Cell Phones and Insurance Companies (September, 2010)
Cell Phone Radiation (September 2010)
The late Dr. Neil Cherry was New Zealand's leading scientist. He held the position of Associate Professor of Environmental Health at Lincoln University, and had a professional scientific background in Physics, Biophysics, Meteorology, Agricultural and Human Biometeorology, Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Environmental Epidemiology. He was awarded the Royal Honour of Officer of New Zealand Order of Merit (O.N.Z.M.) for his services to Science, Education and Community. http://www.neilcherry.com/profile.php
"CHILDREN AND MOBILE PHONES:
THE HEALTH OF THE FOLLOWING GENERATIONS IS IN DANGER"
For the first time in history, we face a situation when most children and teenagers in the world are continuously exposed to the potentially adverse influence of the electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile phones. Electromagnetic field is an important biotropic factor, affecting not just a human health in general, but also the processes of the higher nervous activity, including behavior and thinking. Radiation directly affects human brain when people use mobile phones.
Despite the recommendations, listed in the Sanitary Rules of the Ministry of Health, which insist that persons under 18 years should not use mobile phones (SanPiN 2.1.8/126.96.36.1990-03 point 6.9), children and teenagers became the target group for the marketing the mobile communications.
The current safety standards for exposure to microwaves from the mobile phones have been developed for the adults and don’t consider the characteristic features of the children’s organism. The WHO considers the protection of the children’s health from possible negative influence of the EMF of the mobile phones as a highest priority task. This problem has also been confirmed by the Scientific Committee of the European Commission, by national authorities of the European and Asian countries, by participants of the International scientific conferences on biological effects of the EMF.
- the absorption of the electromagnetic energy in a child’s head is considerably higher than that in the head of an adult (children’s brain has higher conductivity, smaller size, thin skull bones, smaller distance from the antenna etc.);
- children’s organism has more sensitivity to the EMF, than the adult’s;
- children’s brain has higher sensitivity to the accumulation of the adverse effects under conditions of chronic exposure to the EMF;
- EMF affects the formation of the process of the higher nervous activity;
- today’s children will spend essentially longer time using mobile phones, than today’s adults will.
Expected (possible) remote health risks: brain tumors, tumors of acoustical and vestibular nerves (in the age of 25-30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome, and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60).
The members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection emphasize ultimate urgency to defend children’s health from the influence of the EMF of the mobile communication systems. We appeal to the government authorities, to the entire society to pay closest attention to this coming threat and to take adequate measures in order to prevent negative consequences to the future generation’s health.
Conflict of Interest & Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Task Group
by Don Maisch
However when it comes to non-ionizing radiation issues (in this case for power frequency health risk assessment) the evidence is clear that Michael Repacholi has used his standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria Task Group for power frequency exposures with representatives of the power industry in contravention of WHO policy. This can only be to the detriment of the group’s ability to evaluate the scientific literature in an unbiased way. This action can only be construed as being aimed at ensuring that industry involvement in determining the WHO Environmental Health Criteria will bias ICNIRP’s risk assessment for power frequency exposure limits for years to come. This will conveniently provide economic protection for the industry against the need to spend enormous sums of money on upgrading distribution systems as well as risks of litigation. Such a blatant disregard for the fundamental principles of credible science, as well as WHO’s mission on protecting world health, speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if that cost is the integrity of WHO."