More Research to Consider


​The Bioinitiative 2012 is the Best Place to start. 

READ THE RESEARCH CLICK HERE


Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays - B. Blake Levitta and Henry Laib

  • The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land-use regulation. 

Click here to read more....

AFFIDAVIT(S) OF B. Blake Levitt and Henry C. Lai 
Before the Federal Communications Commission

  • I am a medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, and author of Electromagnetic Fields, a Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves which won a chapter Award of Excellence from the American Medical Writers Association. I have published widely on the health and environmental effects of low-level nonionizing radiation for over 20 years for both the lay and professional reader. 

Click here to read more....

AFFIDAVIT OF Susan D. Foster, MSW 
Before the Federal Communications Commission

  • My name is Susan D. Foster, MSW. I am a medical writer and the organizer of a brain study of California firefighters exposed to RF radiation from a cell tower adjacent to their fire station of over 5 years. In 2004 I organized a pilot study of California firefighters who worked up to ninety (90) hours per week in fire stations with cell towers in close proximity to the two (2) stations where the firefighters work, eat, and sleep. 

Click here to read more....

AFFIDAVIT OF Cindy Sage, Sage Associates
Before the Federal Communications Commission

  • A rapidly accumulating body of scientific evidence of harm to health and well-being constitute warnings that adverse health effects can occur with prolonged exposures to very low-intensity EMF at biologically active frequencies or frequency combinations. 

Click here to read more....

AFFIDAVIT OF Prof. Leif Salford, MD, PhD
Before the Federal Communications Commission

  • It has been suggested that BBB leakage is the major reason for nerve cell injury, such as that seen in dark neurons in stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. Much speaks in favour of this possibility. The parallel findings in the Lund material of neuronal uptake of albumin and dark neurons may support the hypothesis that albumin leakage into the brain is the cause for the neuronal damage observed after 28 and 50d. 

Click here to read more....





Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at
Low-Intensity Exposure


Click Here To see How these UMD readings compare to research. The readings (as you can see from the video above) are at 11,942 microwatts per meter squared. 


Click HERE to read even more research citations on low levels causing harm from the BioInitiative Report. 


UMD Responded on January 15, 2015

From: XXXXX@umd.edu>
To:XXXXX
Cc: Russell Furr <furr@umd.edu>; president <president@reflectors.mail.umd.edu>
Sent: Thu, Jan 15, 2015 12:52 pm
Subject: RF Radiation levels at UMD College Park Campus

Dear XXXXX;
 
Thank you for your letter to President Loh, dated 1/8/14, presenting your concerns about the radiofrequency (RF) radiation from Wi-Fi environments at the University of Maryland, College Park.  I have been asked to respond on his behalf in my role as Radiation Safety Officer for the University. 
 
The University maintains its wireless communication networks on campus in compliance with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) guidelines and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standards.  This means the wireless network products are evaluated before they are used on campus to ensure that they conform to the RF emissions safety limits adopted by agencies in the United States and around the world. These evaluations are in accordance with the various regulations and guidelines adopted or recommended by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other worldwide agencies. 
 
Currently, the signals emitted from the campus Wi-Fi routers are not only below the threshold for thermal effects, they are also orders of magnitude lower than the national and international safety limits.  With respect to Wi-Fi (e.g. High Frequency (HF)) environment safety, the ICNIRP states,
 
“A large number of studies have been undertaken on both acute and long-term effects from HF exposure, such as Wi-Fi, without showing any conclusive evidence of adverse health effects.  Much of this research is inferred from the mobile phone and base station literature, as it refers to a similar exposure.” 
 
“The overall evaluation of all the research on HF fields leads to the conclusion that HF exposure below the thermal threshold is unlikely to be associated with adverse health effects.”  
 
The ICNIRP is a non-profit, non-governmental organization comprised of experts in scientific disciplines. ICNIRP members collaborate with the World Health Organization (WHO).  The aim of the ICNIRP is to protect people and the environment against adverse effects of non-ionizing radiation. You can find more information from the ICNIRP at http://www.icnirp.org/en/applications/wi-fi/index.html.
 
The University will continue to keep apprised of new risk assessments and guidance offered by the WHO, the ICNIRP and other federal and international bodies as they are published.  In your letter you mention that you took radiation readings on campus.  I am happy to review the RF measurement data you collected if you would like to send it to me.  
 
Thank you again for your time and for bringing your concerns to the University’s attention. 
 
Sincerely,
xxxxxx (Radiation Safety Officer)
XXXXX
XXXXX 
University of Maryland
Department of Environmental Safety
3115 Chesapeake Building
College Park, Maryland 20742

President Dr. Wallace D. Loh
University of Maryland
1101 Main Administration Building
College Park MD 20742-6105
CC: Mary Ann Rankin,

1/8/2014

Dear University of Maryland President Wallace D. Loh,

I am a University of Maryland Alumni for my Bachelors and Masters Degrees.  I writing out of deep concern for University of Maryland students and staff due to  the installation of wireless routers in classrooms and dorms on UMD property. I hope you will read my letter and take immediate action.

Wireless routers emit microwaves also known as Radiofrequency Radiation (RF Radiation).  This radiation is present in wifi hotspots regardless of whether a person is using the wifi or not. In addition, when students and staff use a wireless enabled device they are exposing themselves to additional microwaves from the device in use.

I recently visited the College Park Campus and took radiation readings in the Stamp Student Union. The levels were above “levels of concern” delineated by several expert scientific groups. Everywhere I went on the campus I found radiation levels to be high.  The levels were high inside buildings from the wireless networks and I also found levels high outside which indicates that there are cell antennas on campus.

Has the school taken radiation readings to assess current radio frequency radiation exposures on students and staff? Scientists around the world are issuing warnings and recommending precautions with wireless radiation.

Pregnant Women, Staff and Children are at Risk:  
Respected obstetricians, neurologists and pediatricians are calling for
reduced RF Radiation exposures on pregnant women. Most recently Dr. Hugh Taylor,  the Chief of Obstetrics & Gynecology  at Yale, helped initiate the public health prevention program called “The BabySafe Project”  which has garnered a long list of physician’s signatories calling for decreased RF exposures on pregnant women in order to protect the developing baby brain from neurological damage from RF Radiation. Dr. Taylor became involved in this effort after his research showed mice had reduced memory and increased hyperactivity after exposure to this radiation. Please see BabySafeProject.org. Pregnant students and staff are unknowingly exposed to this radiation at every UMD campus. You cannot see, hear or taste it but this radiation is present in all wifi hotspots and is being absorbed by our bodies.


Cancer:
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph classified this radiation as a
Class 2 B Possible Human Carcinogen in 2011 and the evidence has increased since that date to where several scientists are recommending the classification move to a Group 1 carcinogen.  In a recently published 2014 peer reviewed research paper in Pathophysiology, researchers Hardell and Carlberg connected long term cell phone use with increased risks for glioma in the temporal lobe (Hardell 2014). These scientists state that the evidence has accumulated to where RF-Radiation can be considered “as carcinogenic requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.  They found those who first used mobile or cordless phones before the age of 20 had the highest risk. Assigning EMF to a Group 1 carcinogen classification would put wireless radiation in the same class as tobacco, asbestos, and benzene.

Children are More Vulnerable: Children visit UMD daily and some are in child care facilities on campus. The World Health Organization details research showing that RF  radiation is absorbed up to ten times into the bone marrow of children's skull and three times more into their hippocampus and hypothalamus. The American Academy of Pediatrics has written several letters stating that  FCC RF exposure guidelines (developed 30 years ago) need to be re-assessed to protect children who are “more vulnerable” to this radiation in light of this growing body of research showing increased cancer risk.   

American Academy of Pediatrics Letter to the FCC
American Academy of Pediatrics Letter in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act

Wireless Impacts Fertility: A systematic review of the research on the effects of cell phone radiation on human sperm found that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality and may contribute to infertility in some men (Adams 2014). This follows multiple published research studies showing wireless exposure results in decreased sperm, damaged sperm DNA and even decreased ovarian follicles.  

Please take the time to educate yourself about this issue and consider the implications for the students and staff at the University of Maryland. Students are exposed during the day in classes, the libraries and study rooms and at night  in their dorm rooms. A decade ago such daily exposure was non-existent and the health results will not be known for decades. I lived on dorm at the  College Park campus in the 9o’s  without nightly exposure to wireless radiation.

FCC Compliance: The radiation levels at the University may very be “within FCC guidelines”. I understand this. However FCC guidelines are based solely on heating effects such as burns and do not consider long term effects. In fact, long term safety testing was never done. Current FCC regulations are based on guidelines developed 30 years ago. The EPA and the FDA did not do a human health review nor did they develop safety standards. The guidelines were based on a 220 pound male and only consider effects within 30 minutes of exposure.  Current guidelines did not consider 24 hour exposure as is now common for a student at the University of Maryland living on dorm.

"The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today… Laboratory studies have raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation...on domestic chicken embryos- some lethal results”
- Willie Taylor,  US Department of the Interior, 2014.

Mechanisms of Action: Many people state, “Non-ionizing radiation does not have the energy to completely remove an electron from an atom or molecule.” This is true. However there other mechanisms of action that could be occurring during RF radiation exposures.

NIH’s own research (Volkow 2011) shows increased blood glucose in the brain after wireless exposure at non thermal levels. Something is happening. We may very well not understand how this occurs for decades. There also is consistent and credible evidence of an increased risk for brain cancer in heavy long term cell phone users and the mechanism of action has yet to be “proven”.

Several mechanisms of action have been discussed including:

  • Increased free radical activity: This can result to damage not only to DNA but also to proteins leading to DNA damage, genotoxic effects, neurotransmitter dopamine damage, enzyme effects are possible consequences.

  • Calcium Efflux: Over 30 years ago, during deliberations of RF radiation exposure guidelines, the ANSI Subcommittee (1982) noted, “ modulation-specific effects, such as efflux of calcium ions from brain materials were not considered adverse because of the inability of the subcommittee's members to relate them to human health” We now know the critical importance of calcium homeostasis in cells and that electromagnetic radiation impacts calcium homeostasis. Calcium is intimately involved in the electrical activity of the brain, so this can lead to neurological and cardiological system impacts. Membrane leakage allows unwanted substances and interferes with cellular communication systems.


" 10 different well-documented microwave EMF effects can be easily explained as being a consequence of EMF VGCC activation: oxidative stress, elevated single and double strand breaks in DNA, therapeutic responses to such EMFs, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier, cancer, melatonin loss, sleep dysfunction, male infertility and female infertility" (Pall 2014).


WIRELESS MICROWAVE RADIATION AFFECTS VOLTAGE GATED CALCIUM CHANNELS: Please watch Martin Pall’s presentation entitled, Microwave electromagnetic fields do not work by heating. They produce health effects by VGCC activation.

Please see the Bioinitiative 2012 for the full abstracts of  the science as well as full descriptions of the biological basis for conern by top experts in the field.

Please see the 2013 FCC Submission entitled “Erroneous Comments Submitted to the FCC on Proposed Cellphone Radiation Standards and Testing” to understand the inadequacy of the FCC standards.


Please see the attached Environmental Health Trust Briefing  for references and overview.


The Risks of  Waiting: Many people respond to this information saying “but it is not proven”. As any scientist knows,  proving causation could take decades. We still do not know what causes a multitude of cancers and neurological issues. Is it proven that fast food is bad for us?   Trans fats have been known to be damaging to the heart for decades yet they are only being regulated now.  Doctors used to smoke and continued to smoke even when given research showing health risks from smoking. They refused to listen.

Researchers in the field  of electromagnetic fields are calling for precautions now. They are stating the risk to society is too great not to act.

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

-UNITED NATIONS, RIO DECLARATION

“If we want to wait for final proof, at least in terms of cancer, it may still take 20 years and the issue will become that we will not have unexposed population to act as control.  We may never have the absolute final proof.  But we have enough data to go ahead with a precautionary principle.” - Annie Sasco, MD, DSc Director, Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, INSERM,  Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer, Unit Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer

Liability Issues: The reality of the risk of waiting is that in a few decades when harm from wireless is finally “proven” thousands of University students and staff  will have had years of radiation exposure. This exposure cannot be undone. It is possible that lawsuits and legal settlements will follow. The World Health Organization has already stated that credible evidence shows a possible risk. The University has a responsibility to protect its students and staff. The University has a responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy environment for students and staff.

Scientists from around the world are calling for immediate action. This issue is urgent because people are being exposed now. You  cannot wait decades for federal regulations to change or for Congress to enact protective policy. Dozens of other countries are taking action and have initiated protective policies as detailed in the attachments to this letter. Schools around the world are taking the WIFI out.   

The University of Maryland Needs to Act Immediately: All who give this issue the due diligence it deserves  have a responsibility to take action.  In order  to protect the health and safety of all students and staff at the University of Maryland the administration should act immediately to :

  • Install  hardwired technology in all University buildings and dorms. The industrial routers need to be turned off and removed.

  • Ensure each student has access to internet connections via a hardwired monitors, mouse and keyboard and other non wireless tech devices as needed.

  • Each dorm room, classroom and recreation room should be equipped with a hardwired landline that students and staff can make phone calls as needed.

  • Educate all students and staff on how to reduce wireless exposures.

  • Develop a cell phone use policy that ensures those persons wanting a low radiation space have full access to cell phone free spaces for studying, sleeping and recreation activities on campus.

  • Assess the cell towers located on campus and develop a plan to reduce this source of radiation.


I understand that this issue may bring in political pressures that go beyond your position. However, I hope that your love for University of Maryland  students staff and concern for their future will be the basis that any decision is based on.  

“A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science, which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer and other substantial health consequences…The public the world over has been misled by this reporting.”

-Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, Founding Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Vice Chancellor of Cancer Research at University of Pittsburgh and the first head of an NCI funded cancer center to speak out on the risks from cell phones.

We must act now.
I sincerely hope that the University which educated me so well now can hear my words.


Thank you for considering this issue and I look forward to hearing from you soon.  

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXX 


Please use these  resources below to learn more and please read the briefing document that I have attached as it contains the scientific documentation.

Click HERE to see the Environmental Health Trust Briefing


The National Association for Children and Safe Technology http://www.nacst.org/
The Environmental Health Trust  http://ehtrust.org/
BabySafe Project on Risks to Pregnancy  BabySafeProject.org
Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe - Electromagnetic Radiation, Health and Children November 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNFdZVeXw7M

Harvard Law Center for Ethics Lecture “PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION IS IN CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE” Dr. Franz Adlkofer discusses the difficulties he faced when presenting his research on the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields due to institutional corruption and Industry involvement.
http://today.law.harvard.edu/at-center-for-ethics-event-cell-phone-radiation-and-institutional-corruption-addressed-video/?redirect=1

"Mobile Phone Use and Cancer Risk: Research on a Group 2B Carcinogen" Joel Moskowitz, Webinar for CDC Workgroup on Cancer Prevention (Oct 29, 2014)

Slides:    http://bit.ly/CDCWebinar102914  Audio:     http://bit.ly/101l2lR or http://bit.ly/1tDZbg2
Dr Moskowitz UC Berkeley Community and Family Health Site on EMF http://www.saferemr.com/

Adams JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews M. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International. 70:106-112. September 2014.

Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo JS, Loiseau H, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, Baldi I. (2014). Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 71(7), 514-22.

Davis DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y.(2013). Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 20(2), 123-9.

L. Hardell, M. Carlberg, Cell and cordless phone risk for glioma - Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009, Pathophysiology (2014), Available online 29 October 2014.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild K.(2013). Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. International Journal of Oncology 43(6), 1833-45.

Martin L. Pall. (2014) Microwave electromagnetic fields act by activating voltage-gated calcium channels: why the current international safety standards do not predict biological hazard. Recent Res. Devel. Mol. Cell Biol. 7.

The University of Maryland

Informed on Wireless Health Risks

In January 2015, an alumni of the University of Maryland wrote UMD President Wallace Loh about the health risks of wireless radiation and the need to reduce radiation inside buildings (from the wireless networks) and on campus (from the cell tower antennae). The University first responded with a letter stating they followed FCC and ICNIRP guidelines (see below).

When the alumni followed up to share radiation readings and to explain how ICNIRP levels do not protect people -they stopped responding calls and emails. Read the letter exchange and see the high radiation readings in the video below.  Skeptical?   Read ON. 

Parents For Safe Technology

Watch Dr. Blank discuss the 2015 Scientist Appeal to United Nations now signed by over 200 scientists. 

The University needs to take immediate action. 



































Legal does not mean safe. The writer followed up with several calls  to discuss the issue with UMD and explain why ICNIRP is not  an organization that understands non thermal effects and why FCC compliance does not protect children nor pregnant staff and students.  The University was called again to share the campus radiation readings. There has been no response so far to any of the writers calls, messages and emails.  


Public Information Requests have revealed that UMD contacted Princeton in regards to the letter. They also reveal some very interesting information about how the University made decisions on this action. More to come on this. Contact us for more information at parentsforsafetechnology@gmail.com.