Downloads
DocumentsDate added
-
Cherry on safe exposure levels
-
19.02.2006
-
Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000 Overview of this report:
Public health protection standards for toxic substances, chemicals, drugs, air pollution, ionizing radiation are set by WHO, IARC, E.U., U.S. EPA and the U.K. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution primarily using epidemiological evidence and secondarily using animal evidence. WHO and ICNIRP base non-ionizing radiation protection standards on a single biological mechanism, Tissue Heating. They systematically reject or ignore all epidemiological and animal evidence of non-thermal effects, for which there is a large body.
The history and basis of the RF-Thermal View which dominates ICNIRP, WHO, and national authority approaches, is documented and summarized. It will be shown that throughout the post-War period scientific research and leading biological and medical scientists have challenged the RF-thermal assumptions. They present very strong evidence, amounting to proof, that biological systems intrinsically use EMR for body, organ, hormone and cellular functions and regulation, and that extrinsic EMR interferes with these at extremely low exposure levels. These biological effects do not involve heat but do involve non-linear, non-equilibrium resonant interactions between ELF oscillating signals.
The well documented and established nonthermal biological effects of EMR include significant alteration of cellular calcium ion homeostasis, reduction of melatonin and the detection of Schumann Resonances by human and avian brains, DNA strand breakage and enhanced chromosome aberrations.
The human health implications of these biological effects are discussed and documented. This shows that calcium ion efflux/influx and melatonin reduction are separately and jointly linked to DNA strand breaks, chromosome aberrations, enhanced proto oncogene activity, impaired immune system competence and impaired neurological and cardiac functioning. Many projects, from independent labotories, have observed and reported that all of these effects are significantly related to EMR exposure.
Human Biometeorology is a whole body of research that is ignored by ICNIRP. This has provided the proof over 30 years ago that human brains detect and use the Schumann Resonances for synchronization of biological rhythms, i.e. as a Zeitgeber. This observation on its own is an absolute challenge to the validity of the ICNIRP assumptions that there are no established non-thermal biological effects.
Epidemiological reviews by Dr John Goldsmith show that adverse health effects, such as neurological, reproductive and cancer effects have been observed in EMR exposed populations. Based on this, and the traditional public health protection approach, Dr Goldsmith challenges the validity of the ICNIRP guideline and approach.
To summarize the scientific evidence an initial set of eight bioelectromagnetic principles are proposed and a brief summary of the scientific research that supports them is given. They are:
EMR is intrinsic to our bodies.
Our brains are the most electrically sensitive organs in our bodies.
Our hearts are electrically sensitive.
Cells are sensitive to EMR.
Our whole body acts as an aerial.
The brain is linked to organs and cells through EMR-sensitive hormones.
The EMR Spectrum Principle.
The Intrinsic Free Radical Principle.
These principles provide a sound and scientifically reliable approach to assessing EMR impacts on people and animals. They soundly challenge the ICNIRP assumptions and approach. The ICNIRP assessment of biological mechanisms is reviewed and found to be selective, limited and flawed. Their assessment of RF/MW effects on reproductive outcomes is shown to be limited, misleading and flawed. The cancer assessment is shown to be selective, misleading, inappropriate and flawed. An incorrect epidemiological approach is consistently applied.
From the data in the studies cited (and misused) by the ICNIRP and WHO reviews, and supported by a great deal of other available research evidence, a public health protection standard is recommended based on residential dose-response relationships for cancer, neurological effects and reproductive effects.
-
Hits: 455
-
-
Motorola Funded Counter Research on Microwave DNA Damage
-
19.02.2006
-
Dr Neil Cherry
Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Lincoln University
9th December 2002
Abstract
Dr Henry Lai and Dr Narendra Singh used a DNA Comet Assay developed by Dr Singh to determine the microwaves damaged DNA-strands. They found that nonthermal microwave exposures significantly caused single and double DNA stranded breakage in living mice brains. The cellphone company Motorola wanted to prove that these studies were wrong and that microwaves and cell phone radiation do not cause DNA strand breakage. They funded Dr Roti Roti at Washington University, St Louis to replicate the Lai and Singh studies to try to show that they do not produce
these effects. Dr Roti Roti used a different, much less sensitive assessment method and used a cell-line not living mice. Hence it is not a replicate study. They claimed not to show any DNA strand breakage from radiation exposures. The analysis of their own published data shows that they actually did show that microwaves and cellphone non-thermal radiation significantly damages DNAstrands and enhances significant repair rates in human cells.
-
Hits: 561
-
-
Probable health effects associated with mobile base stations in communities
-
19.02.2006
-
Dr Neil Cherry - June 2000 Abstract
In 1995 a New Zealand Environment Court (as the Planning Tribunal) decided to set a public exposure limit of 2m W/cm2 for from a BellSouth GSM cell site. This was based on evidence of biological effects, including calcium ion efflux, enhanced ODC activity and EEG change down to 2.9m W/cm2. There was also epidemiological evidence of childhood leukaemia at 2.4m W/cm2. The primary expert witness for BellSouth was WHO staff member Dr Michael Repacholi from Australia. He stated that there was no evidence of adverse effects below the international guideline of SAR = 0.08W/kg because the only effect of RF/MW was tissue heating. The Court's decision rejected this position and set the exposure level of 1% of the standard. The decision also stated that this should be revised with new evidence. Subsequently two Australian studies were carried out to assure the public that both cell phones and cell sites were safe. Both of these studies, Hocking et al. (1996) and Repacholi et al. (1997), showed that leukaemia/lymphoma was more than doubled for people and mice.
It is now clear that the results of both of these were quite predicable from earlier human and rodent studies. This includes studies that are claimed by ICNIRP, WHO and Dr Repacholi (both in reviews and in the Environment Court) to show that there were no adverse effects. To this day cell phone companies and some government bodies, such as the U.K independent expert committee, chaired by Sir William Stewart, that included Dr Repacholi, still claims that there is no evidence that cell phone radiation is harmful. There is a large and growing body of published scientific studies that show that this is not true. This includes Dr Repacholi's own research. Over forty cell phone radiation studies are cited here. They show that cell phone radiation mimics the biological and epidemiological studies for EMR over the past 4 decades. This includes DNA strand breakage, chromosome aberrations, increased oncogene activity in cells, reduced melatonin, altered brain activity, altered blood pressure and increased brain cancer.
Analogue cell phones use FM RF/MW signals and digital cell phones use pulsed microwaves that are very similar to radar signals. FM radio, radar exposures cause significant and dose response increases in brain cancer, leukaemia and other cancers, and cardiac, neurological and reproductive health effects. Hence it is highly probable that cell sites and cell phones are causing many adverse health effects. Already cell phone radiation has been shown to significantly increase all these effects.
Public health surveys of people living in the vicinity of cell site base stations should be being carried out now, and continue progressively over the next two decades. This is because prompt effects such as miscarriage, cardiac disruption, sleep disturbance and chronic fatigue could well be early indicators of the adverse health effects. Symptoms of reduced immune system competence, cardiac problems, especially of the arrhythmic type and cancers, especially brain tumour and leukaemia are probable. However, since cell phone radiation has already been shown to reduce melatonin, damage DNA and chromosomes, surveys should look for a very wide range health effects and not be limited to a narrow set. In carrying out health surveys, the researchers must be mindful of the actual and realistic radiation patterns from cell sites and not to make the mistake of assuming a simple, uniform radial pattern.
-
Hits: 476
-
-
Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic
-
19.02.2006
-
Dr. Neil Cherry - june 2000
Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic: The implications for the epidemiology of cancer and cardiac, neurological and reproductive effects
-
Hits: 454
-
-
Cell phone radiation poses a serious biological and health risk
-
19.02.2006
-
Dr. Neil Cherry - May 2001
-
Hits: 531
-
|
