More On EMR/ELF RadiationMore On EMR/ELF Radiation
There's mounting evidence that low levels of electromagnetic radiation aren't good for us. It's not conclusive evidence but several years ago, the cell industry shook off the allegations.
March 8, 2010
There's mounting evidence that low levels of electromagnetic radiation aren't good for us. It's not conclusive evidence but several years ago, the cell industry shook off the allegations.
My weekend was scheduled with visits and engagements but not about Telecom, VoIP or troubleshooting. Instead, the focus was on energy, energy efficiency and how to avoid or deter--that is redirect the utility company from building a huge substation that folks organized as C.A.K.E.S. in my state (Maryland) are rejecting. In my travels I was given the 59-page testimony presented by Professor Martin Blank of Columbia University discussing the effects of EMR/ELF Radiation primarily from power lines but it also included findings about ELF (extremely low frequency) and low level electromagnetic radiation (EMR) associated with cellphones.Below are Professor Blank's key comments related to our industry followed by my notes:
Prof.: They (ICNIRP) may no longer be able to ignore the data showing that many fundamental biological processes are activated by low level EMF (electromagnetic field).
My note: there's mounting evidence that exposing ourselves to low levels of electromagnetic radiation isn't good for us. It's not conclusive evidence but several years ago, the cell industry shook off the allegations. Nearly 30 years ago, similar concerns were voiced about RF (radio frequency) and EMR (electromagnetic radiation) and those concerns were laughed off. Today, folks aren't laughing and the issues aren't being readily dismissed.
Prof.: The SAR, or specific absorption rate, is a measure of energy input that is used to estimate exposure at higher EMF frequencies. However, it is obviously unrelated to biological thresholds and cannot serve as a measure of biological safety. The SAR should be replaced by a measure of biological function for purposes of risk assessment.
My note: ...the scientific research shows that "standards" as we know them technically, are great for machines and wares but may be not so good or even good enough for man. Advancing biologically based exposure standards that serve the best interests to protect public health are likely to be those new "standards" to unfold sometime in the near future that won't be written solely by technology committees.
Prof.: There are currently many studies of tumors in the head (gliomas, acoustic neuroma, parotid gland tumors) correlated with the use of cellphones. These are generally discussed in terms of the radio frequency EMF that carries the cellphone signals, although there are low frequency components (12Hz, 217Hz) associated with the transmission that could be involved in interactions with DNA.
My note: the GSM mobile system is modulated at 217 HZ
Prof.: There is evidence that the radiofrequency RF 'noise' that accompanies a 60Hz signal (and that may become a feature of transmission lines with the addition of broadband) may cause such harmful effects as cancer and diabetes (Milham, Morgan, Am. J. Ind. Med. 51:579-586, 2008). A desirable optimal design would aim for as 'clean' a 60Hz sine wave as possible.
My note: BoPL (Broadband over power line) is the reference and the other is 60 cycle or Hz noted from overhead fluorescent lights found almost everywhere.
While there is still much research involving EMR/ELF, there will likely be repercussions following in the future of cellphones, cell towers and the power grid. The concerns of the past won't go away and the rapidity of technology deployment won't likely subside either.
For your review:
Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: Cause for Concern?
Cell Phone Radiation MitigationThere's mounting evidence that low levels of electromagnetic radiation aren't good for us. It's not conclusive evidence but several years ago, the cell industry shook off the allegations.
