Adverse health from mobile phones and masts
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Mobley
To: BBC Breakfast News
breakfasttv@bbc.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: Adverse health from mobile phones and masts
Dear Sir or Madam
Perhaps you could read this out on air??
I watched your interview today on the "Breakfast" program regarding the report due out today on the adverse health effects of mobile phones and masts.
As usual, no reference was made or the "experts" challenged on the vast amount of independent, peer reviewed research that has proved that there are links to adverse health from phones and masts.
What is true, is that when research conducted independently is compared to research done by the industry and government, the independent research find adverse effects in twice as many cases. For example:
Henry Lai, PhD, has been researching the biological and health effects of RFR for 35 years. His research focuses on the effects of RFR in the range used by cell phones and other wireless technologies. His laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle is the single remaining lab in the US that conducts such research. He found that of industry-funded studies, only 27% found an radio frequency radiation (RFR) effect. Independently funded studies found an RFR effect 68% of the time. This discrepancy is consistent among the effects listed. Of studies that found an effect on cancer, 11% were industry-funded; 47% were independently funded. Cellular and molecular effects: 19% industry, 69% independent. Electrophysiology effects: 33% industry, 77% independent. Physiological and behavioural effects: 57% industry, 83% independent.
He has amassed over 300 studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. To avoid bias, he excludes his own research from the database. Of these studies, 56% show a biological or health effect from exposure to RFR. These effects include the following:
• cancer;
• genetic effects, such as to DNA
• cellular and molecular effects, such as reduction in enzymes critical to the central nervous system
• changes in electrophysiology, such as reduced activity between nerve cells; and
• physiological and behavioural changes, such as impairment of peripheral vision.
It's about time your presenters had some of these facts before them when they interview these representatives of the industry and not let them off the hook by allowing standard government and industry responses to what are very serious matters. The general view is that industry and government funded research shows bias. Not surprising when you consider the amount of money this generates.
Peter Mobley
Wednesbury
West Midlands
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Q&A: Mobile phone safety
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6991150.stm
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Henry+Lai
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
From: Peter Mobley
To: BBC Breakfast News
breakfasttv@bbc.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: Adverse health from mobile phones and masts
Dear Sir or Madam
Perhaps you could read this out on air??
I watched your interview today on the "Breakfast" program regarding the report due out today on the adverse health effects of mobile phones and masts.
As usual, no reference was made or the "experts" challenged on the vast amount of independent, peer reviewed research that has proved that there are links to adverse health from phones and masts.
What is true, is that when research conducted independently is compared to research done by the industry and government, the independent research find adverse effects in twice as many cases. For example:
Henry Lai, PhD, has been researching the biological and health effects of RFR for 35 years. His research focuses on the effects of RFR in the range used by cell phones and other wireless technologies. His laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle is the single remaining lab in the US that conducts such research. He found that of industry-funded studies, only 27% found an radio frequency radiation (RFR) effect. Independently funded studies found an RFR effect 68% of the time. This discrepancy is consistent among the effects listed. Of studies that found an effect on cancer, 11% were industry-funded; 47% were independently funded. Cellular and molecular effects: 19% industry, 69% independent. Electrophysiology effects: 33% industry, 77% independent. Physiological and behavioural effects: 57% industry, 83% independent.
He has amassed over 300 studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. To avoid bias, he excludes his own research from the database. Of these studies, 56% show a biological or health effect from exposure to RFR. These effects include the following:
• cancer;
• genetic effects, such as to DNA
• cellular and molecular effects, such as reduction in enzymes critical to the central nervous system
• changes in electrophysiology, such as reduced activity between nerve cells; and
• physiological and behavioural changes, such as impairment of peripheral vision.
It's about time your presenters had some of these facts before them when they interview these representatives of the industry and not let them off the hook by allowing standard government and industry responses to what are very serious matters. The general view is that industry and government funded research shows bias. Not surprising when you consider the amount of money this generates.
Peter Mobley
Wednesbury
West Midlands
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Q&A: Mobile phone safety
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6991150.stm
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Henry+Lai
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
Starmail - 12. Sep, 18:10
