The work of James E. Trosko, a professor of pediatrics and human development, and colleagues is published in the October issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

"Our studies have contributed to what many other studies have shown, and that is that there is a biological effect of the energy imparted by EMF (non ionising) radiation on living systems," Trosko said.

Trosko and his colleagues studied the effects of EMF on mouse leukemia cells that had the potential to mature into cells producing hemoglobin after exposure to a chemical. Hemoglobin is the substance which is needed to bind oxygen in blood. They found that electromagnetic fields of strengths ranging from .05 to 10 gauss interfered with the chemically induced maturation process in the mouse cells and allowed the cells to continue to proliferate.

After four days of exposure, about 35 percent of the chemically treated cells that were exposed to EMF showed these effects.

What Trosko and his colleagues found is that EMF is not a tumor initiator, but rather a potential tumor promoter.

"EMF may not mutate genes, which could convert a normal cell to an 'initiated' cell," he said. "But it can turn them on and off at inappropriate times, causing these initiated cells to proliferate when normally they would just sit there quietly doing nothing."

"The whole point of our study was not to see if EMF causes cancer, but if it changes gene expression," Trosko said. "The bottom line is we showed there is a biological effect of EMF as measured by altering the expression of the hemoglobin-producing gene.

Contact: James E. Trosko, Pediatrics and Human Development (517) 353-6346or Tom Oswald, University Relations(517) 432-0920

Zurich Oct 2000 : a report on research conducted by the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology in Zurich, cannot be unearthed. The Institute is part of the University of Zurich and the research outcome is reputed to be the most conclusive European proof (in corroboration of the above US report) yet, that non ionising radiation at frequencies and power levels transmitted by mobile phones and base stations, does cause biological effects in humans.

On the grapevive, it is known that the UK Department of Health is on record as admitting "This effectively means that people will have to accept that mobile phones do have a biological effect. This a far cry from 10 years ago when the whole thing was dismissed. This is an important study by highly respected scientists. It cannot be ignored".

NRPB still maintains that mobile phone radiation is "well within safety limits" - that's disreputable quackspeak for 'mobile phone radiation doesn't cook people'!  Why such outrageous conduct by an arm of government? Why, at the same time that this latest proof of biological effects of phone radiation begins seeping out  through official information suppression systems, did a servant of NRPB scandalously broadcast disparaging references to "quackery" (facilitated by station income from an expensive concurrent Orange advertising campaign broadcast from the same stations)?

Why is it so difficult to get at content of this Zurich research report ? Why does NRPB or HSE  or Dept. of Health not publish it?

Why is one reminded of the sacking, character assasination and discrediting of UK scientist Harash Narang, when he merely asked embarassing questions about BSE when it was his duty to so? Voters are entitled to ask these questions, and another one - how many cases like Zoe Jeffries will there be before arch hypocrite Blair orders free flow of information, as he promised pre-election?

Abstract of another paper, published 1998 and brought to our attention during October 2000, that dot gov dot UK pleads ignorance about!

Abstract:

One explanation for why the bioeffects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields are being discussed so controversely is the ignorance towards the biocybernetic system of man. The safety guidelines consider only the energy transfer and the calculated tissue heating, they have not taken into consideration the subtile biosystem itself. At extremely low energy levels frequency dependent influences on biofunctions lead to additional effects, which can not be explained by generally accepted and well known physical laws.

We tested some physiological parameters of healthy test persons during exposure of low frequency modulated microwaves emitted by GSM- and DECT-telephones. We found that the EEG-data and the regulation of peripheral blood flow is influenced by shorttime exposure to these fields.

Presented as long ago as 1998 at:

Project Team For Biomedical and Risk Research:

Dr. Wilhelm Mosgöller, Inst. f. Histologie und Embryologie, Email: wilhelm.mosgoeller@univie.ac.at

Mobile phones sold in the run-up to Xmas will carry a UK government health warning.

Officials confirmed yesterday that they were finalising a leaflet that would warn buyers about mobile phones' health risks.

The leaflets will warn specifically that children should not spend too long on their mobiles. They are expected to be distributed to shops within the next two weeks to go out with the thousands of phones bought as Christmas presents.

Ministers decided to act after a report published earlier this year called for more research because of health risks. There are fears in Whitehall that the issue could develop into a BSE-style health scare in future years if no precautionary steps are taken now.

A Department of Health spokesman said: "...using mobile phones can have a harmful effect. We will produce advice for consumers shortly."

A government source said: "The truth is that we do not know enough about it and the leaflet will say there is to be more research, but in the meantime it is worth taking precautions." In the leaflets, parents will be told to limit the time children spend on the phone.

Research published earlier this year said that mobile phone use among children should be discouraged because their brains were more vulnerable than adults to radiation.

Responding to the report, the Government sent advice to schools discouraging pupils under 16 from using mobile phones. In addition, the Department of Health is in discussion with telecommunication companies to distribute health warnings to alert families who already have mobile phones. There is no news of legislation to outlaw irresponsible operation of powerful base stations that beam radiation at schools and playgrounds - or to reign in Environment Ministry inspectors who permit such developments in the face of health warnings and communitarian opposition.

Update 08-12-2000 : reproduced from the BBC :  £7m (comparison of that amount with the tens of billions paid to government by industry for licenses to operate, is an appropriate measure of government's integrity in this matter - and of Blair's general lack of enthusiasm for children's health considerations ) for mobile health research  :

The government is responding to the Stewart Inquiry, which recommended a precautionary approach after examining all the current scientific evidence on phone safety.

The leaflets will also contain advice about the risks of living or working next to mobile phone base stations and radio masts. An audit of base stations is to be carried out by the Radio Communications Agency, focusing particularly on those sited close to schools.

On the basis of the precautionary approach outlined in the Stewart report, the leaflets provide advice that, if you use a mobile phone, you can choose to minimise your exposure to radio waves by keeping your calls short. In the case of children and young people under the age of 16, the UK Chief Medical Officers strongly advise that they should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only and to keep all calls short. The government advice is that consumers check the "specific absorption rate" (SAR) value which is given for each mobile.

This measures the rate at which radiation from the handset is absorbed by the body, and there are wide variations between different makes of phone. A European standard in SAR is due to be introduced next year.

A task force to oversee the research programme is to be chaired by Sir William Stewart, who led the original inquiry team.

'Subtle biological changes'

The extra precautions for younger mobile users were recommended because any emerging health effects might well be more pronounced in the developing brains of young people. Their thinner skulls might also afford less protection against the radiowave radiation emitted by the phones. Statistics suggest that there are 25m mobile phones in use in the UK - a quarter of these belong to the under-18s.

Some claim that symptoms such as headache, memory loss and sleeping disorders could be caused by excessive mobile phone use.  Other scientists believe that the phones cause brain tumours. Even hands-free kits, which claim to reduce exposure to the radiowave radiation by moving the handset further from the ear, have been criticised. Australian scientists claimed that the wire leading to the earpiece could actually intensify the radiation received by the brain rather than reduce it.

Dr Hyland's research findings were published in the latest issue of the medical journal, The Lancet. He said: "Radiation is known to affect the brain rhythms and children are particularly vulnerable."

His findings coincide with a government announcement that it is to set up a (mere) £7 million "task force" to investigate the possible dangers of mobile phones. The team will be chaired by Sir William Stewart, and will include "brain expert" Professor Colin Blakemore and the World Health Organisation's head of research Michael Repaccoli.

The lawsuits, to be launched by one of America's most successful lawyers, are the biggest legal assault on the mobile phone industry and will be the most extensive examination yet of claims that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer.

Vodafone, the world's biggest mobile phone company, faces up to ten compensation claims, potentially for billions of dollars.

It is estimated that two thirds of all Britons now own a mobile phone after about five million people bought mobile phones this Christmas.

The cases will be filed by Peter Angelos, who recently helped to win $4.2 billion (£3 billion) in damages from the tobacco industry in Maryland.

John A. Pica, an attorney at Mr Angelos's law firm, said yesterday: "If these companies knew about the dangers of cellphone (mobile phone) radiation they should be punished and they should be punished dearly: not only for what they did to the public, but for the billions of pounds of profits they made."

Mr Angelos, whose law firm earned nearly $1 billion in fees from the Maryland tobacco industry settlement, is planning to launch two of the claims before March, and the remaining seven or eight within a year. They will be launched initially in California, Kentucky and Maryland. Each claim will be filed against a mobile handset manufacturer, a mobile phone network provider and a local "land-line" telephone company.

Mr Pica confirmed that Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Vodafone and America's Bell Atlantic, would be named in nearly all of the legal actions. Verizon is the biggest mobile phone company in the US, with 26 million customers. The cases could prompt copycat claims in Britain and the rest of the world.

In each of his actions Mr Angelos intends to claim compensation for the pain suffered by brain tumour patients, plus the income that they lost as a result of the disease.

Mr Angelos is also seeking compensation for the families of mobile phone users who have died from brain tumours, and punitive damages.

Mr Pica yesterday refused to guess the total value of the compensation claims that his firm will make against mobile phone companies. He said that individual state laws would govern how much could be claimed in each case. He also said that even if the cases were successful they might secure only a fraction of the amount claimed.

Telecoms companies have so far defended themselves successfully against claims that mobile phones can cause brain tumours. This has not prevented a succession of claims over the devices' safety, mainly from former engineers who claim that they were overexposed to radiation from mobile phones through their jobs.

A spokesman for Vodafone said yesterday that he was not aware that Mr Angelos had become involved in the landmark legal actions. He said: "The Stewart report, the most comprehensive report of its kind so far (in Britain), gave mobile handsets and base stations a clean bill of health. But the link (between mobile phones and brain tumours) is something we can never disprove. We need more research." He added that he was not aware of any similar legal cases in Britain.

If successful, Mr Angelos's actions could have a devastating effect on the share prices of mobile phone companies. Companies such as Vodafone are already under intense pressure from investors because of the huge sums of money that they have invested in "third-generation" mobile phone licences.

In Britain, mobile phone companies paid £22.5 billion for five licences. These will allow their owners to launch high-speed Internet services via mobile phone handsets.

Mr Angelos is also renowned for his ownership of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team, which he bought with the fees generated by his successful compensation claims.

Huge lawsuits over mobile phones.    BBC  28-12-2000

Only recently hailed as the best way to keep radiation away from the brain, scientists now warn it could actually amplify the radiation and channel it directly into the brain.

Nick Raynsford, Minister for Housing and Planning, contravened the European Human Rights Act when he wrote to council leaders telling them to ignore health issues when considering mast planning applications. Mast Action UK is raising funds to fight the case.

It isn't suggested that Raynsford's attempt to rig "the regulations" is motivated by 'influence' or inducement(s).

Newsfeed :