MICROWAVES DANGERS        microwaves



Dee Finney's blog

start date July 20, 2011

Today's date  May 10, 2012


page 217










5-10-12 -  THREE DREAMS


I  was watching a small size TV set and Nora (from One Life to Live TV show) was on the air announcing something to the public.  She touched her head in an odd way, and I thought she had a headache so I called her on the air with my cell phone to ask her that.  

I looked at the clock and it was 10:00 a.m.  which meant she went off the air, and somehow the TV screen got covered up with books so I couldn't see her, but I could still talk to her, but I got confused by the book situation and didn't get her answer.


Nora name meaning:  It mainly originates as a short form of Honora (also Honoria), a common Anglo-Norman name, ultimately derived from the Latin word Honor (with that meaning).[1] In other European use the name may also originate as a short form of Eleonora or Eleanor.[2] There is a corresponding Arabic name Nurah, (Arabic: نورة ‎), meaning "light",[3][4] with which Eleanor may ultimately be connected



2.  I had a small boy baby laying in a large box cover next to me on the table.  I realized I hadn't fed him yet, so I quickly warmed up a bottle of milk for him and he wouldn't drink it.   When I poured the milk into a cup, which was too small to hold all the milk, the milk piled up two inches over the cup instead of spilling over.  The milk was curdled like scrambled eggs.


My husband Ed wanted some milk and he wouldn't drink it either.  He poured it into some plants and the milk piled up two inches over the top of the containers there too instead of running over. 


3.  I was in a building somewhere, standing in the hallway.  Two soldiers in camouflage uniforms were coming towards me.  They were both black and didn't have their shirts on.  It took forever for them to walk down the hallway towards me because they had such short little legs.  When they finally got close to me, I saw that they both had heavily wrinkled foreheads and their chests were so wrinkled it looked like rows of mountains up and down the chests. 

I wondered if I could use one of those new electronic gadgets to iron out the wrinkles and they must have read my mind because they turned around and ran back down the hallway and down some stairs and outside again 10 times faster than they had walked towards me.  They were afraid of the microwaves.


After I woke up, I was so confused by these dreams, I didn't even want to write them down, and after I ate breakfast, I sat in the chair to take a nap and get the dreams out of my mind, and almost instantly had a voice come into my head that said  RFC specifications.  That is related to microwaves, so then the dreams made more sense to me.

GOOGLE.COM  rfc specifications - microwaves:  http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=RFC+SPECIFICATIONS++MICROWAVE&rlz=1R2ACGW_enUS361&oq=RFC+SPECIFICATIONS++MICROWAVE&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...2680.10563.0.10923.,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=f5ac0051340b9d4b&biw=1280&bih=820



FCC Maximum Permissible RF Exposure Regulations

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the United States' governing body for the electromagnetic spectrum. They are the Big Brother of radio waves. As with most (hopefully) government functions, the intentions are good, and the people working in them are sincere in the execution of their duties, but they are not always right. If that were not the case, then there would never be a need to challenge policies. One of the biggest challenges for the average citizen these days is keeping frequency band allocations that are dedicated to hobbyists from being re-delegated to commercial applications.

One area where the FCC has excelled is in the consumer safety realm, regarding safe exposure limits to electromagnetic fields. Even that is somewhat subject to political concerns - for instance, the SAR (specific absorbed radiation) limits for cell phone radiation in the human body. Phone manufacturers say no harm is done with 2 W of 1-2 GHz radiation blasting an inch from your brain, or from 1 W of 2.4 GHz energy sitting on your crotch (notebook computer). Time will tell, but a recent study found that the normal 10-year development period for cancer is beginning to reveal high incidences of brain cancer on long-time, high-use mobile phone addicts.

Here are the most current Maximum Permissible Exposure number form the FCC (2007).

Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) - from §1.1310

Frequency Range
Electric Field
Strength (V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (A/m)
Power Density
Averaging Time
0.3-3.0 614 1.63 100 6
3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f 900/f2 † 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-1500 - - f/300 6
1500-100,000 - - 5 6

Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure

Frequency Range
Electric Field
Strength (V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (A/m)
Power Density
Averaging Time
0.3-3.0 614 1.63 100 30
3.0-30 842/f 2.19/f 180/f2 † 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-1500 - - f/1500 30
1500-100,000 - - 1.0 30

f = frequency in MHz
† = plane-wave equivalent power density (see note)
Note: Equivalent far field strength that would have the E-field or H-field components calculated or measured.
Equivalent far field density for near and far fields can be calculated using
Power Density = |Etotal|2/3770 mW/cm2 or Power Density = |Htotal|2/37.7 mW/cm2

Here are some excerpts from the FCC website that address some commonly asked questions about RF radiation:
Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (i.e., radiating) through space at the speed of light. Taken together, all forms of electromagnetic energy are referred to as the electromagnetic "spectrum." Radio waves and microwaves emitted by transmitting antennas are one form of electromagnetic energy. They are collectively referred to as "radiofrequency" or "RF" energy or radiation. Often the term "electromagnetic field" or "radiofrequency field" may be used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic or RF energy.

The RF waves emanating from an antenna are generated by the movement of electrical charges in the antenna. Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by a wavelength and a frequency. The wavelength is the distance covered by one complete cycle of the electromagnetic wave, while the frequency is the number of electromagnetic waves passing a given point in one second. The frequency of an RF signal is usually expressed in terms of a unit called the "hertz" (abbreviated "Hz"). One Hz equals one cycle per second. One megahertz ("MHz") equals one million cycles per second.

Different forms of electromagnetic energy are categorized by their wavelengths and frequencies. The RF part of the electromagnetic spectrum is generally defined as that part of the spectrum where electromagnetic waves have frequencies in the range of about 3 kilohertz (3 kHz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz). Microwaves are a specific category of radio waves that can be defined as radiofrequency energy where frequencies range from several hundred MHz to several GHz.
"Ionization" is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules. This process can produce molecular changes that can lead to damage in biological tissue, including effects on DNA, the genetic material. This process requires interaction with high levels of electromagnetic energy. Those types of electromagnetic radiation with enough energy to ionize biological material include X-radiation and gamma radiation. Therefore, X-rays and gamma rays are examples of ionizing radiation.

The energy levels associated with RF and microwave radiation, on the other hand, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules and RF energy is, therefore, is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies. Often the term "radiation" is used to apply to ionizing radiation such as that associated with nuclear power plants. Ionizing radiation should not be confused with the lower-energy, non-ionizing, radiation with respect to possible biological effects, since the mechanisms of action are quite different.
Probably the most important use for RF energy is in providing telecommunications services. Radio and television broadcasting, cellular telephones, personal communications services (PCS), pagers, cordless telephones, business radio, radio communications for police and fire departments, amateur radio, microwave point-to-point links and satellite communications are just a few of the many telecommunications applications of RF energy. Microwave ovens are a good example of a non-communication use of RF energy. Radiofrequency radiation, especially at microwave frequencies, can transfer energy to water molecules. High levels of microwaves will generate heat in water-rich materials such as most foods. This efficient absorption of microwave energy via water molecules results in rapid heating throughout an object, thus allowing food to be cooked more quickly in a microwave oven than in a conventional oven. Other important non-communication uses of RF energy are for radar and for industrial heating and sealing. Radar is a valuable tool used in many applications from traffic enforcement to air traffic control and military applications. Industrial heaters and sealers generate RF radiation that rapidly heats the material being processed in the same way that a microwave oven cooks food. These devices have many uses in industry, including molding plastic materials, gluing wood products, sealing items such as shoes and pocketbooks, and processing food products. There are also a number of medical applications of RF energy.
An RF electromagnetic wave or RF "field" has both an electric and a magnetic component (electric field and magnetic field), and it is often convenient to express the intensity of the RF environment at a given location in terms of units specific for each component. For example, the unit "volts per meter" (V/m) is used to measure the strength of the electric field (electric "field strength"), and the unit "amperes per meter" (A/m) is used to express the strength of the magnetic field (magnetic "field strength"). Another commonly used unit for characterizing an RF electromagnetic field is "power density." Power density is most accurately used when the point of measurement is far enough away from an antenna to be located in what is commonly referred to as the "far-field" zone of the antenna.

Power density is defined as power per unit area. For example, power density can be expressed in terms of milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) or microwatts per square centimeter (µW/cm2). One mW equals 0.001 watt of power, and one µW equals 0.000001 watt. With respect to frequencies in the microwave range and higher, power density is usually used to express intensity.

The quantity used to measure how much RF energy is actually absorbed in a body is called the "Specific Absorption Rate" or "SAR." It is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW/g). In the case of exposure of the whole body, a standing human adult can absorb RF energy at a maximum rate when the frequency of the RF radiation is in the range of about 80 and 100 MHz. This means that the "whole-body" SAR is at a maximum under these conditions. Because of this "resonance" phenomenon, RF safety standards are generally most restrictive for these frequencies. For exposure of parts of the body, such as the exposure from hand-held mobile phones, SAR is also used to measure absorption or RF energy (see later questions on mobile phones).
Biological effects can result from animal or human exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load.

At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects have sometimes been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. Several years ago research reports began appearing in the scientific literature describing the observation of a range of low-level biological effects. However, in many cases further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, there has been no determination that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health.
Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there may be situations, particularly workplace environments near high- powered RF sources, where recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy.
Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF and microwave exposure and cancer. Results to date have been inconclusive. While some experimental data have suggested a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals exposed under certain specific conditions, the results have not been independently replicated. In fact, other studies have failed to find evidence for a causal link to cancer or any related condition. Further research is underway in several laboratories to help resolve this question. The Food and Drug Administration has further information on this topic with respect to RF exposure from mobile phones at the following Web site: www.fda.gov/cdrh/phones/index.html.
Exposure standards for radiofrequency energy have been developed by various organizations and countries. These standards recommend safe levels of exposure for both the general public and for workers. In the United States, the FCC has adopted and used recognized safety guidelines for evaluating RF environmental exposure since 1985. Federal health and safety agencies, such as the EPA, FDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have also been involved in monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure.

The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields were derived from the recommendations of two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Both the NCRP exposure criteria and the IEEE standard were developed by expert scientists and engineers after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to RF biological effects. The exposure guidelines are based on thresholds for known adverse effects, and they incorporate appropriate margins of safety. In adopting the most recent RF exposure guidelines, the FCC consulted with the EPA, FDA, OSHA and NIOSH, and obtained their support for the guidelines that the FCC is now using.

Many countries in Europe and elsewhere use exposure guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP safety limits are generally similar to those of the NCRP and IEEE, with a few exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends somewhat different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure due to such devices as hand-held cellular telephones. One of the goals of the WHO EMF Project (see above) is to provide a framework for international harmonization of RF safety standards.

The NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP exposure guidelines identify the same threshold level at which harmful biological effects may occur, and the values for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) recommended for electric and magnetic field strength and power density in both documents are based on this threshold level. The threshold level is a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value for the whole body of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg). In addition, the NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines are different for different transmitting frequencies. This is due to the findings (discussed above) that whole-body human absorption of RF energy varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently when the whole body is exposed. For devices that only expose part of the body, such as mobile phones, different exposure limits are specified (see below).

The exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The actual values can be found in either of two informational bulletins available at this Web site (OET Bulletin 56 or OET Bulletin 65), see listing for "OET Safety Bulletins."
The FCC authorizes and licenses devices, transmitters and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. However, the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Major RF transmitting facilities under the jurisdiction of the FCC, such as radio and television broadcast stations, satellite-earth stations, experimental radio stations and certain cellular, PCS and paging facilities are required to undergo routine evaluation for RF compliance whenever an application is submitted to the FCC for construction or modification of a transmitting facility or renewal of a license. Failure to comply with the FCC's RF exposure guidelines could lead to the preparation of a formal Environmental Assessment, possible Environmental Impact Statement and eventual rejection of an application. Technical guidelines for evaluating compliance with the FCC RF safety requirements can be found in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 (see "OET Safety Bulletins" listing elsewhere at this Web site).

Low-powered, intermittent, or inaccessible RF transmitters and facilities are normally "categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine evaluation for RF exposure. These exclusions are based on calculations and measurement data indicating that such transmitting stations or devices are unlikely to cause exposures in excess of the guidelines under normal conditions of use. The FCC's policies on RF exposure and categorical exclusion can be found in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's Rules and Regulations [(47 CFR 1.1307(b)]. It should be emphasized, however, that these exclusions are not exclusions from compliance, but, rather, only exclusions from routine evaluation. Transmitters or facilities that are otherwise categorically excluded from evaluation may be required, on a case-by-case basis, to demonstrate compliance when evidence of potential non-compliance of the transmitter or facility is brought to the Commission's attention [see 47 CFR 1.1307(c) and (d)].
In recent years, publicity, speculation, and concern over claims of possible health effects due to RF emissions from hand-held wireless telephones prompted industry-sponsored groups to initiate research programs to investigate whether there is any risk to users of these devices. Research organizations funded by the cellular industry and wireless equipment manufacturers, have been investigating potential health effects from the use of hand-held cellular telephones and other wireless devices, especially with respect to concerns that mobile phones might cause cancer.

There is no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss. However, studies are ongoing and key government agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to monitor the results of the latest scientific research on this topic. Also, as noted above, the World Health Organization has established an ongoing program to monitor research in this area and make recommendations related to the safety of mobile phones.

In 1993," the FDA, which has primary jurisdiction for investigating mobile phone safety, stated that it did not have enough information at that time to rule out the possibility of risk, but if such a risk exists, "it is probably small." The FDA concluded that there is no proof that cellular telephones can be harmful, but if individuals remain concerned several precautionary actions could be taken, including limiting conversations on hand-held cellular telephones and making greater use of telephones with vehicle-mounted antennas where there is a greater separation distance between the user and the radiating antennas. The Web site for the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health provides further information on mobile phone safety: www.fda.gov/cdrh/phones/index.html.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed a draft report of an investigation into safety concerns related to mobile phones. The report concludes that further research is needed to confirm whether mobile phones are completely safe for the user, and the report recommends that the FDA take the lead in monitoring the latest research results.

The FCC's exposure guidelines specify limits for human exposure to RF emissions from hand- held mobile phones in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the rate of absorption of RF energy by the body. The safe limit for a mobile phone user is an SAR of 1.6 watts per kg (1.6 W/kg), averaged over one gram of tissue, and compliance with this limit must be demonstrated before FCC approval is granted for marketing of a phone in the United States. Somewhat less restrictive limits, e.g., 2 W/kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue, are specified by the ICNIRP guidelines used in Europe and some other countries.

Measurements and analysis of SAR in models of the human head have shown that the 1.6 W/kg limit is unlikely to be exceeded under normal conditions of use of cellular and PCS hand-held phones. The same can be said for cordless telephones used in the home. Testing of hand-held phones is normally done under conditions of maximum power usage, thus providing an additional margin of safety, since most phone usage is not at maximum power. Information on SAR levels for many phones is available electronically through the FCC's Web site and database.
Cellular radio services transmit using frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz). Transmitters in the Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies in the range of 1850-1990 MHz. Antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions are typically located on towers, water tanks or other elevated structures including rooftops and the sides of buildings. The combination of antennas and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular or PCS "base station" or "cell site." Typical heights for free-standing base station towers or structures are 50-200 feet. A cellular base station may utilize several "omni-directional" antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, although these types of antennas are becoming less common in urban areas.

In urban and suburban areas, cellular and PCS service providers now more commonly use "sector" antennas for their base stations. These antennas are rectangular panels, e.g., about 1 by 4 feet in dimension, typically mounted on a rooftop or other structure, but they are also mounted on towers or poles. The antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three each. One antenna in each group is used to transmit signals to mobile units (car phones or hand-held phones), and the other two antennas in each group are used to receive signals from mobile units.

At a given cell or PCS site, the total RF power that could be transmitted from each transmitting antenna at a cell site depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) that have been authorized and the power of each transmitter. Typically, for a cellular base station, a maximum of 21 channels per sector (depending on the system) could be used. Thus, for a typical cell site utilizing sector antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters per site. When omni-directional antennas are used, up to 96 transmitters could be implemented at a cell site, but this would be very unusual. Furthermore, while a typical base station could have as many as 63 transmitters, not all of the transmitters would be expected to operate simultaneously thus reducing overall emission levels. For the case of PCS base stations, fewer transmitters are normally required due to the relatively greater number of base stations.

The signals from a cellular or PCS base station antenna are essentially directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the vertical plane. The radiation pattern for an omni- directional antenna might be compared to a thin doughnut or pancake centered around the antenna while the pattern for a sector antenna is fan-shaped, like a wedge cut from a pie. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less than exposures that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam.

Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower- mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure. In fact, in order to be exposed to levels at or near the FCC limits for cellular or PCS frequencies an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam (at the height of the antenna) and within a few feet from the antenna. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these guidelines due to cellular or PCS base station transmitters.

When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that ambient RF levels could be greater than those typically encountered on the ground. However, once again, exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are only likely to be encountered very close to or directly in front of the antennas. For sector-type antennas RF levels to the side and in back of these antennas are insignificant.

For further information on celluar radio systems go to www.fcc.gov/wtb/cellular/cellfaq.html
As discussed above, radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for wireless transmissions such as cellular and PCS signals result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times less than safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.

Other antennas, such as those used for radio and television broadcast transmissions, use power levels that are generally higher than those used for cellular and PCS antennas. Therefore, in some cases there could be a potential for higher levels of exposure on the ground. However, all broadcast stations are required to demonstrate compliance with FCC safety guidelines, and ambient exposures to nearby persons from such stations are typically well below FCC safety limits.
Radio and television broadcast stations transmit their signals via RF electromagnetic waves. There are thousands of radio and TV stations on the air in the United States. Broadcast stations transmit at various RF frequencies, depending on the channel, ranging from about 550 kHz for AM radio up to about 800 MHz for some UHF television stations. Frequencies for FM radio and VHF television lie in between these two extremes. Operating powers ("effective radiated power") can be as little as a few hundred watts for some radio stations or up to millions of watts for certain television stations. Some of these signals can be a significant source of RF energy in the local environment, and the FCC requires that broadcast stations submit evidence of compliance with FCC RF guidelines.

The amount of RF energy to which the public or workers might be exposed as a result of broadcast antennas depends on several factors, including the type of station, design characteristics of the antenna being used, power transmitted to the antenna, height of the antenna and distance from the antenna. Since energy at some frequencies is absorbed by the human body more readily than energy at other frequencies, the frequency of the transmitted signal as well as its intensity is important. Calculations can be performed to predict what field intensity levels would exist at various distances from an antenna.

Public access to broadcasting antennas is normally restricted so that individuals cannot be exposed to high-level fields that might exist near antennas. Measurements made by the FCC, EPA and others have shown that ambient RF radiation levels in inhabited areas near broadcasting facilities are typically well below the exposure levels recommended by current standards and guidelines. There have been a few situations around the country where RF levels in publicly accessible areas have been found to be higher than those recommended by applicable safety standards. But, in spite of the relatively high operating powers of many stations, such cases are unusual, and members of the general public are unlikely to be exposed to RF levels from broadcast towers that exceed FCC limits. Furthermore, wherever such situations have arisen corrective measures have been undertaken to ensure that areas promptly come into compliance with the applicable guidelines.

Antenna maintenance workers are occasionally required to climb antenna structures for such purposes as painting, repairs, or beacon replacement. Both the EPA and OSHA have reported that in these cases it is possible for a worker to be exposed to high levels of RF energy if work is performed on an active tower or in areas immediately surrounding a radiating antenna. Therefore, precautions should be taken to ensure that maintenance personnel are not exposed to unsafe RF fields.
Point-to-point microwave antennas transmit and receive microwave signals across relatively short distances (from a few tenths of a mile to 30 miles or more). These antennas are usually rectangular or circular in shape and are normally found mounted on a supporting tower, on rooftops, sides of buildings or on similar structures that provide clear and unobstructed line-of- sight paths between both ends of a transmission path or link. These antennas have a variety of uses such as transmitting voice and data messages and serving as links between broadcast or cable-TV studios and transmitting antennas.

The RF signals from these antennas travel in a directed beam from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna, and dispersion of microwave energy outside of the relatively narrow beam is minimal or insignificant. In addition, these antennas transmit using very low power levels, usually on the order of a few watts or less. Measurements have shown that ground-level power densities due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety limits. Moreover, as an added margin of safety, microwave tower sites are normally inaccessible to the general public. Significant exposures from these antennas could only occur in the unlikely event that an individual were to stand directly in front of and very close to an antenna for a period of time.

Ground-based antennas used for satellite-earth communications typically are parabolic "dish" antennas, some as large as 10 to 30 meters in diameter, that are used to transmit ("uplinks") or receive ("downlinks") microwave signals to or from satellites in orbit around the earth. The satellites receive the signals beamed up to them and, in turn, retransmit the signals back down to an earthbound receiving station. These signals allow delivery of a variety of communications services, including long distance telephone service. Some satellite-earth station antennas are used only to receive RF signals (i.e., just like a rooftop television antenna used at a residence), and, since they do not transmit, RF exposure is not an issue.

Since satellite-earth station antennas are directed toward satellites above the earth, transmitted beams point skyward at various angles of inclination, depending on the particular satellite being used. Because of the longer distances involved, power levels used to transmit these signals are relatively large when compared, for example, to those used by the microwave point-to-point antennas discussed above. However, as with microwave antennas, the beams used for transmitting earth-to-satellite signals are concentrated and highly directional, similar to the beam from a flashlight. In addition, public access would normally be restricted at station sites where exposure levels could approach or exceed safe limits.

Although many satellite-earth stations are "fixed" sites, portable uplink antennas are also used, e.g., for electronic news gathering. These antennas can be deployed in various locations. Therefore, precautions may be necessary, such as temporarily restricting access in the vicinity of the antenna, to avoid exposure to the main transmitted beam. In general, however, it is unlikely that a transmitting earth station antenna would routinely expose members of the public to potentially harmful levels of microwaves.
Radiofrequency warning or "alerting" signs should be used to provide information on the presence of RF radiation or to control exposure to RF radiation within a given area. Standard radiofrequency hazard warning signs are commercially available from several vendors. Appropriate signs should incorporate the format recommended by the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and as specified in the IEEE standard: IEEE C95.2-1999 (Web address: www.ieee.org ). When signs are used, meaningful information should be placed on the sign advising of the potential for high RF fields. In some cases, it may be appropriate to also provide instructions to direct individuals as to how to work safely in the RF environment of concern. Signs should be located prominently in areas that will be readily seen by those persons who may potentially have access to an area where RF fields are present.
Over the past several years there has been concern that signals from some RF devices could interfere with the operation of implanted electronic pacemakers and other medical devices. Because pacemakers are electronic devices, they could be susceptible to electromagnetic signals that could cause them to malfunction. Some claims of such effects in the past involved emissions from microwave ovens. However, it has never been shown that signals from a microwave oven are strong enough to cause such interference.

Some studies have shown that mobile phones can interfere with implanted cardiac pacemakers if a phone is used in close proximity (within about 8 inches) of a pacemaker. To avoid this potential problem, pacemaker patients can avoid placing a phone in a pocket close to the location of their pacemaker or otherwise place the phone near the pacemaker location during phone use. Patients with pacemakers should consult their physician or the FDA if they believe that they may have a problem related to RF interference. Further information on this is available from the FDA: www.fda.gov/cdrh .
The Commission does not regulate exposure to radiation emissions from these devices. Protecting the public from harmful radiation emissions from these consumer products are the responsibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Inquries should be directed to the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and, specifically, to the CDRH Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4654.
The FCC does not have the resources nor the personnel to routinely monitor the emissions for all the thousands of transmitters that are subject to FCC jurisdiction. However, the FCC does have measurement instrumentation for evaluating RF levels in areas that may be accessible to the public or to workers. If there is evidence for potential non-compliance with FCC exposure guidelines for an FCC-regulated facility, staff from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology or the Enforcement Bureau can conduct and investigation, and, if appropriate, perform actual measurements. Potential exposure problems should be brought to the FCC's attention by contacting the FCC RF Safety Program at: 1-888-225-5322 or by e-mail: rfsafety@fcc.gov.
The Commission does not have a transmitter-specific database for all the services it regulates. The Commission has limited information for some services such as radio and television broadcast stations, and many larger antenna towers are required to register with the FCC if they meet certain criteria. In those cases, location is generally specified in terms of degrees, minutes, and seconds. However, this is not sufficient to distinguish between collocated transmitters. In some services, licenses are allowed to use additional transmitters or to increase power without filing with the Commission. Other services are licensed by geographic area, such that the Commission has no knowledge concerning the actual number or location of transmitters within a given geographic area.

The FCC General Menu Reports (GENMen) search engine unites most of the Commission's licensing databases under a single umbrella. Databases included are the Wireless Telecommunication Bureau's ULS, the Media Bureau's CDBS, COALS (cable data) and BLS, the International Bureau's IBFS and. Entry points into the various databases include frequency, state/county, latitude/longitude, callsign and licensee name.

The FCC also publishes on at least a weekly basis, bulk extracts of the various Commission licensing databases. Each licensing database has it own unique file structure. These extracts consisted of multiple, very large files. OET maintains an index to these databases.

OET has developed has developed a Spectrum Utilization Study Software tool-set that can be used to create a MS ACCESS version of the individual exported licensing databases and then create MapInfo "mid" and "mif" files so that radio assignments can be plotted. This experimental software is used to conduct internal spectrum utilization studies needed in the rulemaking process. No technical support is proved.

For further information on the Commission's existing databases, please contact Donald Campbell at dcampbel@fcc.gov or 202-418-2405.
Certain agencies in the Federal Government have been involved in monitoring, researching or regulating issues related to human exposure to RF radiation. These agencies include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD).

By authority of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the FDA develops performance standards for the emission of radiation from electronic products including X-ray equipment, other medical devices, television sets, microwave ovens, laser products and sunlamps. The CDRH established a product performance standard for microwave ovens in 1971 limiting the amount of RF leakage from ovens. However, the CDRH has not adopted performance standards for other RF-emitting products. The FDA is, however, the lead federal health agency in monitoring the latest research developments and advising other agencies with respect to the safety of RF-emitting products used by the public, such as cellular and PCS phones.

The FDA's microwave oven standard is an emission standard (as opposed to an exposure standard) that allows specific levels of microwave leakage (measured at five centimeters from the oven surface). The standard also requires ovens to have two independent interlock systems that prevent the oven from generating microwaves the moment that the latch is released or the door of the oven is opened. The FDA has stated that ovens that meet its standards and are used according to the manufacturer's recommendations are safe for consumer and industrial use. More information is available from: www.fda.gov/cdrh.

The EPA has, in the past, considered developing federal guidelines for public exposure to RF radiation. However, EPA activities related to RF safety and health are presently limited to advisory functions. For example, the EPA now chairs an Inter-agency Radiofrequency Working Group, which coordinates RF health-related activities among the various federal agencies with health or regulatory responsibilities in this area.

OSHA is responsible for protecting workers from exposure to hazardous chemical and physical agents. In 1971, OSHA issued a protection guide for exposure of workers to RF radiation [29 CFR 1910.97]. However, this guide was later ruled to be only advisory and not mandatory. Moreover, it was based on an earlier RF exposure standard that has now been revised. At the present time, OSHA uses the IEEE and/or FCC exposure guidelines for enforcement purposes under OSHA's "general duty clause" (for more information see: www.osha- slc.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/index.html ).

NIOSH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It conducts research and investigations into issues related to occupational exposure to chemical and physical agents. NIOSH has, in the past, undertaken to develop RF exposure guidelines for workers, but final guidelines were never adopted by the agency. NIOSH conducts safety-related RF studies through its Physical Agents Effects Branch in Cincinnati,Ohio.

The NTIA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce and is responsible for authorizing Federal Government use of the RF electromagnetic spectrum. Like the FCC, the NTIA also has NEPA responsibilities and has considered adopting guidelines for evaluating RF exposure from U.S. Government transmitters such as radar and military facilities.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has conducted research on the biological effects of RF energy for a number of years. This research is now conducted primarily at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory located at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
In the United States some local and state jurisdictions have also enacted rules and regulations pertaining to human exposure to RF energy. However, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contained provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions from certain transmitting devices.. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Further information on FCC policy with respect to facilities siting is available in a factsheet from the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (see www.fcc.gov/wtb).
Although relatively few offices or agencies within the Federal Government routinely deal with the issue of human exposure to RF fields, it is possible to obtain information and assistance on certain topics from the following federal agencies. Most of these agencies also have Internet Web sites.

FDA: For information about radiation from microwave ovens and other consumer and industrial products contact: Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, Radiation Biology Branch, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-7118.

EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation Programs is responsible for monitoring potential health effects due to public exposure to RF fields. Contact: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 564-9235.

OSHA: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Health Response Team (1781 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84165) has been involved in studies related to occupational exposure to RF radiation. Phone: (801) 524-7906.

NIOSH: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) monitors RF- related safety issues as they pertain to the workplace. Contact: NIOSH, Physical Agents Effects Branch, Mail Stop C-27, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. Toll-free number: 1-800-35-NIOSH (1-800-356-4674) or (513) 533-8153.

DOD: Questions regarding Department of Defense activities related to RF safety and its biological research program can be directed to the Radio Frequency Radiation Branch, Air Force Research Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235, (210) 536-4833.

FCC: Questions regarding potential RF hazards from FCC-regulated transmitters can be directed to the RF Safety Program, Office of Engineering and Technology, Technical Analysis Branch, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Phone: 1-888-225-5322. E-mail: rfsafety@fcc.gov. Web site: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety.

In addition to government agencies, there are other sources of information regarding RF energy and health effects. Some states maintain non-ionizing radiation programs or, at least, some expertise in this field, usually in a department of public health or environmental control. The following table lists some representative Internet Web sites that provide information on this topic. However, the FCC neither endorses or verifies the accuracy of any information provided at these sites. They are being provided for information only.











by Dee Finney, Michelle Lavigne-Wedel and Alex

and others as named

Where did our children get all their ideas??? From us???

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when
they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped
and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about,
so we won't spank them anymore..


Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline
our children when they misbehave.

And the school administrators said no faculty member in this
school better touch a student when they misbehave because
we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to
be sued. And we accepted their reasoning..


Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if
they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.

And we said, that's a grand idea..


Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be
boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all
the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire,
and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And we said, that's another great idea..


Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter
what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.

And agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what
anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have
a job and the economy is good.


And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of
nude women and call it wholesome down-to-earth appreciation
for the beauty of the female body.

And we said we have no problem with that.


And someone else took that appreciation a step further and
published pictures of children and then stepped further still by
making them available on the Internet.

And we said they're entitled to their free speech.


And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows
and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex.
And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder,
suicide, and satanic themes.

And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, and
nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead..


Therefore, now we're asking ourselves why our children have no
conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it
doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and


Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can
figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with...



In light of the recent shooting in Michigan,

Dear God:

"Why didn't you save the little girl in Michigan?"


Concerned Student


Dear Concerned Student:

"I am not allowed in schools."

Sincerely, God


Pass it on if you think it has merit! If not then just discard.....
but if you discard this thought process, then don't
sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in...



On 2-6-2001, I was reading a book titled 'Lessons' by Michelle Lavigne-Wedel and Alex. I was particularly struck by the warnings that 'frequency sickness' is deadly'. I already had heard that people were getting ill from being around television and microwave towers, cell phones, microwave ovens, and other devices that are supposedly 'good' for us.

Alex tells us that our mission on earth is to raise the 'frequency' of earth so that it becomes 'one' with the Universe.

Instead, we seem to be going the wrong direction. Though Alex speaks eloquently about the clash of frequencies on earth between people and nature and how the conflict between 'tones' are called 'frequency sickness', he goes on to tell about 'frequency sickness' itself. It is much larger and more deadly than one would suspect. He tells us though, that we can ultimately solve the problem ... in brief see what he has to say:

Alex states: "Frequency sickness is a global affliction. This means it effects all physical things in a particular portion of a node, or in this case, a planet in physical space. Even in its most diluted form, it soon creates damage to the mesh of the universe. Frequency sickness causes the resonance of the energy that makes physical matter force itself to adapt to the new tone in order to exist. Depending on the interval between the conquering tone and the original tone, this adaptation may be mild or extreme. Everything in that fragment of physical existence is effected by it, without exception. "

He goes on to say, "The suppression of the Earth tone, and the subsequent invasion by other tones, has caused this sickness. Its symptoms are easy to see around you. The easiest to see are physical sickness, mental illness, and hatred. Other less obvious symptoms include competition, want and envy. "

Alex tells us that there are still some people who are some small groups of people who are not greatly affected by this frequency sickness. They have never interacted with outsiders. They communicate in harmony with each other and nature, using a form of telepathy ... they call it 'knowing'. Those people are not as sick as those in civilization because they are in closer tune with the earth itself.

Alex says: "In civilized man, mental illness is more prevalent and affects many more people than you think. Depression, aggression and anxiety are all forms of this problem."

"Extreme aggression, as can be seen in the senseless killings and crimes prevalent in civilized society, are often augmented by chemical influences that cause the body to be further off frequency than it was when it was created. The negative emotions are often caused by the frustration the soul is feeling as it tries to struggle to maintain a frequency extremely foreign to it. Sometimes this struggle will take an inward turn and the individual will be washed with thoughts of suicide. More often, the frustration is directed outwardly and violence is its outlet."

"Chemical addictions are the physical manifestation of the body's need to maintain a strong frequency. In this case, it is the frequency created by the chemical effect on the physical body."

"Often, children going through puberty will experience bouts of extreme frequency sickness that manifest themselves in the form of mental illness. "

"They may not be properly prepared to handle this much frequency discord. Depression and pain caused by this problem can be overpowering, driving these children to release their hold in the physical world to escape from the pain. They, in Earth terms, take their own lives."

"Many negative frequencies are in place and very active on Earth. Some are knowingly hidden, such as those in music; just as we have inspired positive frequencies purposely hidden in music. Most of the negative energies in place around you are coming from your power lines, sub-stations, and even your television and computer screens. The energy they give forth is highly disturbing to most individuals. It has even been known to cause physical death. "

"The disease human's named cancer is a more complex indication of frequency sickness. This disease is triggered by just about every form of frequency disturbance. ... Electricity, as everything else in this world, has magnetism. Unlike most things in place aorund you, the majority of manmade electricity has an alternating polarization of its magnetic forces. This switching can prove confusing to the cells of your physical body if they are exposed to extremes of this effect. Some of your cells may see this unfamiliar electrical signal as a sign to reproduce and change in order to accommodate the new signal. "


DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor, so my personal opinions are not on this page. All you will see are links to other pages where the people are experts on this topic.

Become a member and get all products at wholesale cost
Featured product - Indole 3 Carbinol
studies show that this is the cure for cancer
studies also show that Indole 3 Carbinol prevents cancer
Tested and approved by the FDA
Indole-3-carbinol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indole-3-carbinol (C9H9NO) is produced by the breakdown of the glucosinolate glucobrassicin
which can be found at relatively high levels in cruciferous vegetables ...


"Other times, these electric disturbances can cause the DNA, which is a physical coding of energy, to become damaged and reproduce a defective physical body. In some cases, a damaged DNA strain will cause a cancerous response. "

"The most dangerous symptom of frequency sickness is the way it unites individuals who are afflicted with the same discourse. Remember those with like tones want to surround themselves with like tones. This causes all types of hate groups. The same frequency problem that causes one man to be hateful, causes many with a tendency to harmonize with his frequency to gather around him and do his will. The same frequency discord that causes one Earther to hate another will band people with like frequency discord together and war will start. "

"These wars may be fought over excuses such as land, religion, or resources. Do not be fooled. The real reason any two people, or any two people, fight is the same. They are afflicted by a frequency sickness and any whose frequency clashes with their own will be the enemy."

"Remember that the Earth has a frequency of her own. You are here to tune it. You can only do that if your own frequency is as strong and pure as it can be. You have to listen to the song of the Earth, but do not be fooled into thinking it is in true harmony. It is not, or you would not be here. You have to dance to the song of the universe, for that is the true harmony of your soul. That is the truth of harmony the Earth is reaching for."

Used with permission of Sweetgrasspress.com
copyright by Michelle LaVigne-Wedel

Read the book for the rest of the story: 'Lessons' by Michelle Lavigne-Wedel and Alex.
After reading this book, you will never be the same again. !

Cell Phone Dangers Are Real
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
You do risk cancer from gabbing away on your cell phone despite media reports and reassuring government statements that say there is no demonstrated danger in using the omnipresent devices.

So says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who headed a research program funded by the cellular phone industry, and co-author with journalist Martin Schram of "Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age."

Writing in USA Today, Carlo reveals that media coverage of three epidemiological studies this winter produced mainly reassuring headlines saying the studies showed no link between cell phones and cancer missed some very important points.

"If journalists had paused to consider what the new studies were really saying – and not saying – we'd have a more realistic but less reassuring picture," Carlo wrote in describing the studies, two from the U.S. and a third done in Denmark.

The studies, which were not laboratory experiments but "statistical analyses of people who used cell phones and people who had brain tumors." The analysis, he wrote, had flaws.

The U.S. studies, which looked at the period between the early and mid-1990s, dealt with minimal cell phone use – with people who spent an average of 2.5 hours or less a month. Moreover, most owners had used cell phones for less than three years. Today, Carlo notes, millions use their cell phones for 20 hours or more a month and have been doing so for many years.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) study in the New England Journal of Medicine responsibly noted, ''The most important limitation of our study is its limited precision for assessing the risks after a potential induction period of more than several years or among people with very high levels of daily or cumulative use.''

  • The studies were small and looked at the wrong type of brain tumors. "Tumors in almost all patients were located in interior regions of the skull that couldn't be reached by cell phone radiation, which penetrates only two inches inside adult skulls," he notes, adding that there is scant comfort in proving the obvious fact that such tumors could not be caused by cell phone use.
  • The NCI study of 782 brain-cancer patients published in the New England Journal of Medicine admitted that ''a much larger sample would be required'' to properly detect cell phone radiation risks. The other U.S. study, of just 469 brain cancer patients, failed to mention its own size limitation when published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
  • That study also shrugged off what Carlo described as "its most chilling finding" – the doubling of cancer risk in 35 patients in a small subgroup who had neuroepithelial tumors, which are near the sides of the head, close to a cell phone antenna.

    Overall, the studies failed to refute the alarming findings of lab experiments that appear to link cell phones to cancer by showing that human blood cells exposed to cell phone radiation suffered genetic damage, damage cancer experts consider to be a diagnostic marker of ''high risk'' for developing tumors.

    "Will people who begin using cell phones as children or teens be high risks for developing brain cancer in their 40s or 50s?" Carlo asks, saying that no studies have answered that question and it will take as long as 20 years before long-term epidemiological studies can either give us truly comforting assurance or flag real danger.

    Schram and Carlo recommend that until the final results are in, cell phone users should take such simple precautions as using a headset in such a way as to keep the radiation-emitting antenna away from their heads.

    People should also, Carlo warns in USA Today, "read the fine print of any new studies that come in."

    FROM: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/30/121604.shtml

December 21, 2004


A dispatch from Reuters yesterday reports on a new European Union-funded study showing that radio waves from mobile phones harm body cells and damage DNA in laboratory conditions. Mutated DNA cells of the kind reported in the study are seen as a possible cause of cancer. According to Reuters, the study's director, Dr. Franz Adlkofer of Germany, "advised against the use of a mobile phone when an alternative fixed line phone was available."

This is not the first such study of mobile phone dangers. In October, a Swedish study (published in the journal Epidemiology) by epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm found that those who used cell phones for ten years double the danger of getting tumors on the acoustic nerve (called acoustic neromas).

And two years earlier, a study published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention reported that brain tumors nearly doubled among those who used mobile phones for ten years.

If you're interested in this under-reported issue, you'll find credible, science-based information at Microwave News, which the scientist/journalist Louis Slesin has run for 25 years. Slesin has been a lonely voice trying to get attention paid to the dangers of cell phones despite an industry-funded campaign to stifle such information, in which the major media have been complicit.

I confess to a particular dislike for mobile phones--I consider them irritatingly anti-social, as Umberto Ecco painted them in a witty anti-cell phone essay a couple of years ago (it has, unfortunately, not been published in English as far as I know) proclaiming that only doctors and similar folk really needed these self-indulgent apparatuses. People who drive while talking on their cell phones are maddeningly dangerous (many European countries now have laws against doing so, as do some states here, like New York and New Jersey). On the streets, pedestrians who don't look where they're going because they're yammering on their cells constantly jostle one needlessly. The frequent interruptions of conversations with someone calling from a cell phone are rivaled in their annoyance factor only by the often watery, scratchy, and feeble voice signal mobile phones can produce. And now those of us with Luddite sympathies can bolster our aesthetic arguments with more than enough credible evidence to suggest that these noxious instruments are dangerous to one's health as well. Stick to your land lines, kids....

Posted by Doug Ireland


Antenna Farm, Denver, Colorado

Microwave Antenna

1999: Antenna Towers - Frequency Sickness

From: Colorado, City Mountain News - Essay by Carole Lamond
Read the complete essay here

This essay edited for space - please click on the link to read it in its entirety

Denver mass media did not report that the industrial proposal for historic Lookout Mountain would have tripled electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and radio frequency (RF) interference for 35,000 Greater Golden residents and businesses. The Jefferson County Commissioners denied the Denver TV station’s proposal of an 850-foot tower and 35,000 square foot industrial building for hundreds of devices, much more than“HDTV” transmitters.

The public was not informed that the 100 transmission devices operating on Lookout Mountain in 1980 grew to 1000 devices by 1996. The power output increased from two million watts in 1979 to 14 million watts by 1999.

Broadcasters omit the fact that 75% of TV is received by cable or satellite because over-the-air signals don’t “cover” all of Denver metro from any site in mountain terrain. Signals from Lookout are not received in the east shadow of the Table Mountains and southeast shadow of Green Mountain, the greater Evergreen-Conifer area; and don’t drop into the “Boulder Valley” without booster or translator devices.

The media did not report that RF signals on Lookout towers trespass into hundreds of homes, businesses and the public elementary school at higher altitudes on Lookout and Genesee mountains. Antennas, transmitters, and microwave dishes send RF signals from towers based at an altitude of 7200 feet directly into homes at 7300 to 7800 feet.

According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), there are only a “half dozen intense antenna tower sites in residential areas” nationwide. None, except Lookout, send signals directly into family homes at the same altitude as the transmitters. For 50 years, JeffCo and the FCC accepted industry’s claim that RF is sent from “above average terrain.”

A developer purchased the land in 1906 in exchange for a pipeline right-of-way crossing Lookout from Squaw Mountain. The Lariat Trail, a 4.5-mile switchback road that rises 2,000 feet from Golden to Lookout, was built in 1914.

By 1948, there were 254 “improved properties” in Mt. Vernon Canyon. The first broadcast tower was erected east of Buffalo Bill’s Grave in 1953. There were five towers on Lookout supporting TV transmitters when all plats were zoned residential in 1956.

After Interstate-70 was constructed through Mt. Vernon Canyon in 1972, more RF devices were placed on more towers without due process. JeffCo ignored the proliferation, so antenna owners increased using convenient Lookout because they could.

Americans awaken to “environmental pollution”

During the 1950s, Americans were not aware of the dangers of tobacco, DDT, pesticides, asbestos, ionizing and nonionizing radiation, toxic chemical manufacturing, water and air pollution. Golden and Lookout residents assumed the close proximity of the towers would provide better television reception. Rocky Flats was built in the 1950s.

In 1971, Russian intelligence bombarded the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with microwave radiation to record conversations. The Embassy staff suffered from severe “radio frequency sickness”—chronic fatigue, sleeplessness, irritability, mental confusion, head and muscle aches, and serious life-threatening illness. A U.S. military investigation, Project Pandora, found that the staff had been bombarded with RF radiation measuring from 5 to 15 microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2).

The most competent nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) scientists are Russians who convinced their government to limit public exposure from 0.5 for pulsed signals to 5 uW/cm2 for other signals. American RF industry has always quietly stood in the shadow of the military preference for limited long-term biological effect research. The recommended “public” exposure limit in the United States was 1000 uW/cm2 until 1991 when it was reduced to 200. Citizens passing-by, 24-hour residents and 8-hour employees and are lumped together for the “public” standard.

Responding to citizen concerns, Congress funded comprehensive research and adopted regulations to control pollution from all toxic industries except RF broadcasting. American mass media reported all polluters except themselves.

Extreme RF proliferation during the 1980s

In spite of citizen opposition, additions on Lookout during the late 1970s and 1980s were:

  • KUSA Channel 9 tower for a weather radar device to sweep the residential community every 65 seconds with a potential of 1.55 billion watts, without a required JeffCo permit
  • PBS affiliate KRMA rented tower space(adjacent to historic Boettcher Mansion and the Lookout Mountain Nature Center) to KCFR and KUVO public radio without JeffCo public hearings. Cumulative radiation has exceeded the 200 uW/cm2 limit ever since
  • A half-acre tower site near Buffalo Bill’s Grave was rezoned to Planned Development
  • Hundreds of two-way and microwave devices were added without public due process

Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) carefully evaluated health and safety studies and adopted an NIER limit of 200 uW/cm2, one-fifth of the national standard, in 1982.

Assuming that an alternative site would limit proliferation on Lookout, JeffCo approved a “consolidated” tower on Mt. Morrison at 8,000 altitude in 1988, against strong opposition from Genesee residents. The site is nearly 1000 feet higher than Lookout and is surrounded by JeffCo Open Space and Red Rocks Park. The new 380-foot tower was built adjacent to an existing (early 1960s) microwave relay for cable television and Denver police emergency system.

The 1986 EPA-FCC Investigation

Responding to citizens’ request, the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Communications Commission conducted a one-week study of Lookout in September, 1986. The EPA report included warnings:

“The number of (broadcast) stations and their close proximity to one another and to residential areas make the Lookout antenna farms unusual… (causing) a complex electromagnetic environment…

During the 1980s, the Reagan administration gradually cut funding of environmental research related to health effects. Pressure from the RF industry ended EPA research of non-thermal (biological) effects of NIER by 1988. Most elected representatives were seduced by the RF industry slogan: “Health concerns are not an issue.”There has been no government funded, independent research of the long-term biological effects from exposure to low levels of radiation. Industry has always claimed that “harmful effects have not been proven.”

The 1996 Telecommunication Act

The wireless, broadcast and electronics industries developed the revolutionary legislation from 1988 to 1995. After donating millions to Congressional campaigns, especially to members of Commerce Committees, the Act was adopted in February, 1996. Congress gave $70 billion in free DTV spectrums to all broadcast TV stations, a sizeable benefit to American taxpayers. The FCC set a timeline for stations to add the digital transmission they had lobbied to receive. TV stations prepared to add a channel that can be divided into multiple channels with interactive capability for extraordinary future profits. Congress apparently does not consider $70 billion as “federal financing.” All “mandates” using federal funds require comprehensive environmental impact studies to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act.

The TelCom Act prohibits local elected representatives from denying low-power, wireless antenna tower installations based on “environmental” effects. In October, 1997, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) petitioned the FCC to preempt local land use decisions for adding high-power, digital (DTV or HDTV) UHF television transmitters. CARE opposed this in a public comment letter.

. .

As of the FAA's November 2, 1998 update, New York State had 728
tower sites of which 80 were tower farms containing more than one tower


As of June 1999, over 40,000 lighted towers and tower farms were registered in the FAA database of obstacles in the United States that exceed 200 feet in height. FAA regulations require that towers that stand 200 feet or higher have lights so pilots can avoid them. Taller towers often have guy wires to keep them standing. This combination of lights and guy wires is the source of bird mortality at such towers. On clear nights, birds migrate at altitudes higher than most tower heights. When the cloud ceiling is low, or on foggy nights, birds migrate at lower altitudes and apparently fly towards the lights on the towers. They strike the guy wires or collide with one another. The current rate of tower construction indicates that numbers of such towers is on course to more than double over the next decade. With more towers, there will be more dead birds.

Of the five long-term studies that have been conducted at single tall towers (800+ ft. high), annual documented mortality ranged from 375 to 3,285 bird carcasses per year (20 year average). About half the birds were found dead over many months rather than at single night catastrophes. In Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 1,000 or more birds have been killed at a single 1,000-ft tower on 24 nights since 1957, and a record 30,000 birds were estimated killed on one night in the mid-1970s.

At the current rate of construction, the number of towers in the United States is likely to double to 80,000 by 2010. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was designed to facilitate the rapid build-out of a massive telecommunications infrastructure in the United States. The institution of digital television will add even more tall towers to the landscape. Similar expansion is underway in Latin America and Canada. The toll on migratory birds in the Americas from communication towers is likely to increase substantially, but no effort is underway to assess the cumulative impact of towers or to minimize that impact.


March 19, 1998 - Up the road in Hamden, the town zoning board is considering an application by WKCI (101.3) to build a new 625-foot tower on Gaylord Mountain Road, just down the hill from WKCI's current site on the tower of WTNH (Channel 8). WTNH isn't renewing WKCI's lease for tower space -- so WKCI needs the new stick to stay on the air from its current site. Neighbors are expressing the usual concerns about a "tower farm" in their backyards...

June 28, 2000 Limington Free Press

Public safety issues relate both to the tower structure itself and radio frequency emissions. Most ordinances require a property line setback of between 100% to 125% of the tower height. Ordinances usually also require some certification as to the mechanical strength of the tower and require periodic structural inspections. The Federal Government has prohibited local jurisdictions from setting radio frequency emission standards higher than the federal guidelines. These standards are based on the heating effects of the radio waves on biological tissue and many people feel that the standards do not protect the health of the public. In fact, many countries have established far more restrictive standards than the United States. For example, in places in Europe, the maximum allowable exposure level is 100 times lower than here. Additional information on this subject can be found at www.EMRnetwork.org. Local jurisdictions do have the authority and responsibility to require monitoring of these emissions and some ordinances require periodic testing paid for at the owner's expense. The Limington Planning Board declined to require any periodic testing or inspections.

Visual impacts of communication towers are also often a major concern. Some shorter towers are made to look like trees or clock towers to protect the character of a neighborhood. Height and tower lights are the two most important factors that affect visual impact. Most ordinances also prohibit advertising and require the towers be painted to blend into the background (unless FAA requirements dictate otherwise.) Impacts are also reduced when different companies are required to share the same tower (co-location). Everyone has seen examples of "tower farms" where multiple towers from different companies are located adjacent or close to each other. This remains a major issue in West Baldwin where WMTW Channel 8 wants to build "for business reasons" a second TV transmission tower only two miles from the existing WCSH Channel 6 tower.

Finally the rapidly evolving technology of telecommunications has resulted and will result in many unused and obsolete towers. Most ordinances provide that towers which remain unused for more than a year must be taken down. For example there is a tower near Cornish which has not been used for years but remains as a permanent part of the landscape even though it may serve no useful public purpose. The first cell towers to be erected in an area are usually taller towers to gain a wide coverage area. As cell phone usage increases in the region, more numerous but shorter towers are then built so that the individual cell coverage size can be kept smaller.


From: http://www.hud.gov/fha/sfh/buying/buyhm.html#TOC#23

Our wonderful government tells us this:


There are no definitive research findings that indicate exposure to power lines results in greater instances of disease or illness.

Tower Hazards and Radiation Exposure Above Tolerance

large graphics


Excerpted from the 1999 Florida Report

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

EMF in the transmission line frequency range (60 Hertz) is classified as "non-ionizing radiation", as compared to ionizing radiation like X-rays.

The potential for health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from electric power lines and electrical appliances is a source of concern to the public at large. Citizens have been voicing their fears and concerns in Florida for over a decade. As a result of citizen concerns, the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) adopted in 1989, a rule limiting EMF from electrical transmission lines and substations. Due to the lack of competent scientific evidence that exposure to power line EMF would produce adverse health effects, the ERC based the field strength standards on the premise that new transmission lines and substations should not produce fields greater than the EMF from lines already existing. The ERC also required the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to monitor EMF scientific research and to submit annual reports on the findings.

During 1999, the DEP sent staff to the 1999 Bioelectromagnetic Society Twentieth Annual Meeting held in Long Beach in June. We reviewed the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences’ NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. The DEP staff has reviewed articles in the EMF Health & Safety Digest, Bioelectromagnetics Newsletters, and Bioelectromagnetics (Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine).

The most significant event in 1999, was the publication of the NIEHS report to Congress. The NIEHS, a department under the National Institute of Health (NIH), was charged by Congress to prepare and submit an evaluation of the potential human health effects from exposure to extremely low frequency (50-60 Hz) electric and magnetic fields (EMF). This report was completed in early May 1999.

The working group report drew conclusions on the strength and robustness of the experimental data related to extremely low frequency EMF exposure and its implication for human health and disease etiology.

The findings of the Working Group were published in the Assessment of Health Effects report in August. The Working Group made a final evaluation of the carcinogenicity of extremely low electric and magnetic fields (EL EMF) following the protocol of the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC). The Working Group also made final evaluations for non-cancer endpoints by a similar procedure. The majority of the Working Group (19 of 30) concluded that ELF EMF are possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B category). Eight members of the group considered that the evidence on EMF fell into the IARC Group 3 category - "ELF EMF are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans". One member of the group considered that the weight of the evidence pointed to IARC Group 4 - "ELF EMF are probably not carcinogenic to humans". (Editors note: They didn't say it wasn't. Probably does not mean 'NOT')

In arriving at their conclusion of possible carcinogenicity the Working Group used evidence from epidemiological studies to support their finding. Twenty out of the twenty-six members that voted concluded that there is limited evidence that residential EMF is carcinogenic to children based on childhood leukemia studies. Three lines of evidence were cited in supporting the conclusion: the association between calculated magnetic fields and risk of leukemia; the association between exposure to measured 24-hour fields and leukemias risk for children; and the association between wire codes and risk of leukemia. The group also felt that there is inadequate evidence from spot measurements of EMF to support a finding of risk to children. A smaller majority (14 out of 26) considered that there is limited evidence that occupational exposure to EMF is a risk to humans based on chronic lymphocytic leukemia studies.

Of the Working Group that voted, they were almost unanimous in concluding that: there is inadequate evidence of an association between occupational exposure to EL EMF and other cancers; inadequate evidence of residential exposure being cancerous to adults; inadequate evidence with respect to childhood nervous system tumors; and inadequate evidence with respect to childhood lymphoma. The Working group also felt that either there was inadequate evidence in experimental animals (in vivo) for the carcinogenicity of EMF exposure or that there was evidence of a lack of effect.

Using the IARC guidelines the Working Group concluded that a limited number of well performed studies provide moderate evidence that for mechanistic plausible effects of ELF EMF in vitro at intensities greater than 100 microTesla (1 Gauss) on end-points generally regarded as reflecting the action of toxic agents. The Working Group also concluded that there is only weak support for an effect of fields less than 100 microTesla. (NOTE: They studied animals who cannot speak ... not human beings)

For the non-cancer adverse health effects that were considered by the Working Group, none of the evidence considered was weighted as exceeding "inadequate " for humans or "weak" for animals. The human studies considered addressed adverse birth outcomes after maternal exposure, adverse reproductive effects after paternal exposure, Alzheimer disease, AMLS and other motor neuron diseases, suicide and depression, and cardiovascular disease. There is one biological effect with a health impact found to have "strong" evidence supporting an EMF effect. Exposure to electric and magnetic fields affects bone repair and adaptation. The Working Group could not reach a decision on whether EMF exposure could effect nervous and non-bone connective tissue repair. Weak evidence was noted for EMF affect on heart-rate variability and on short term human exposure causing sleep disturbance and melatonin suppression.

The Working Group Report also stated: "Because of the complexity of the electromagnetic environment, the review of epidemiological and other biological studies did not allow precise determination of the specific, critical conditions of exposure to ELF EMF associated with the disease endpoints studied." (NOTE: In other words, they did an inadequate study)

Dr. Kenneth Olden, Director, of NIEHS stated in his letter of transmittal: "The scientific evidence suggesting that ELF-EMF exposures pose any health risk is weak. The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults. While the support from individual studies is weak, the epidemiological studies demonstrate, for some methods of measuring exposure, a fairly consistent pattern of a small, increased risk with increasing exposure that is somewhat weaker for chronic lymphocytic leukemia than for childhood leukemia. In contrast, the mechanistic studies and the animal toxicology literature fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern across studies although sporadic findings of biological effects have been reported. No indication of increased leukemias in experimental animals has been observed." (NOTE: Do you want to live under or near a power line and risk leukemia in your children or yourself?)

"The lack of connection between the human data and the experimental data (animal and mechanistic) severely complicates the interpretation of these results. The human data are in the "right" species, are tied to "real life" exposures and show some consistency that is difficult to ignore. This assessment is tempered by the observation that given the weak magnitude of these increased risks, some other factor or common source of error could explain these findings. However, no consistent explanation other than exposure to ELF-EMF has been identified." (NOTE: Exactly my point. The study was inadequate.)

"Epidemiological studies have serious limitations in their ability to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship whereas laboratory studies, by design, can clearly show that cause and effect are possible. Virtually all of the laboratory evidence in animals and humans and most of the mechanistic work done in cells fail to support a causal relationship between exposure to ELF-EMF at environmental levels and changes in biological function or disease status. The lack of consistent, positive findings in animal or mechanistic studies weakens the belief that this association is actually due to ELF-EMF, but it cannot completely discount the epidemiological findings.

"The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized at this time as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In my opinion, the conclusion of this report is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern." (NOTE: Because the study was inadequate to prove the case, the State of Florida is willing to go ahead and let people die from living under or near the power lines until enough deaths prove the case)

In 1999, a National Research Council, Commission on Life Sciences committee also published a review of EMF research. The Committee to Review the Research Activities Completed Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (known as the EPACT Committee) published a report entitled Research on Power Frequency Fields. The EPACT Committee consisted of scientists and engineers to review the activities conducted under the EMF-Rapid Program as administered by the Department of Energy and the NIEHS. A major conclusion of the EPACT Committee was that engineering studies indicate that the range of 60 Hz magnetic field exposures to most people is very small. The normal range is 1 - 2 milliGauss (mG) with very few people exposed to more than 4 mG. That finding demonstrates that it is very difficult to obtain large numbers of subjects for epidemiologic studies with substantially different, temporally-averaged magnetic field exposures. Lacking an ability to identify heavily-exposed and minimally-exposed populations in epidemiologic studies severely limits efforts to assess possible risks associated with magnetic field exposures. The results of engineering studies also pointed out that any magnetic field-induced biologic effects would have to be seen at very low exposure thresholds (about 1-2 mG) in order to have important implications for adverse human health effects. Most of the biologic effects experiments were carried out at much higher exposures. The largely negative results of replication studies reduced the credibility of the original claims of magnetic field effects in the committee’s opinion. (NOTE: They admit they didn't study enough people)

In a 1997 NRC assessment of the biologic effects of power-frequency magnetic fields there was the following conclusion: "that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electrical and magnetic fields produces cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects". The 1999 EPACT report contains the following: "The new, largely unpublished contributions of the EMF-RAPID program are consistent with that conclusion. We conclude that no finding from the EMF-RAPID program alters the conclusions of the previous NRC review on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems (NRC 1997). In view of the negative outcomes of EMF-RAPID replication studies, it now appears even less likely that EMF’s in the normal domestic or occupational environment produce important health effects, including cancer. The results of the EMF-RAPID program do not support the contention that the use of electricity poses a major unrecognized public-health danger." (NOTE: They were studying the USE of electricity in the home, not living under power lines)

The NRC EPACT Committee does not recommend a special research funding effort for power-frequency magnetic fields. Congress has not committed special funds for such research. Some research is continuing with much of it being funded by other countries. This year the major EMF conference will be in Germany. A second will be in Greece. (NOTE: If Studies aren't done, then they can't find victims. Very simple)

The overall conclusion of the Department’s review of the literature and the material presented at conferences is that there is still not conclusive scientific evidence of adverse health effects. There is no justification to warrant revising our regulatory standards.


How to Avoid EMF Exposure in the Home

The simplest way is to avoid purchasing a home with high EMF levels. This can be determined indirectly by checking for the presence of EMF sources such as nearby transmission or distribution lines or transformer boxes close to the home. The first or second home from a pole/ground mounted step-down transformer will likely have high readings.

The EMF level can be determined directly by measuring the fields in the home. If you choose to measure the fields (or have them measured for you) the readings should be taken at a time of peak power usage - around supper time is best. Susan Sugarman's book (Sugarman, Ellen; Warning: The Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health; A Fireside Book; Simon & Schuster; 1992 ) sets forth a protocol for measuring EMFs on your property and in your home.

Often the utility company can reduce EMF levels by balancing the loads in the distribution lines. Transmission line fields can be lowered by using different tower designs or by burying the lines.

Sometimes high EMF levels in the home can be a result of the way the electrical system is grounded to the municipal water system, especially if the water pipes and electrical power lines enter the home at opposite ends of the house. Even currents from your neighbours house may enter your home this way and contribute to high fields. It may be possible to make changes to the electric grounding system or the water system to eliminate these fields but anyone contemplating this should consult an electrician to ensure the changes comply with the electrical code.

Unusual wiring, such as having the positive and neutral wires of a circuit not running together can contribute to higher fields. Again, consult an electrician for possible solutions.

Read in their entirety, the reports on EMF dangers:

mn15a.htm mn15b.htm mn15c.htm



From Dr. Goldsmith: . We would be incorrect in targeting cancer as the only or primary marker of public health. There are many additional and serious health effects from overexposure to non-ionizing radiation including, but by no means limited to: sleep disruption, nervous system disturbances, and psychological disorders. They may be indicators of more life-threatening illnesses to come or not, but they are all deserving of a public health remedy. [Lundquist: Taken literally, I agree with this statement. In fact, I would add to the list of diseases/disorders: autoimmune diseases, electrosensitivity, and certain types of cardiovascular disorders (certain cardiomyopathies).



Cellular sickness

Speculation about the medical side-effects of cellphone use is gaining momentum. There are even devices available to protect your brain from alien frequencies

Gill Moodie

The battle for your brain has arrived in South Africa as an international campaign over health fears linked to cellphone use begins to target local consumers.

Leading the way in convincing local users that cellphone calls may be frying your brain is Johannesburg-based Radiation Cellutions, the local importers of Microshield, a British product which it is claimed absorbs more than 90% of the radiation emitted by handsets.

The product, a nickel-mesh casing which fits over cellphones, was launched in late 1996 and sold about 100 000 units in the United Kingdom in 1997.

The boom in sales coincides with growing suspicion that excessive cellphone use could cause headaches, anxiety, short-term memory loss and even damage to embryos, brain tumours, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease.

"It like having sex with a condom if you don't want Aids," says Pete Jensen, marketing manager for Radiation Cellutions. The only catch is that this sheath costs R435.

Local service providers Vodacom and MTN are unconcerned. Vodacom says there is no scientific evidence to prove that cellphones are a health risk to users.

Company spokesman Joan Joffe says Vodacom has had no indication from customers that they are worried about health risks. Microshield, she charges, is creating a fear which sells their product.

MTN spokesman Hendrina Westoll was amused to hear of the Microshield product. "Talk about money making," she said. "You'd have to put a cellphone by your ear for the next 6 000 years for it to damage you."

But if the local industry is sceptical, UK service providers are watching closely a law suit brought by Welsh radiation biologist Dr Roger Coghill against cellphone distributor, The Telephone Shop. He is suing the company for failing to label cellphones as potentially dangerous and wants the court to order the company to do so.

"Mobile telephones are arguably the most radiative appliance we have ever invented apart from the microwave oven and people are putting them by their heads -- arguably the most sensitive part of the body,'' warns Dr Coghill.

Meanwhile, Radiation Cellutions see their marketing strategy as an "educational process," says Jensen, who points out that cellphones emit electromagnetic energy classed as radio frequency -- in the same category as radars and computer monitors.

Vicky Benjamin, who sits on the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), says cellphones may be a wonderful product but we do not know enough about their affect on the body, though her view is not that of the SABS.

Benjamin, who is working on a book on the health risks of electromagnetic fields, believes "greed has overtaken expediency. There have been no long-term studies on the subject".

So should South Africa's estimated 2,2 million cellphone users bin their phones for the sake of their mental health?

The evidence is beginning to show that some fears may be well founded but consumers also have to plough through conspiracy theories and paranoia that would do the X-Files' Mulder and Scully proud.

Microshield's website even contains an "X-Files" page which says: "Many independent scientists and victims believe that there may be what amounts to a cover-up by manufacturers and even governments, on the mobile phone health issue."

Microshield claim to be in possession of copies of patent applications from cellphone manufacturers which shows that there has been industry awareness of health risks since 1993.

There is also a growing body of scientific study linking cellphone use to health problems. While most research has been conducted on animals such as mice and chickens, two sets of human trials were released this year.

In May Dr Kjell Hansson Mild of the National Institute of Working Life in Umea, Sweden, found that the number of cellphone users experiencing fatigue, headaches, warmth on ear and a burning sensation of the skin rose with the amount of time they spent on the telephone.

He found in his study of 11 000 cellphone users that calls of between two and 15 minutes were twice as likely to cause headaches as those of less than two minutes. Mild suggested that the telephones be redesigned so that the antennae which produce most of the radiation protrude from the bottom, keeping them away from the brain.

In June, a study of 10 volunteers by Dr Stephan Braune of the University Neurology Clinic in Freiburg, Germany, found that cellphones caused an increase in blood pressure during calls.

A 1997 Australian report showed that the incidence of brain tumours in the country rose from six to eight in every 100 000 people between 1982 and 1992 -- coinciding, claim the researchers, with increased cellphone use.

The World Health Organisation is conducting a five-year study on humans into the potential health risks of electromagnetic fields including cellphones, but the results will not be ready until 2002.

But if you can't wait until then for conclusion to the debate, there's a range of products apart from the Microshield claiming to minimise the risk, including an invention from a Sudanese engineer: a turban with chemicals added to the fabric which may block out the radiation.

© Electronic Mail & Guardian - July 29, 1998


Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation

electrophonic effect

...... A special role is played by the electrophonic effect of microwave hearing. Humans can perceive a buzzing or clicking sound in the back of their heads at exposure to power densities as low as 0.1 mW/cm² of pulsed microwave radiation (200-3000 MHz) , depending on the pulse repetition frequency and the peak power density (around 300 mW/cm²). The absorbed energy produces a thermoelastic expansion of the brain tissue causing an acoustic pressure wave which is detected in the cochlea by the hair cells of the organ of Corti. The energy needed to produce this effect is so small that it does not actually increase the mean temperature of the brain, yet the acoustic sensation is strong enough to be clearly perceived in an ambient noise level of circa 65 dB. Due to this fact microwave hearing does not cause an apparent physical reaction within the head, but it is well known that humans suffer general stress reactions when they are exposed to higher levels of sound. Noise cannot only be an annoyance, but when it consists of pulsed sounds it affects heart beat and metabolic rates. [8] The subliminal aspects of noise levels are here not even considered despite the recognized physiological effects of acoustic noise. It would be a very interesting field for research to probe the subliminal acoustic effects of such exposure to low radio frequency radiation. A possible link between such radiation and noise related reactions , effects, or damages would be an aspect worth of further investigation......


“Dr.George Carlo found that the rate of death from brain cancer is higher among mobile phone users and the risk of contracting a rare tumour on the outside of the brain is more than double.”

“Earlier this year British researchers found that mobile type radiation created mysterious hot-spots which could damage children's developing brains. The Government promised a rigorous investigation. Days later a study of 11,000 volunteers, the largest so far, found a link with headaches, dizziness and concentration lapses”








A zip file of the complete site as it was when it closed is available Bridlewood Bibliography on Electromagnetic Fields and Health










The EMR Network


EMF guru website (home of EMF-L)

EMR-EMF mailing list.





No need to fight with guns.
Future war will use sound.


Rather than matter, electromagnetic energy is employed as a weapon. Such weaponry, be it infrasound or high-power millemater waves, bypasses such physical armoor and defenses by being ou of phase with them. In a worse-case scenario, criminal forces, using such weaponry in a failed states' sprawling slum would be able to overome US armored vehicales and incapacite or injure their crews with little effort.

High-frequency wave weapons (infrasonic weapons)

-Attack all life-sustaining physiological functions
(circulatory and nervous systems, internal organs, etc.)

-Alarm, desperation, horror

-Mass onset of epilepsy, heart attacks, death

-Penetration of concrete, metal structures

Use of parapsychological phenomena, generators of psifields

_ Mass altered states of consciousness

_ Initiating factors = psychedelic agents, low-power EMF, unconscious info/neurolinguistic
programming through mass media

_ Most dangerous for "stone-age"/highly developed countries

_ Directed, non-contact EM fields in SHF/EHF bands

- Suppress willpower/impose "criminal will"

- Radio waves disrupt brain, central nervous systems

- Infrasonic waves = fear, panic, etc.

_ Directed irradiation = EM fields from electronic equipment

- Changes behavior, reactions to events

- Disrupts functional systems

- Causes morphological changes in cell tissue

- Penetrates brick, wood, concrete

_ "Biological Electronic Device" (BED)

- "Artificial biological field generator"

- "Bio-electronic transceiver"

- "Electronic/SHF radiation sources"

- "Holographic laser"

_ Radiation generator, receiver, device to transform reflected signals

_ BED lifts "biofield imprints"

_ Non-lethal weapons

- Laser weapons

- Incoherent light sources

- SHF weapons

- Infrasonic weapons

- Information weapons

- EMP weapons

_ Non-lethal against personnel

The Sonic Weapon of Vladimir Gavreau

Electromagnetic Weapons Timeline

New Armageddon weapons

Nonlethal Weapons - A Global Issue

US Military Non-Lethal Weapons

Google Infrasonic Weapon web search links



from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy

February 6, 2001


President George W. Bush's first published comment on national security classification policy comes in a January 31 letter to Congress that restates the exemption of the classified facility at Groom Lake, Nevada from certain environmental disclosure requirements:

"Information concerning activities at the operating location near Groom Lake has been properly determined to be classified and its disclosure would be harmful to national security. Continued protection of this information is, therefore, in the paramount interest of the United States," President Bush wrote. See:



Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
Email: saftergood@igc.org






this blog continues on page 218


2011 INDEX
INDEX - 2012
INDEX 2012