Cellphones have become commonplace. Users are able to call, text and use the Internet, all from the convenience of a piece of equipment that fits in a pocket. According to Pew Research Center, 91 percent of adults in the U.S. have one.1
Pew found the number of people embracing the use of cellphones have made this device the most quickly accepted consumer technology in history. The latest survey found those over 65, living in rural areas and women, are less likely to own a cellphone, although this pattern has not been evident in previous surveys.
Pew attributes the quick rise in popularity of the device to the development of smartphones. Unfortunately, this connection to technology places you in danger of disconnecting from what’s real and really important. Use and overuse may lead to addiction. The New York Times observes:2
“The near-universal access to digital technology, starting at ever younger ages, is transforming modern society in ways that can have negative effects on physical and mental health, neurological development and personal relationships, not to mention safety on our roads and sidewalks.
As your usage increases, so does your exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation and, with it, your risk for developing cancer.
Although proponents claim the power emitted from cellphones is weak, the most plausible explanation for the health and biological impact is related to the erratic nature of the signal and its ability to interfere with DNA repair.
Study Links Cellphone Use to Increased Risk of Cancer
Previous studies have linked EMF radiation emitted from cellphones with triggering abnormal cell growth and cancer,3,4 but it is a recent study and a California lawsuit that has increased attention to this link. In the video above, Devra Davis, Ph.D., shares what is known about absorption of radiation by the brain from cellphone use.
The new research exposed rats to radiofrequency radiation from cellphones for approximately nine hours each day, after which the rats were more likely to develop tumors of glial cells in the brain and tumors in the heart.5
Opponents believe there may be some difficulty generalizing the results to human cellphone use for several reasons.
Some research using animal models are poorly designed and opponents have difficulty believing animal experiments may be extrapolated to human results.6However, without purposefully exposing humans to toxins and radiation, animals are the first models used.
In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Group 2B “possible carcinogen” based on the available research.7 According to IARC director Christopher Wild, Ph.D.:8
“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings, it is important that additional research be conducted into the long ‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones.
Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands ‐ free devices or texting.'”
While some studies have drawn links between cellphone usage and cancer, others have not been so definitive.
However, in a paper published by the Policy Studies Organization, the authors determined there appears to be a relationship between funding, or the author’s affiliation with industry during a study, and whether a correlation was found between cancer and cellphone use.9
Such research bias holds dangerous public health repercussions, and it’s certainly not the first time bias has been found to influence research results.10,11,12
Judge Orders Papers Released
To protect public health from the risks of cellphone radiation, California’s Environmental Health Investigations branch developed a set of recommendations and warnings.
However, no formal copy was ever publicly released. Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California Berkeley, requested access to this information.13
When his request was denied, he sued the state under the California Public Records Act and won. Moskowitz explained his actions to local CBS station in San Francisco:14
“I would like this document to see the light of day because it will inform the public that there is concern within the California Department of Public Health that cellphone radiation is a risk and it will provide them with some information about how to reduce those risks.”
However, while the document was released, it was stamped “Draft and Not for Public Release,” which essentially negates the ruling from the Supreme Court Judge. Moskowitz, not yet satisfied with the actions of the state of California, explained that the Public Records Act was violated, since:15
“That lettering states that the document is ‘draft and not for public release’ when the judge’s tentative ruling stated exactly the opposite — that the document was not a draft, and must be publicly released.”
The director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley, Claudia Polsky, representing Moskowitz, also believes the arguments for not releasing the document are irresponsible since the public health impact may be critical. She was also dissatisfied with the stamped disclaimer on the guidelines.16
The document contained summaries of studies suggesting long-term use of cellphones may increase your risk of brain cancer and that EMFs emitted from cellphones are frequently kept close to the head and body, potentially affecting nearby tissue.
The sheet also listed recommendations to reduce exposure to EMF radiation. Moskowitz notes:17 “This could have perhaps saved some lives if it had been published by the department seven years ago.”
WiFi Illness and Sensitivities
The health department’s lawyer argued releasing the document would unnecessarily alarm the public.18 However, many of these studies have been published for nearly 10 years, having had little to no impact on the sale of smartphones that now reside in 9 out of 10 adult hands in the U.S.
Although the sheer volume of WiFi and Bluetooth products is a relatively new phenomenon, the effects of these radiofrequency waves have been studied for decades.
John Moulder, Ph.D., professor emeritus of radiation oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, co-authored a review of existing research going back to the 1950s. His review found few health effects at low doses of EMF.
However, Moskowitz counters this argument, saying: “We have animal studies suggesting even low-level exposures to the kind of radio wave radiation associated with WiFi could have a variety of negative health effects.” Moskowitz gathered study summaries and published them in one place.19
There is reason for concern, not only from an outpouring of research painting a very different picture about cellphone safety than the telecommunications industry would have you believe, but also from a growing population of electrically sensitive individuals who may be the proverbial canaries in the coal mine.
Dr. Thomas Rau, medical director of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland, shared during an interview he did with me that an estimated 3 to 8 percent of populations in developed countries experience serious electro-hypersensitivity symptoms, while 35 percent experience mild symptoms.
Rau also believes that electromagnetic loads can lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson’s and even back pain. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of EMF radiation on sperm quality, researchers found an 8 percent reduction in motility and 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.20,21 Researchers in one study wrote:22
“RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.”
Is This a First Amendment Battle?
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution says:23
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Berkeley, California, is the first in the nation to have a city ordinance requiring retailers to give consumers federal guidelines for safe cellphone use. While the notice hasn’t drawn much attention from consumers, it did draw the attention of the trade organization representing some of the largest cellphone manufacturers and carriers in the nation.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), took great offense and went to court arguing the sign infringes on the cellphone manufacturers and carriers First Amendment rights.24 They argue the ordinance is forcing retailers to “distribute its one-sided, innuendo-laden, highly misleading and scientifically unsupported opinion on a matter of public controversy.”
Berkeley denies the allegations, saying the signs are “nothing but an arrow that points to the very manuals written by manufacturers.” The cellphone warning was cleared by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco who, in a hearing in 2015, read from an iPhone manual which cautioned the user that if the device was carried closer than five-eighths of an inch from your body, it could surpass the federal radiation exposure guidelines.25 Chen wrote:26
“The mandated disclosure truthfully states that federal guidelines may be exceeded where spacing is not observed, just as the FDA accurately warns that ‘tobacco smoke can harm your children.'”
At this time, the iPhone manuals do not carry the RF recommendations. Instead, they’re buried in the settings on the phone.27Attorney for Berkeley, Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor, pointed out the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) announced three years ago it would reassess cellphone radiation safety standards28 which have not changed since 1996, but has not taken further action. According to Lessig:29
“The FCC would not be asking for comments about whether there was a health hazard if it had concluded that there was no possible way that a cellphone held against the body could constitute any health hazard.”
Court Determines Tumor Is From a Phone
According to the Italian Supreme Court, a man’s cellphone was responsible for a tumor growth in his trigeminal nerve, the fifth cranial nerve supplying sensation to your face and other structures in the head. The tumor grew very close to where the phone came in contact with Mr. Marcolini’s face, paralyzing half his face. Following the ruling, Marcolini commented:30
“This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks. I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work. I wanted it recognized that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile and cordless phones. Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.”
Dr. Angelo Gino Levis, a respected oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis, and Dr. Giuseppe Grasso, a neurosurgeon, testified for Marcolini, affirming the EMF radiation from mobile and cordless phones damages cells, making tumor growth more likely. Levis said:31
“The court decision is extremely important. It finally officially recognizes the link. It’ll open not a road but a motorway to legal actions by victims. We’re considering a class action. Tumors due to radiation may not appear for 15 years, so three to five-year studies don’t find them. We’ll only realize in years to come the damage phones can cause children.”
Children May Be at Grave Risk
Health risks are even greater for children than adults, for a couple reasons. Children are now exposed to EMF radiation at a very early age, whereas older people can still recall the days when every phone was hardwired to the wall.
Hence the opportunity for harm to develop over time is exponentially greater for children than adults. The exposure is also pervasive. Most homes have WiFi routers, cellphones and tablets, and many public areas also provide WiFi these days. Children spend hours on their parent’s smartphone and tablets, playing games and staying occupied.
Digital equipment has become an addiction for children and adults. Whether it’s a smartphone, tablet or WiFi enabled screen, children are spending between six and seven hour a day in front of a screen,32 a far cry from the two-hour max the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends.33
Holding a cellphone up to your ear allows 80 percent of the EMF radiation produced to penetrate your brain tissue up to two inches.34 Ronald Melnick, scientific adviser for the Environmental Health Trust, commented on the use of cellphones in the pediatric population:35
“The penetration of the cellphone radiation into the brain of a child is deeper and greater. Also, the developing nervous system of a child is potentially more susceptible to a damaging agent.”
The California’s Environmental Health Investigations guidelines concur, saying:36
“EMFs can pass deeper into a child’s brain than an adult’s. The brain is still developing through the teen years, which may make children and teens more sensitive to EMF exposure.”
Take Precautions to Protect Your Children and Yourself From EMF
Cellphones were first invented in 1973.37 Since the first mobile phone that was the size of a small box, cellphones have evolved into devices more easily carried in your pocket. However, while 40 years may seem like a long time, the cellphone did not become mainstream until the late 1990s, and many of the long-term side effects from overexposure to EMF radiation take years if not decades to develop.
This means there is no good way of predicting the long-term effects on a generation of children who are exposed to chronic radiation throughout their lives. Today, many children are even exposed before birth.
One study38 that evaluated the health of children in mothers who used cellphones during their pregnancy found a 25 percent increase in emotional problems, 34 percent increase in peer problems, 35 percent increase in hyperactivity and 49 percent increase in conduct problems than in mothers who did not use cellphones during their pregnancy. Another study found an increase in spontaneous abortions in mothers who used cellphones during their pregnancy.39
For your child’s and your own sake, I urge you to minimize these kinds of risks by taking some common-sense precautions. For a list of recommendations for lowering your EMF exposure, please see my previous article, “EMF Controversy Exposed.”
{Matzav.com}
An article from Mercola? Really…
Most of this superbly excellent extensive essay is about the severe PHYSICAL problems — ruination of Gashmiyus — that, Chas V’Shalom, Lo Alaynu, can come from cellphone use. At the beginning of it though, the essay does mention that there are also serious PSYCHOLOGICAL and SOCIOLOGICAL problems — ruination of Ruchniyus — that, Chas V’Shalom, Lo Alaynu, can come from excessive use of cellphones and other contemporary super high tech devices. It further points out that that there are also serious SAFETY problems — ruination of both Gashmiyus AND Ruchniyus — that, Chas V’Shalom, Lo Alaynu, can come from misuse of cellphones and other contemporary super high tech devices.
The psychological-sociological problems are that with being heavily absorbed and obsessed with these devices, people often forget and neglect the crucial tasks — that are Divinely ordered to us by our Torah HaKdosha — of having proper social interaction with other people.
The safety problems are that people are often heavily absorbed in operating these devices even when they are moving around by walking or driving a motor vehicle. With their minds thus almost completely focused on their playing with their little “toys” while they are moving, they are unable to adhere to one of the most basic rules of safety: “WATCH WHERE YOU ARE GOING!” If they are walking, they may likely, C’V, trip over something, greatly injuring themselves, or they may likely, C’V, bump into and knock over someone else, greatly injuring that person. If they are driving a motor vehicle, they may likely, C’V, crash into a stationary object, greatly injuring themselves and wreaking their vehicle, or they may likely, C’V, crash into another vehicle, greatly injuring both themselves and the people in the other vehicle and wreaking both their vehicle and the other people’s vehicle.
The words “greatly injuring,” of course, refer to the virtual endless number of injuries and types of injuries that can, C’V, L’A, happen to a human being. There are injuries that can be healed, but require (for the healing) extremely extensive — and $$$ expensive — intensive medical treatment with full major surgery. There are injuries that even after all of the several surgeries and specialist treatments, the person, C’V, L’A, is still severely maimed and crippled for life. And there are injuries that, C’V, L’A, quickly bring the death of the person.
So, in these various incidents of immense tragedy, the most serious Aveiros — of “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not smite” and “Thou shalt not kill” — are being committed!!
So, totally understandably, in recent years, numerous states have added to their driving regulations, laws completely prohibiting text messaging when driving and greatly limiting cellphone talking when driving (see details for each state at http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/cellular-phone-use-and-texting-while-driving-laws.aspx).
In the realm of sociological problems caused by grossly excessive improper cellphone use, a few years ago, the Bnei Torah newspaper, “Yated Ne’eman,” printed a report about the following incident. The person writing the article, who is himself a full Ben Torah and one of the writers for the Yated, related that he came into a certain non-Jewish store to purchase something. He noticed that in the store was another man who was obviously also a full Ben Torah who was also looking to buy something AND was talking on his cellphone. He saw the man find and pick out the item(s) he wanted and bring them up to the checkout counter — all while he was continuing talking on his cellphone. He further saw the man — not even looking at the woman cashier or saying anything to her but instead continuing talking on his cellphone — put the item(s) on the counter. The cashier put the item(s)’ price(s) into the register and told the man the grand total price. Again, not even looking at her but instead continuing talking on his cellphone, the man put some cash on the counter. The cashier took the cash and put the change on the counter, along with the item(s) in a bag. Again, not even looking at her or saying anything to her but instead continuing talking on his cellphone, the man took the change and the bag with his item(s), turned around, and walked out of the store.
The man who was witnessing all this (and thus later wrote the story) found and picked out the item(s) he was looking for and brought them up to the checkout counter. He WAS NOT talking on his cell phone! As he laid his item(s) on the counter, he may have even briefly remarked to the cashier woman something like: “Hello; here are my things.”
Evidently, seeing that this was a Ben Torah whom she COULD talk to, she asked him: “MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION?” When he replied in the affirmative, she exclaimed: “WHY ARE YOUR PEOPLE SO RUDE???????”
Clearly, the continuing-talking-on-his-cellphone-man committed here several serious Aveiros: being Mevazeh Es Habriyos, being Mevazeh Es Habriyos B’Rabim, Ona’a, not showing HaKores HaTov — He did not have the basic human decency to even say “Thank You”!!!!!!!!! I will repeat that: He did not have the — Mandated by our Torah HaKdosha — the basic human decency to even say “Thank You”!!!!!!!!!
When the cashier woman exclaimed the words “Your People,” she may have very well meant “ALL Jewish People.” Maybe though, she only meant more specifically “The RELIGIOUS Jewish People,” or, maybe though, she only meant even more specifically “The ULTRA-RELIGIOUS, B’NEI TORAH Jewish People.” Whatever was her intention, A TERRIBLE CHILLUL HASHEM OBVIOUSLY OCCURRED!!
(continuation of my previous remark)
Furthermore, the woman did not simply say to the second man (something like): “Wow, that other guy, he was rude!!” or even (something like): “You know, some of your people ARE very rude!!” She also did not make any acknowledgement to him that HE DID act respectful to her and say (something like): “You though, look like a nice guy!” Instead, she just angrily laments about “Your People” being “So Rude!” implying that ALL of “Your People” are “So Rude!”
So her heavy-blanket-across-the-board-accusation may well be evidence that, that continuing-talking-on-his-cellphone-man WAS NOT THE FIRST continuing-talking-on-his-cellphone-man whom she received abuse from! Rather, he was merely THE MOST RECENT of a long, long, long line of B’nei Torah guys who had all acted this way toward her — and other store personal. Yes, maybe one of her friends, who is a clerk in another store, told her of the same experience: “Oh yeah! Those boys from ‘the yeshiva,’ they are the worst!! They come in hooked on their phones and completely ignore you!!”
If, C’V, this accusation is true, I repeat, IF, C’V, this accusation is true, that many B’nei Torah do go around acting this terrible way and thus continually make such a terrible Chillul Hashem, then this certainly is a terrible situation. It is a terrible situation brought about by a terrible misuse of the ultra-high-tech-device of the cellphone, and is thus one of the many terrible problems caused by the severely problematic temptations presented by this ultra-high-tech “toy.”