light of the possibility of brain tumours, people use a hands-free set or speaker phone. Other recommendations included advice to avoid holding the phone close to the body and to ensure there is a good connection for calls so that the phone does not have to work harder and use more power to connect to the base station.65 Switzerland The Office for Public Health has said that ‘there is evidence to suggest that high-frequency radiation may have genotoxic and carcinogenic effects’, and has listed the following recommendations in a fact sheet on mobile phones.



• NEVER use a phone while you are driving a vehicle, not even with a hands-free kit! • Use a wireless hands-free system (headphone, headset) with a low power Bluetooth emitter to reduce radiation to the head. • When buying a mobile phone, make sure it has a low SAR. • Either keep your calls short or send a text message SMS) instead. This advice applies especially to chil- dren and adolescents. • Whenever possible, only use your phone when the signal quality is good. • Be wary of radiation shields and other such protective devices that are claimed to limit exposure to radiation. They may reduce the connection quality and therefore

Mobile Phones   —  85



force the phone to transmit at a higher output power. • People active medical implants should keep their mobile phone at least 30 cm away from the implant at all times.66

United Kingdom In mid-1999, London’s Metropolitan Police force issued guidelines for those among its 27,000 members concerned about the safety of mobile phones. The guidelines stated: ‘Does the user really need to use a mobile phone? If so, they should limit the length of time to certainly no more than five minutes. If users are required to make regular and lengthy use of mobile phones, there would be no harm in using an earpiece.’67 Shortly afterwards, the Public and Commercial Services Union advised its 266,000 members to stop using mobile phones in order to protect their health. Under the slogan ‘Don’t gamble with your health’, the union stated that members must not be forced to carry or use a mobile phone. It also recommended that: • phone charge cards be provided to staff • workers requiring a mobile phone while travelling leave the devices turned off for the majority of the time • incoming calls be acknowledged and returned from a landline • phones not be carried next to the body when operational • phones be kept centimetres away from the head during calls.68 In May 2000, an independent study chaired by Sir William Stewart reported on their investigation into the risks of mobile phone use. Dubbed the ‘Stewart Report’, it took a particularly strong stand on the risks associated with children’s use of mobile phones. It suggested that, as children may be ‘more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head … and a longer lifetime of exposure’, mobile phones not be used by children under 16 and manufacturers refrain from advertising mobile phones to children. According to the report: ‘if science has greater power to do good, it also has greater power to do harm. They [the committee] therefore advocate a precautionary approach to new technology where there are uncertainties about the associated risks.’ Sir William said that while he used a mobile phone himself, he would not want his grandchildren to use one. Following this, British education secretary David Blunkett sent guidelines to every school in England to discourage the use of mobile phones by children under 16. His letter stated:

86  —  The Force

Children aged 15 and under ... are likely to be more vulnerable to any unrecognised health risks from mobile phone use than are adults because their nervous systems are still developing. Also, because of their smaller heads, thinner skulls and higher tissue conductivity, children may absorb more energy from a mobile phone than do adults. It also recommended that ‘where children do use mobile phones, they should do so for as short a time as possible’.69 In December 2000, the British Department of Health released two leaflets containing precautionary recommendations; these were sent to stores to be distributed with pre-Christmas mobile phone purchases. The first, entitled ‘Mobile Phones and Health’, suggested ways of limiting exposure, in line with the recommendations of the Stewart Report. It suggested ‘widespread use of mobile phones by children (under the age of 16) should be discouraged for non-essential calls’ and that calls should be kept short.70 In 2005, Britain’s National Radiological Protection Board (now the Health Protection Agency) released a report that endorsed the findings of the Stewart Report: ‘The Board believes that the main conclusions reached in the Stewart Report in 2000 still apply today and that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies should continue to be adopted.’71 Caught up in the wave of concern about the risks of mobile phone use for children, councils took action. Brighton and Hove Council in East Sussex advised the 55,000 students in its constituency to use a landline in preference to a mobile phone, hold mobile phones away from the head during calls, keep calls short, and choose a mobile phone that uses less power. Following this example, Edinburgh Council began drafting guidelines for mobile phone use for the 60,000 students in its jurisdiction.72 Also in 2005, a committee of the Irish Parliament released a report on mobile phones and base stations in which it recommended procedures for reducing health impacts from the technology. Among its recommendations was that all mobile phones should carry labels specifying their radiation levels.73 In the same year, the Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA) adopted a position on EMR which recognised that some people can be more vulnerable to radiation than others and called for government support. ‘A sub-group of the population are particularly sensitive to exposure to different types of electromagnetic radiation,’ the Association stated. It raised concerns about the health effects of

Mobile Phones   —  87

radiation, referring to thirty years of studies that have found evidence of harm, and expressed doubts about the adequacy of current standards.74 In July 2010, Wales’ chief medical officer, Dr Tony Jewell, announced the publication of two leaflets encouraging parents to reduce children’s exposure to mobile phone radiation. ‘Protecting the health of the young people of Wales is a priority, and although current research indicates that using mobile phones does not appear to cause health problems, more work is still to be done,’ he told the press. The leaflets include tips such as keeping calls short, sending text messages instead of calling, holding phones as far as possible from the head, and using a speaker phone or a hands-free kit.75

United States The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for consumer health, has not admitted that the radiation from mobile phones constitutes a health risk. However, on its website it has included suggestions for reducing exposure, such as keeping the amount of time spent on the phone to a minimum, keeping the phone away from the head, and using a headset.76 The University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has taken a more proactive stand about the risks of mobile phone radiation. It was the focus of worldwide media attention in 2008 when its director, Dr Ronald Herberman, issued a memorandum on mobile phones to more than 2500 staff members. The memo, titled ‘Practical Advice to Limit Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted from Cell Phones’, contained the following: 1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a foetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects … 2. While communicating using your cell phone, try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible … 3. Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a wire less Bluetooth headset … Use of a hands-free headset may also reduce exposures. 4. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone’s electromagnetic fields … 5. Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under the pillow

88  —  The Force

or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on ‘flight’ or ‘off-line’ mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions. 6. If you must carry your cell phone on you, it is preferable that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside of your body … 7. Only use your cell phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes, as the biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure. For longer conversations, use a landline with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones. 8. Switch sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the duration of your exposure. 9. Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna. 10. When possible, communicate via text messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the proximity to the body. Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible … 77 In mid-2010, San Francisco became the first US city that required retailers to disclose the radiation levels of mobile phones. The legislation requires mobile phone companies to provide retailers with specific absorption rate (SAR) levels for all models of mobile phones and retailers to provide this information to the public. It also commits the city’s Department of Environment to developing resource materials that advise consumers how they can reduce their exposure to mobile phone radiation.

Other concerned bodies European Environment Agency (EEA) This agency plays a leading role in the development of public policy in Europe, providing information to key policy-makers such as the European

Mobile Phones   —  89

Parliament and the European Commission, which has 32 member countries. For some years, the agency has recommended a precautionary policy towards EMR and its executive director, Professor Jacquie McGlade, has questioned the adequacy of the ICNIRP guidelines. In 2007, she stated: Over the last two years the epidemiological evidence of possible cancer risk amongst the 10-year-plus mobile phone user group has got stronger. It is now also supported by preliminary scientific reports on the damaging effect to cells of RF and ELF exposures. This is a cause for concern, given the widespread and generally rising exposure of the public … to RF from mobile phone technology.78 In September 2009, Professor McGlade took a much stronger line on mobile phones at a conference in Washington: The evidence is now strong enough, using the precautionary principle, to justify the following steps: • For governments, the mobile phone industry, and the public to take all reasonable measures to reduce exposures to EMF, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposures to children and young adults who seem to be most at risk from head tumours. Such measures would include stopping the use of a mobile phone by placing it next to the brain. This can be achieved by the use of texting; hands-free sets; and by the use of phones of an improved design which could generate less radiation and make it convenient to use hands-free sets. • To reconsider the scientific basis for the present EMF exposure standards which have serious limitations such as reliance on the contested thermal effects paradigm; and simplistic assumptions about the complexities of radiofrequency exposures. • To provide effective labelling and warnings about potential risks for users of mobile phones. • To generate the funds needed to finance and organise the urgently needed research into the health effects of phones and associated masts.

90  —  The Force

Professor McGlade also called for protection of scientists who sounded early-warning calls about the risks of mobile phone radiation, noting that whistleblowers on similar issues have been maligned and lost their funding.79

European Parliament The European Parliament has also expressed concerns about the risks of mobile phone radiation and suggested strategies for reducing people’s exposure. On 2 April 2009, it adopted a resolution, ‘Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields’. It: • endorsed the recommendation that ‘mobile phones should not be used beyond reasonable limits and that landlines should preferred’ • called for a ‘wide-ranging awareness campaign to familiarise young Europeans with good mobile phone techniques, such as the use of hands-free kits, keeping calls short, switching off phones when not in use … and using phones in areas that have good reception’ • called on states to ‘increase research and development funding for the evaluation of potential long-term adverse effects of mobile telephony’ • called on ‘the International Commission on Ion-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the World Health Organization (WHO) to be more transparent and open to dialogue with all stakeholders in standard setting’ • condemned ‘certain particularly aggressive marketing campaigns by telephone operators … for example the sale of mobile phones designed solely for children or free call time packages aimed at teenagers’ • called for ‘labelling requirements whereby the transmitting power would have to be specified and every wireless-operated device accompanied by an indication that it emitted microwaves’.80 Doctors and scientists In the last decade, several international gatherings of scientists have produced resolutions recognising the risks of radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones and other devices and calling for precautions to protect people’s health. These include the Catania Resolution (Italy, 2002), the Benevento Resolution (Italy, 2006), the Venice Resolution (Italy, 2008), the London Resolution (England, 2009), and the Porto Alegre Resolution (Brazil, 2009). The texts of these resolutions can be found in the appendix.

Mobile Phones   —  91

In 2008, the Doctors’ Chamber of Vienna released a warning about mobile phone risks and recommended strategies to limit exposure. Its leaflet ‘10 Medical Rules Relating to Cellular Telephones’, made the following recommendations: • In principle, telephone calls should be as few and as brief as possible. It is recommended that children and youth abstain from conducting cellular telephone calls! • The cellular telephone should not be held near the head while sending out the call! • Cellular telephones should not be used in vehicles (cars, buses, trains) — the radiation there is higher! • While sending SMS messages the cellular telephone should be held as far away as possible from the body! • During a cellular telephone conversation a distance of several metres should be kept from other people — the radiation is harmful to them as well! • No online games (GPRS) should be played on the cellular telephone! • Wired speaker telephones are dubious — the wire conducts the radiation! • LAN or UMTS wireless speaker telephones create a high radiation load! • Cellular telephones should not be kept in trousers pockets — the radiation may harm masculine fertility! • Cellular telephones should be turned off during the night and they should be kept away from the sleeping area!81 It would be wonderful if you and I and our children could have confidence in the process of setting standards, assured that our health and wellbeing were in caring hands and had priority over economic profit. It would be reassuring if there were consensus on what levels of exposure were safe. Sadly that is not the case. As I write, the World Health Organization continues to maintain that exposures below the standard ‘do not appear to have any known consequence on health’,82 industry continues to maintain that there is evidence of harm, people continue to experience uncomfortable symptoms from mobile phone use, and the incidence of brain tumours continues to rise. How culpable mobile phone

92  —  The Force

radiation is has yet to be firmly established. However, for now it may be wise to take the advice of those heralds of common sense and err on the side of precaution. To find out more about how you can reduce your exposure to this form of radiation, see Chapter 11. If you’re still unsure about the effects of mobile phone radiation, try asking some of your friends and colleagues about what they experience when they use their mobile phone, especially for longer calls. The chances are that some will report headaches or warmth or redness of the ear. Other common symptoms include fatigue, sore ears, memory and concentration problems, a ‘fuzzy’ head, sore eyes, and tingling sensations. In early 2000, through my involvement in the EMR Association of Australia, I advertised for people who had experienced symptoms while using a mobile phone for a study that was about to be conducted on the topic. To my surprise, I was absolutely deluged with respondents. They reported heat on the side of their face where they positioned their phone, headaches, pressure, ringing in the ears, dizziness, nausea, and other types of pain. Moreover, many said that continued mobile phone use made the symptoms more severe or caused them to appear earlier in the call, so some of them had stopped using their mobile phones altogether. Are these effects symptoms that we can afford to dismiss, or might they be precursors to more serious problems? Could those people reporting discomfort have been the canaries in the technological coalmine? At this stage we still don’t know, but the evidence of risk is mounting.

Chapter 5

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers

‘Masts should be moved away from conurbations and schools and the power turned down.’ — Dr John Walker

The chances are that wherever you live, you are being affected by the radiation from at least one mobile phone base station. The chances are that wherever your children go to school, preschool, or playgroup, they are being affected, too. Wherever you are, if your mobile phone is receiving a signal from a base station, then so are you. There are already millions of base stations around the world. With more being constructed to service new technology, this is an issue that affects every one of us, especially if we live in an urban area. What are the implications for our health, where can such stations be erected, and what are our rights? Are television and radio transmitters, which broadcast similar radiation, also affecting our health?

How do base stations work? Mobile phone base stations, sometimes called cell towers or masts, are the price we pay for instant connectivity. All emit electromagnetic radiation. Mobile phone antennas can been seen as free-standing monopoles or adorning the roofs of flats, offices, hospitals, and tall structures 93

94  —  The Force

throughout our cities. They range from the looming, scaffold-like towers that dominate the suburban skyline, to arrays of panel antennas located on poles or rooftops, to tiny microcells located on inner-city traffic lights and in train stations, shopping complexes, and offices. Many base stations are placed strategically, to avoid notice — some are hidden in structures such as chimneys or church crosses, while others are blended into the natural environment, for example disguised in trees or as flag poles. Each of these base stations services the mobile phones in its local area, or ‘cell’ — hence the description ‘cell phones’. The diameter of these cells can range from metres to kilometres, depending on the strength of the antenna’s signal. Each of these base stations relays signals to and from the mobile phones it services.

Figure 17. Base stations service all the mobile phones within their cell.

A base station consists of transmitting and receiving antennas, an equipment shelter, and a cable, which connects it to the wider telephone system. The antenna transmits radiofrequency radiation at powers of anything from a few watts to 100 watts or more. Some antennas are omnidirectional, while others transmit signals in a particular direction, in a narrower beam. Whereas in the past antennas were arranged in groups of three — one receiver antenna and two transmitter antennas — newer designs house receiver and transmitters in a single panel box. A base station can handle a limited number of calls at a time, so when engineers find that capacity has been reached they will divide a cell into two smaller cells, each with its own base station. In particularly

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  95

dense population areas, such as the inner city, or in areas where large number of calls are being made, such as an airport, the area will be divided into microcells, each serviced by a tiny antenna. You will sometimes see these antennas attached just above head height to power poles, traffic lights, awnings, and buildings. These signals are transmitted using radiofrequency radiation. Whereas the older analog system operated between 824 and 894 MHz, digital GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) base stations operate between 850 and 960 MHz (often referred to as GSM 900) and sometimes between 1800 and 1900 MHz (GSM 1800). Third-generation (3G) mobile systems operate at higher frequencies — between around 1800 and 2400 MHz. Whenever your mobile phone is turned on, even when you are not making a call, it is in sporadic connection with the closest base station. As you travel to different areas throughout the course of the day, your mobile phone automatically switches from one cell to the next, so that it is in regular contact with the closest base station. If these signals were visible, you would see strands of pulsing radiofrequency radiation emitted from every phone in your vicinity to a base station — an intricate and constantly changing web.

Siting base stations While mobile phones are a lucrative and popular form of technology among the community, mobile phone base stations are not. Given a choice, what community would want unsightly, radiation-emitting antennas that can devalue properties in the vicinity and potentially impact on health? Governments in many countries have chosen to deal with this conundrum by disempowering communities in favour of allowing telecommunications companies to control the siting of base stations. Many countries have passed legislation that overrides local council and state legislation and gives certain immunities to carriers. In Australia, for example, the Telecommunications Act 1997 requires carriers to obtain council approval before installing ‘tall’ antennas. However, it’s not been easy for councils to reject applications: those who have done so on health grounds have often had their decisions overturned by the relevant state court because the radiation from the antenna will comply with the industry standard. However, as we’ve seen in Chapter 4, this doesn’t necessarily make it safe. In further defiance to local communities, the Australian Government

96  —  The Force

then introduced a second category of phone antennas that are immune from state and local government regulations — so-called ‘low-impact facilities’. This classification, based on appearance only, has nothing to do with the amount of radiation the antennas emit, or the risk to public health. The term really means low visual impact — in other words, the antennas are ‘short’. Classifying a radiation-emitting structure according to its appearance and not its emissions is rather like classifying a pharmaceutical drug according to the colour of its packaging! Similarly, in the United Kingdom carriers are required to obtain council planning permission for ‘tall’ masts, but not for smaller masts, irrespective of the radiation they emit. In the USA, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a section that prohibits local governments from making decisions about the siting of mobile phone antennas based on concerns about environmental or health effects. Recently, several cities, including Portland, Oregon; Glendale, California; and Sebastopol, California, adopted resolutions asking the federal government to repeal this legislation.1 In using such draconian tactics, governments have effectively disempowered communities and exposed entire populations to unnatural, pulsed signals, while failing to provide standards to cover continuous, long-term exposure. At the height of their arrogance, some carriers have constructed antennas without consultation and without providing information to the community or council. Some of these sites have been in or close to homes, schools, and even hospitals grounds. Needless to say, such behaviour has provoked a strong backlash. In many countries, protests against mobile-phone antennas and base stations have become commonplace; some groups of concerned residents have evolved into lobby groups and anti-tower networks. One of their main concerns is about the health effects of the radiation these structures emit — particularly for young children.

Disguised to avoid notice While hiding antennas in this way may reduce people’s concerns about their visual impact, it does nothing to allay their health concerns. In fact, many people wish to know where these facilities are located in relation to their homes, workplaces, or children’s schools, or a property they are considering buying. In some countries, there are website databases that list the location of mobile-phone base stations and other radio transmitters.2

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  97

Figure 18. While most antennas are clearly visible, some have been ‘blended’ into the environment to evade detection.

Siting base stations near schools As children are usually considered to be more vulnerable to radiation, concerns are often expressed about siting base stations near schools. After all, children spend most of their weekdays at school, and their safety within school grounds is an important consideration for parents and legislators. Some authorities have tried to deal with this problem by introducing bans or guidelines on the siting of base stations within certain distances of schools. In the early days of mobile communications, it was easier for carriers to comply with these bans because cells were larger and it was easier to find alternative sites. However, the advent of newer generations of communications has meant that cells have become smaller, with the result that it’s harder to keep any area free of antennas, including schools. So some of the early policies on distance have effectively fallen by the wayside. In 2004, Australia introduced a code that required carriers to ‘consider … community sensitive locations’ (including schools, childcare centres, and hospitals) when deciding where to locate base stations.3 However, in practice this hasn’t stopped the industry from

98  —  The Force

constructing antennas near schools. At the time of writing, the code is being revised. Even if it were possible to ensure that base stations were located away from schools, this would not necessarily protect children from the radiation these stations emit. Let’s say a telecommunications company wants to provide coverage for an area containing a school. If it is unable to locate a base station near the school, it may have to settle for a site further away. But, as industry representatives have explained to me, all the company has to do is turn up the power of the transmitter to achieve coverage of the same area. This can mean that the school is still exposed to the same level of radiation as would have been the case had the base station been located closer and, on top of that, people living or working near the transmitter are also exposed. This, of course, is a real conundrum for communities concerned about the siting of radiation-emitting infrastructure. In 2010, a Canadian researcher, Dr Magda Havas, developed an interesting approach to the question of siting antennas near schools. She released a report titled ‘The BragTM Antenna Ranking of Schools’, which ranked schools in 50 US state capitals according to the number of antennas located nearby. She gave schools a colour-coded rating as a way of identifying the likelihood of exposure. ‘The more antennas that are near schools the greater the potential exposure of students and teachers to radiofrequency radiation from external antennas,’ Havas wrote.4 The report found that many of the 6140 schools it assessed had nothing to brag about. Approximately a third of schools fell into the green zone, which indicated minimum exposure. Most were in the amber zone, which indicated medium exposure, and 17 per cent were in the red or black zones, which indicated maximum exposure. The school with the worst rating had 304 antennas located within 400 metres (0.25 miles) of the site. The BragTM rating is an approximation of exposure only. It does not replace the need for measurements. However, it does draw attention to the issue of protecting children from the potentially harmful effects of radiation.

Base Stations and Broadcast Towers  —  99

Health concerns ‘It is the consistency of the base station epidemiological literature from several countries that we find striking. In particular, the increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances