Relevant Studies & Articles That You May Not Have Seen


Text Box: Please share this website with your family & friends. Most have children. 
Text Box: Please bookmark this page. We have lots more to show and tell.


(C) Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors-A Nationwide Case-Control Study.


American Journal of Epidemiology. 167(4):457-467, February 15, 2008.
Sadetzki, Siegal 1,2; Chetrit, Angela 1; Jarus-Hakak, Avital 1; Cardis, Elisabeth 3; Deutch, Yonit 1; Duvdevani, Shay 4; Zultan, Ahuva 1; Novikov, Ilya 5; Freedman, Laurence 5; Wolf, Michael 2,4

The objective of this nationwide study was to assess the association between cellular phone use and development of parotid gland tumors (PGTs). The methods were based on the international INTERPHONE study that aimed to evaluate possible adverse effects of cellular phone use. The study included 402 benign and 58 malignant incident cases of PGTs diagnosed in Israel at age 18 years or more, in 2001-2003, and 1,266 population individually matched controls. For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio=0.87; p=0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. The risk for contralateral use was not significantly different from 1. A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements.
Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs.

Ask yourself and your legislators, who will ultimately pay the price for the trillion dollar WIFI Industry’s radiation pollution? Also Remember to write your own State Governor and legislators. Do the

Harry Potter thing and flood them all with emails and letters beginning in January 2009!

Eye tissue damage

Open Ophthalmol J. 2008; 2: 102–106. Published online 2008 May 21. doi: 10.2174/1874364100802010102.     PMCID: PMC2694600— Copyright © Bormusov et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

Elvira Bormusov,1 Usha P.Andley,*3 Naomi Sharon,1 Levi Schächter,2 Assaf Lahav,2 and Ahuva Dovrat1


Non-Thermal Electromagnetic Radiation Damage to Lens Epithelium

Abstract: The effect of the electromagnetic radiation on the lens epithelium was remarkably different from those of conductive heat. The results of this investigation showed that electromagnetic fields from microwave radiation have a negative impact on the eye lens. The lens damage by electromagnetic fields was distinctly different from that caused by conductive heat.

(The Open Opthamology Journal, 2008, 2, 102-1 06)






Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd All rights reserved. 

Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields—A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment

Olle Johansson  Abstract

The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden A number of papers dealing with the effects of modern, man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on the immune system are summarized in the present review. EMFs disturb immune function through stimulation of various allergic and inflammatory responses, as well as effects on tissue repair processes. Such disturbances increase the risks for various diseases, including cancer. These and the EMF effects on other biological processes (e.g. DNA damage, neurological effects, etc.) are now widely reported to occur at exposure levels significantly below most current national and international safety limits. Obviously, biologically based exposure standards are needed to prevent disruption of normal body processes and potential adverse health effects of chronic exposure.

Based on this review, as well as the reviews in the recent Bioinitiative Report [] [C.F. Blackman, M. Blank, M. Kundi, C. Sage, D.O. Carpenter, Z. Davanipour, D. Gee, L. Hardell, O. Johansson, H. Lai, K.H. Mild, A. Sage, E.L. Sobel, Z. Xu, G. Chen, The Bioinitiative Report—A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), 2007)], it must be concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health, and that new public safety limits, as well as limits on further deployment of untested technologies, are warranted.

Pathophysiology. 2009 Mar 12. [Epub ahead of print

Public health implications of wireless technologies.

Sage C, Carpenter DO.  Sage Associates, 1396 Danielson Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, USA

Global exposures to emerging wireless technologies from applications including mobile phones, cordless phones, DECT phones, WI-FI, WLAN, WiMAX, wireless internet, baby monitors, and others may present serious public health consequences. Evidence supporting a public health risk is documented in the BioInitiative Report. New, biologically based public exposure standards for chronic exposure to low-intensity exposures are warranted. Existing safety standards are obsolete because they are based solely on thermal effects from acute exposures. The rapidly expanding development of new wireless technologies and the long latency for the development of such serious diseases as brain cancers means that failure to take immediate action to reduce risks may result in an epidemic of potentially fatal diseases in the future. Regardless of whether or not the associations are causal, the strengths of the associations are sufficiently strong that in the opinion of the authors, taking action to reduce exposures is imperative, especially for the fetus and children. Such action is fully compatible with the precautionary principle, as enunciated by the Rio Declaration, the European Constitution Principle on Health (Section 3.1) and the European Union Treaties Article 174.