Electrical Hypersensity

Electrical Hypersensitivity (EHS), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Sleep Disorders etc.

The most commonly reported adverse effect of Mobile Telephone Mast radiation, is EHS. The symptoms are wide ranging, including headaches and nausea, dizziness, recurrent nosebleeds, skin irritations and rashes, sleep disorders, hearing problems, high blood pressure, fatigue, irritability and depression. Some people with epilepsy report increased incidence of seizures, people with chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple sclerosis report increased debilitation, as do those with or developing fibromyalgia. Further down the time line, reports of localised clusters of thyroid problems, motor neurone disease and cancers require full and proper investigation. Where such studies have been made, especially with regard to cancer, the correlation with Mobile Telephone Mast emissions is strong enough now to warrant more formal verification.

The common cause of the above effects is the increase in the production of nitric oxide – triggered by Mobile Telephone Mast Radiation. [15] and [16]

Nitric oxide is a dilator of blood vessels and a regulator of dream sleep. It also affects the blood-brain barrier and prevents the body's normal formation of melatonin from serotonin. Several studies have noted the reduction in Melatonin levels when the body is subjected to Mobile Telephone Mast radiation [4].

A knock-on effect is the overproduction of peroxynitrite, which is toxic at a cellular level. This leads directly to Motor Neuron Disease (MND) and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).

Such is the broad role of nitric oxide in the body, that disturbance of its production creates an avalanche of negative effects. Many “modern” trends in disorders from Multiple Sclerosis to Autism and ADHD, Alzheimer’s to Motor Neuron Disease may stem directly from the over-production of nitric oxide. That Mobile Telephone Mast radiation has been shown to alter the production of nitic oxide in living beings is therefore a significant and serious factor in the evaluation of current and growing environmental levels. It is the long-term low level exposure that is predicted as creating cumulative effects and long-latency illness.

3. Weakening of the Blood-Brain Barrier

Many laboratory studies, such as [5], have looked at the effect of pulsed microwave radiation on animals, revealing a wide range of biological changes to tissue structure or function such as the opening of the Blood Brain Barrier, allowing the protein albumen, amongst other substances, to enter the brain, and raising questions about, for example, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s, which are linked to proteins being found in the brain. Similarly, the weakening of the Blood Brain Barrier allows toxins in the bloodstream to pass into brain cells, leading to headaches and nausea (as commonly observed around Mobile Telephone Masts) - and, potentially, large-scale brain damage in the longer term.

4. Increased Incidence of Epilepsy

When noting the reports of an increased number of seizures in some epileptic children when exposed to the emissions of Mobile Telephone Mast radiation, it should be remembered that exposure to a light (such as that from a stroboscope) flashing at a rate somewhere between 15-20 times per second (Hz) can provoke seizures in the 5% minority of epileptics who suffer from photosensitive epilepsy.

Visible light and microwaves are both different kinds of electromagnetic radiation, and the microwave radiation used in GSM mobile phone telephony similarly ‘flashes’ (pulses) – in the case of TETRA at 17.6Hz, which is within the 15-20 times per second (Hz) range [9] and is a rate that the brain is able to recognise. Also, unlike visible light, pulsed microwaves are not reliant on the eye and optic nerve to access the brain, since they can penetrate the skull directly, leading to epilepsy risk from Mobile Telephone Mast radiation.

A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is that the emissions of a Mobile Telephone Mast are comparable to that of only a 60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless. Quite apart from the fact that the light from a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with photo-sensitive epilepsy, if it is flashed at an appropriate rate, the comparison is solely based on intensities and neglects three important points:-

1. The fact that more than one carrier signal is usually transmitted from the mast. Thus, the figure of 60W must be multiplied by the number of carriers that are actually transmitted in any particular case; in order to minimise inter-carrier interference, however, this number is restricted typically to 4 at the most, so the total output wattage can be a high as 240W.

2. Beams from the mast, however, are not emitted uniformly in all directions (as happens with light from a light-bulb), but are instead concentrated in specific directions, the degree of directional focusing being quantified through the so-called ‘gain’ (G) of the antenna, even omni-directional types, typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range from about 40 to 60. If we use an optimistic figure of 30 the so-called ‘effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), given by the multiplying Power by Gain – is 1800W, which is further increased to 7.2kW if 4 carriers are transmitted – a value that is 120 times higher than the 60W quoted! The maximum EIRP value permitted by law is 1500W per carrier, whilst the maximum number of carrier signals is 16 (at 1800MHz) and 10 (at 900MHz); in practice, however, the number of carriers is usually restricted to 4 at the most, for the reason mentioned above.

3. The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension, in particular the difference in the frequency that characterises the visible light from the light bulb from that which defines the radiation to be (invisible) microwave radiation. For whilst the output from such a bulb is, during the day, completely negligible in comparison with visible light of natural origin – i.e. that from the Sun – this is not so in the case of the microwave radiation emitted by a Mobile Telephone Mast day and night, which, several hundred of metres away, is typically 100 million million (1013) times higher than the microwave radiation that is emitted by the Sun at the same frequency. Accordingly, the emissions of Mobile Telephone Masts have caused an enormous (and relatively sudden) alteration in the natural environment (at this frequency) from that in which life on Earth has, over a very much longer time, evolved. The impact of this altered environment on biology is further enhanced by the high coherence of the mobile phone radiation. [11]

5. Naila: 10-year Study of Residents near Mobile Telephone Mast Proves Cancer Link

Following a call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency for Radiation Protection), to all doctors of medicine to actively collaborate in the assessment of the risk posed by Mobile Telephone Mast radiation, the aim of this study was to examine whether people living close to Mobile Telephone Masts were exposed to an increased risk of becoming ill with malignant tumors (i.e. cancer). [12]

The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1,000 patients was evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register.

The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly diagnosed cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived for the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the Mobile Telephone Mast, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier .

In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitter installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.

(N.B. Naila is a town halfway between Berlin and Munich, near the German border with the Czech Republic)

Previously, Santini and Santini (2001) and Santini et al (2002) [7] surveyed people living up to 300m from Mobile Telephone Masts. There was a statistical match between distance from Mobile Telephone Masts and health problems: tiredness up to 300m; headache, sleep disruption, ‘discomfort’ up to 200m; depression, memory loss, dizziness, visual disturbances up to 100m. Women were more susceptible than men.

6. International Medical Appeals: Freiburger, IDEA, Lichtenfelser, Hofer, Bamberger, and Helsinki

In the Freiburger Appeal [6], initially 50 doctors in Germany reported reduced therapeutic efficiency of prescribed drugs correlated with the use of pulsed microwaves, such as those from Mobile Telephone Masts. Some 40,000 signatories have now supported the appeal, including 1,200 doctors. Alongside the Freiburger Appeal there are now similar appeals from Lichtenfelser, Hofer, Bamberger and Helsinki.

In the Irish Republic, the IDEA group of Doctors has its own reports relating to Mobile Telephone Masts [10] which confirm the findings of the Freiburger Appeal doctors.

7. Inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines

The Government tell us “If a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them”.

However, the view of Dr. Hyland from Warwick University is that these regulations are completely inadequate:

“… It must thus be concluded that GSM/TETRA telecommunication technology, as currently regulated by the ICNIRP safety guidelines, is less than safe, and constitutes a risk to public health because these guidelines afford absolutely no protection against non-thermal biological influences exerted by the kind of radiation emitted by the associated Base-stations.“ [11]

Dr. Hyland [11] has carried out a lot of research on Mobile Telephone Mast emissions. Relevant research shows how the current ICNIRP Guidelines, as adopted in the UK, are woefully inadequate since they only protect against thermal effects and, vitally, not against NON-Thermal effects, which are far more relevant.

Since it is accepted that, at the levels given off by the Mobile Telephone Masts, thermal effects on people are negligible, ICNIRP Guidelines are therefore not protecting people at all .

The government as well as the telecommunication industry and other interested parties appear to be deliberately ignoring the NON-Thermal effects of the radiation from Mobile Telephone Masts, claiming that there is no research to say that Mobile Telephone Masts are not safe. This is quite untrue. There is plenty of evidence from independent scientists that warn us of grave dangers to our health from the radiation from Mobile Telephone Masts.

It must also be noted that other countries have adopted much stricter guidelines than Britain has, and there are moves in some European cities for much, much lower limits on Mobile Telephone Mast emissions of microwave radiation.

8. Conclusion

“ On the basis of many inter-consistent reports of adverse health effects in the vicinity of GSM Base-stations [Mobile Telephone Masts], it must be concluded that such installations pose a real risk to the health of people resident nearby. It is to be stressed that this conclusion is not purely personal, but is one that is shared by many eminent scientists of international standing and medical doctors worldwide.” [11]

And, a warning about government and industry ignoring these health issues, and the conflict of interest between research and revenue earning:

“… . The reality of such a risk to public health is not yet officially recognised, however, and those who dare to depart from the ‘official’ line, by warning of potential dangers to human health posed by non-thermal influences of the radiation used in mobile telephony, are subject to immediate criticism and derision – particularly by those with a vested interest in maintaining the growth of mobile telephony.” [11]