cell phone radiation Archives - Amazing Health Advances

Ignored Warnings: How Regulators Failed to Act on Wireless Radiation Linked Diseases

The AHA! Team — Wed, 16 Apr 2025 21:50:30 +0000

Willow Tohi via Natural News – For over 50 years, the U.S. government has known about the potential health risks of wireless radiation, yet regulatory agencies have consistently failed to act, leaving the public exposed to chronic conditions ranging from autism to diabetes. A new report, released on February 6 by researchers Richard Lear and Camilla Rees, reveals how a 1971 U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute study identified 132 biological effects and 23 chronic diseases linked to electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—findings that were ignored as wireless technology proliferated. The report, shared at the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s annual conference in San Antonio, Texas, on February 14, highlights the staggering growth of these diseases and calls for urgent regulatory action. Key Points • A 1971 U.S. Navy study reviewed 2,311 scientific studies and identified 132 biological effects and 23 chronic diseases linked to wireless radiation. • Despite these findings, U.S. regulators, including the FCC, have failed to update exposure limits since 1996, leaving the public vulnerable. • Between 1990 and 2015, 23 chronic diseases predicted by the Navy study surged, with cases reaching 549 million and adding an estimated $2 trillion in annual healthcare costs. • The report calls for immediate action to minimize wireless exposure and restore local control over cell tower placements. The Navy’s 1971 warning: a missed opportunity In 1971, the U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute conducted a comprehensive review of 2,311 scientific studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). The study focused on low-intensity EMR signals in the 1 to 4 gigahertz (GHz) range—frequencies strikingly similar to those emitted by modern devices like cell phones, WiFi, and Bluetooth. The Navy’s findings were unequivocal: wireless radiation exposure was linked to 132 biological effects and 23 chronic diseases, including ADHD, autism, diabetes, and leukemia. “These types of wireless exposures are virtually identical with those from modern devices and wireless sources such as cell phones, WiFi, Bluetooth, smart meters, GPS, wearables, and wireless infrastructure,” Lear and Rees wrote in their report. Despite this groundbreaking research, the U.S. government failed to act. Regulatory agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ignored the warnings, allowing the wireless industry to expand unchecked. The explosion of chronic disease Between 1990 and 2015, the U.S. witnessed an alarming rise in chronic diseases, many of which were predicted by the Navy’s 1971 study. Autism cases skyrocketed by 2,094%, while chronic fatigue syndrome saw an 11,027% increase. Other conditions, such as ADHD (139%), anxiety (104%), and diabetes (305%), also surged. By 2015, these 23 diseases accounted for 549 million cases, placing an immense burden on the healthcare system and economy. “Of the 36 chronic diseases and conditions that more than doubled (1990-2015), the U.S. Navy study warned us of the connection between wireless radiation and twenty-three of those chronic diseases, predicting what has indeed happened to the health of Americans,” Lear and Rees wrote. The economic impact is staggering. By 2015, these 23 diseases may have added more than $2 trillion in annual healthcare costs to the U.S. economy. The authors acknowledged that other factors, such as sugar consumption and pesticide exposure, likely contributed to the crisis. However, they emphasized that wireless radiation’s role cannot be ignored. The smoking gun: peroxynitrite and chronic disease The report delves into the biological mechanisms behind wireless radiation’s harmful effects, pointing to peroxynitrite—a molecule common to all chronic diseases—as a potential “smoking gun.” Wireless radiation triggers oxidative and nitrative stress, leading to the production of peroxynitrite and other free radicals. These agents disrupt biological homeostasis and create a lethal system of seven synergistic biofactors, dubbed “P-Factor,” which includes systemic inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress. P-Factor is shared by all 36 of the fastest-growing diseases in the U.S. “P-Factor is shared by all 36 of the fastest-growing diseases in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Is P-Factor the smoking gun for the current U.S. chronic disease health crisis?” Lear and Rees are calling for immediate action to address the public health crisis caused by wireless radiation. They plan to send hard copies of their report to all U.S. Congress members and 1,000 business leaders, urging them to take responsibility for minimizing wireless exposure. Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org ManhattanNeighbors.org ManhattanNeighbors.org To read the original article, click here

The post Ignored Warnings: How Regulators Failed to Act on Wireless Radiation Linked Diseases appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Do Cell Phones Affect Cognitive Function?

AHA Publisher — Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:00:34 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – The World Health Organization concluded that cell phone radiation may cause brain tumors, but what about effects on cognitive function? “At present, we do not know precisely the degree to which the risk of cancer and other adverse health effects are increased by the exposure to the RF [radiofrequency] fields from cell phones, smart meters, and other wireless devices.” You may recall that I explored the brain tumor data in my video Does Cell Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?, but what other potential adverse health effects might there be? For example, how might radiofrequency fields affect brain function? That’s the topic of my video Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function?. “The dramatic increase in use of cellular telephones has generated concern about possible negative effects of radiofrequency signals delivered to the brain. However, whether acute cell phone exposure affects the human brain is unclear.” So, researchers decided to put it to the testusing PET scan technology. What did they find? As you can see at 0:44 in my video, elevated brain activity was found in the region of the brain closest to the antenna after 50 minutes of exposure to a cell phone call. What does that actually mean, though? Well, it’s evidence that the human brain has at least some sensitivity to the effects of cell phone radiation. The increased metabolism in brain regions closest to the antenna “suggest that brain absorption of [cell phone emissions] may enhance the excitability of brain tissue.” The potential health consequences of this are unknown, though the results suggest that “cell phone use can possibly affect brain function,” potentially affecting neurotransmitter and neurochemical brain activities. Perhaps this can explain the changes in psychological test outcomes observed after exposure to cell phone radiation. Although earlier studies failed to find an effect of short-term cell exposure on human cognitive performance, a 2017 review noted that “several studies indicate an increase in cortical excitability and/or efficiency with EMF exposure,” which may translate out into measurable cognitive effects. What’s more, this “cortical excitability”—excitability of the outer layer of the brain tied to cell phone exposure—“might also underpin disruptions in sleep” while at the same time being “associated with faster reaction time.” If you expose people to active cell phones while they play a computer game, the subjects can actually respond faster compared to sham exposure, meaning placebo exposure of the same scenario but with the cell phone turned off. This empowered the industry to claim that while it may be the case that cell phone radiation does affect brain function after all, the effects are positive! A decrease in reaction time upon exposure to microwave radiation from cell phones “helps people better respond to different threatening situations. Therefore these exposures can decrease the probability of human errors and reduce destructive accidents.” But, as you can see at 2:40 in my video, the difference in reaction time was only a few thousandths of a second. When all the studies are put together, “the effects seem to be so small that implications for human performance in everyday life can be practically ruled out.” As you can see at 2:57 in my video, there was a study that found that heavy cell phone users did better on a test of the ability to filter out irrelevant information, but this improvement in focused attention may just be because heavy cell phone users have a lot of practice carrying on conversations in crowded places, “rather than a direct effect of mobile phone use on cognition.” Overall, electromagnetic fields from cell phones “do not seem to induce cognitive or psychomotor [fine motor skill] effects.” Nonetheless, one has to worry about “the existence of sponsorship and publication biases.” Studies may have conflicts of interest, such as being funded by cellphone companies, and perhaps were designed in a way to skew the results or were quietly shelved and never published if they showed anything negative. In fact, researchers compared the source of funding and results of studies of the health effects of mobile cell phone use and “found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report significant effects…that may be relevant to health.” It would look suspicious if all the industry studies showed no adverse effects, though, so some have accusedthe industry of taking obfuscation to a new level. “Although the industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to be negative”—that is, show no effects—“as expected, no two positive studies reported the same effect, and the few attempts to do so failed. Thus the apparent message of the studies dovetailed well with the [industry’s] position that there are no reproducible biological effects.” So, industry wasn’t only denying the existence of effects; it was also denying the existence of reproducible effects. It’s like this: If all of the industry-funded studies universally found no adverse effects of cell phone use, in contrast to the findings of independent research, the industry-funded research program could have been more easily dismissed. As well, industry researchers couldn’t publish adverse health effects because that would be bad for business. So, they came up with a wide hodge-podge of conflicting results. In this way, it seems they can better protect themselves. Was this all part of “a well-designed legal strategy” to fight off lawsuits? We may never know. We do know that when the World Health Organization announced that cell phones may cause brain tumors, the cellphone industry went into damage control to attack the agency, similar to when the WHO came out against second-hand tobacco smoke. “Sowing confusion and manufacturing doubt is a well-known strategy used by the tobacco and other industries.” Key Takeaways The World Health Organization (WHO) has found that radiation from cell phones may cause brain tumors. Researchers investigated the impact of radiofrequency signals from cellular devices on the brain and found, via PET scan technology, evidence of at least some sensitivity to the effects of cell phone radiation. Potential health consequences have not yet been determined, but results suggest cellphone usage may affect brain function and seems to increase “cortical excitability,” which may be linked to both sleep disruption and “faster reaction time,” though the difference may be only a few thousandths of a second. Research funded by the mobile phone industry was found to be substantially less likely to report significant health effects and “no two positive studies reported the same effect, and the few attempts to do so failed.” In this way, industry-funded studies had a broad range of conflicting results, which may have been calculated. To read the original article click here.

The post Do Cell Phones Affect Cognitive Function? appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Can Cell Phone Radiation Damage Your DNA?

AHA Publisher — Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:00:41 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – Do mobile phones cause brain tumors? Whenever a trillion-dollar industry is involved—whether it’s Big Food, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or Big Telecom—there’s so much money that the science can get manipulated. When it comes to the potential human health effects of cell phone use, certainly, you might endup with a crick in your neck if you text excessively or even break your neck or the neck of someone you may hit if you text while driving. On the other hand, think of the countless lives that have been saved on the road, because people are now able to so quickly phone in emergencies. But what about cancer? Since the turn of the century, there have been studies suggesting up to double the risk of brain tumors with long-term cell phone use on the side of your head you use to talk. That’s important, because the radiation only really penetrates up to a couple of inches into your brain. At 0:48 in my video Does Cell Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?, I show views from the back of the head and the top of the head, and you can see why you might develop cancer on one side of the head over the other. Since it’s such a local effect, you can see why there are recommendations for using the speakerphone function or a hands-free headset, which can reduce brain exposure by a factor of 100 or more—and this includes Bluetooth headsets. This may be particularly important in children, who have thinner skulls. Cell phone radiation isn’t like nuclear radiation, though. It doesn’t damage DNA directly, like gamma rays from an atomic bomb. Yes, but it does appear to be able to damage DNA indirectlyby generating free radicals. Out of 100 studies that looked at this, 93 confirmed these oxidative effects of the kind of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation that comes out of cell phones. Okay, but does that oxidative stress translate out into DNA damage? Most studies found it did, detecting signs of genotoxicity, which is damage to our genes, DNA, or chromosomes. A lot of those studies were done in petri dishes or in lab animals, though. I’m less interested in whether Mickey or Minnie is at risk than I am concerned about brain tumors in people. Yes, some population studies found increased cancer risk, but other studies did not. Could the source of funding for those studies have anything to do with the different findings? Some of the studies were funded by cell phone companies. Researchers “hypothesized that studies would be less likely to show an effect of the exposure if funded by the telecommunications industry, which has a vested interest in portraying the use of mobile phones as safe.” So, they ran the numbers and—surprise, surprise—“found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects…” Indeed, most of the independently funded studies showed an effect while most of the industry-funded studies did not. In fact, industry-funded studies had about ten times fewer odds of finding an adverse effect from cell phone use. That’s even worse than the drug industry! Studies sponsored by Big Pharma about their own products only had about four times the odds of favoring the drug compared to independent researchers. Big Tobacco still reigns supreme when it comes to Big Bias, though. Why do research articles on the health effects of second-hand smoke reach different conclusions? Well, it turns out that studies funded by the tobacco industry itself had a whopping 88 times the odds of concluding it was not harmful. So about ten times more for telecom puts it more towards the drug industry end of the bias spectrum. There are conflicts of interest on both sides of the debate, though. If it’s not financial conflict, then it may be intellectual, as it can be human nature to show bias towards evidence that supports your personal position. As such, you’ll see flimsy science published, like a study I show at 3:55 in my video that appears to find a “disturbing” and “very linear relationship” between the states with the most brain tumors and the states with the most cell phone subscriptions. Okay, but one could think of lots of reasons why states like New York and Texas might have more brain tumors andmore cells phones than the Dakotas, and those reasons have nothing to do with cell phone radiation. Sometimes, you might even see outright fraud with allegations that the academic researchers who authored two of those genotoxicity papers and the very review I mentioned earlier were involved in scientific misconduct—allegations they deny, pointing out that their lead accuser turned out to be a lawyer working for the telecom industry. Whenever there’s a trillion-dollar industry involved, whether it’s the food industry, tobacco industry, drug industry, or telecom industry, there’s so much money involved that the science can get manipulated. Take the nuclear energy industry for example. There were decades of “a high-level, institutional…cover up” about the health consequences of Chernobyl. The official estimates of resulting health problems were a hundred or even a thousand times lower than estimates from independent researchers. Did only 4,000 people eventually die from it or nearly a million? It depends on who you ask and who happens to be funding whomever you’re asking. That’s why, when it comes to cancer, all eyes turn to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the IARC, which is the official World Health Organization body that independently and objectively tries to determine what is and is not carcinogenic. You can find out what the IARC concluded about cell phones in my video Cell Phone Brain Tumor Risk?. To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Greger click here.

The post Can Cell Phone Radiation Damage Your DNA? appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.