Friday, 11 March 2011
Did government-industry block & distort truth on EMF hazards?
Most people do not know the full extent of electromagnetic field dangers because its truth has been suppressed. For every study that reveals the harm caused by electromagnetic field radiation, there is another that says it is safe. Many of such studies are funded by industry.
For example, for every published study claiming a relationship between cancer and overhead power lines, one or more studies have been released which refute any potential dangers. As a result, by mid-1990s, at least 100 studies reported "little" or "no danger" from common electromagnetic field sources.
Big industry and power utility interests are at stake if the truth is officially acknowledged. In United Kingdom for example, phone companies recently paid the government £22.5 billion for the third generation (3G) mobile phone system which offers video, Internet access and voice transmissions.
So there are huge commercial and political interests in not rocking the boat of mobile technology ("Mast Hysteria: The Dangers of Mobile Base Stations" inWhat Doctors Don't Tell You, August 2004: Vol. 15, No.5).
Experts say there are over 20 years of suppressed research on the "micro-blitzing" of people everywhere by low-intensity but high-frequency electromagnetic fields coming from a wide range of electrical marvels.
In the past, concerned scientists and doctors questioned health aspects of the rapidly escalating multi-billion dollar industries in mobile phones, computers and related technological marvels. However, they have been gagged, punished and even pressured out of their jobs.
This was especially so where mobile phones are concerned.
In early 1991, Motorola (then the world's No.2 manufacturer of mobile phones) funded extensive research programs to explore possible health effects associated with mobile phones usage.
Ross Adey, who was involved in the research, later revealed: "Motorola has been manipulative of research that we and others have reported to them." One of Adey's studies found that certain frequencies of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) actually decreased the incidence of tumors in rats.
Motorola was however, unwilling to recognize results that indicated any biological effects of RFR whatsoever, either positive or negative. Adey also found a link between low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain cells.
Jerry Phillips, who worked with Adey, disclosed: "The relationship (with Motorola) was pleasant for the first few years, until we began to get some data... Motorola was adamant that Adey never mention DNA damage and RF radiation in the same breath."
Phillips, Adey, and others said they see a strong parallel between what's happening now and the decades of denial by tobacco industry in face of mounting scientific evidence that tobacco was harmful.
Dr William Morton, a professor at Oregon Health Sciences University, was one of a handful of doctors experienced in diagnosing and documenting electrical sensitivity.
In 19 January 2003, he chose to give up his medical license rather than continue to face allegations of "misdiagnosis" and further investigation by Oregon Board of medical examiners.
Dr Robert Santini was a veteran researcher in Bioelectromagnetics which has long been associated with government laboratory. He revealed that he had been forbidden by the director from speaking to journalists, politicians and other researchers about "cellular phone and base station bioeffects".
On 6 March 2003, at the request of 2 senators, he told Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Science and Technology Choice, "We are witnessing today the development of pressure aimed at discrediting, within their institutions, certain researchers and their findings. These campaigns of moral and professional harassment are orchestrated, in particular, by certain cell phone providers, public health bodies and elected officials."
"Some scientists who work on problem of biological effects of cell phones and relay stations have recently been made the object of firing, professional change, research topic change, blockage of career, loss of collaborators and ban on speaking."
He referred to 3 examples of noted scientists in France and the case of Claudio Gomez Perretta, MD in Valencia, Spain.
Claudio wrote a letter to Valencia Medical Association expressing his concern that the Spanish equivalent of American Medical Association had taken no position on high-frequency electromagnetic field problems. However, 4 days after writing the letter, he was notified that he must discontinue his work on electromagnetic field immediately.
Perretta's letter reminded the local medical body, "Let us remember that there were once commissions that denied the dangers of tobacco, asbestos, and therapeutic X-rays."
Professor Olle Johansson has produced some of the most riveting scientific questioning of the safety of cell phones and related devices.
However, he faced a cutoff in funds for his work at the prestigious Karolinska Institute. Swedish authorities threatened to close down the institute's Unit for Experimental Dermatology.
Veteran medical physicist Dr Lebrecht von Klitzing of Medical University of Lubeck was forbidden by the university dean to address German Bundestag (parliament) on the medical effects of cell phones. They claimed such presentation would damage the university's reputation.
Von Klitzing, forbidden to do any more research, later resigned from the university in order to continue his research.
Dr Gerald Hyland from the University of Warwick took early retirement in March 2003, following high-level pressures against his research into the biocompatibility of magnetic fields with human organism.