big picture understanding
introduction
The use of wireless applications has been spreading rapidly over the past two decades. Without a doubt, this development has produced amazing benefits for humanity in a great number of ways. Wireless data transmission is now an integral part of modern day society and human interaction and it serves as a major enabler for both globalization and humanity's current transition from the industrial age to the information age.
However, as a byproduct of the widespread application of wireless technology, non-natural electromagnetic fields now surround us all, everywhere, 24 hours a day. These omnipresent artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF) constitute a major part of what is commonly called electrosmog.
Cellphones emit electromagnetic fields in the range of Radio-Frequency Radiation [RF] and Micro-Wave Radiation [MW]. They represent just one out of several different sources of electrosmog. However cellphones are particularly relevant, because we all use them and because we typically hold the radiating antennas right next to our brains.
It is especially the near-field radiation of the antenna that seems to have the highest potential for harmful interference with biological systems. The physical phenomena and mechanisms taking place in the near-field are not well defined by textbook physics and classical electrodynamics. There is high uncertainty in this area and scientific understanding is far from conclusive.
Natural electromagnetism is deeply involved in the well-functioning of our bodies and minds. Consider that a biological cell is not only a chemical, but also an electrical system and is therefore sensitive to electromagnetic fields. We don't have to be engineers, or doctors to anticipate that there is a high likelihood for some sort of interference between our bodies and artificial EMFs. Intuition naturally suggests that. That's why most of us have likely heard our inner voice whisper something like this before:
...are these cellphones really safe for my health?
...could it be harmful to hold the cellphone so close to my brain?
...could my fertility be affected by carrying the cellphone in my pocket?
inconsistencies in The official View
The industry insists that cellphones are completely safe. However, at the same time in their small-print, cellphone manufacturers warn that we should not use their devices in close proximity to our heads and they too suggest to use the speaker function or a headset when making a call. If you own an iPhone and you want to verify this, simply navigate to the legal disclaimer on your phone's operating system as described below:
Settings > General > About > Legal > RF Exposure...
*(Retrieved September 2015)
If that doesn't make you at least skeptical consider this: Lloyd's of London Insurance, which is one of the biggest insurance syndicates worldwide - and one that is known to take on risks that no other insurance company will - refuses to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users’ health since 1999. This has set a standard in the insurance industry. An industry that is typically good at two things: Assessing risk and exploiting opportunities to make money. Wouldn't an insurance company be happy to sell policies that cover health-related damages from long-term cellphone use if that wouldn't involve serious risks for them? Maybe insurance companies know something that has been overlooked by the general public...?
Research funded and co-funded by cellphone manufacturers and service providers usually doesn't look beyond the well studied thermal effects (heating of tissue) through RF radiation. Legal - considered "safe" - radiation and exposure limits set by most governments and regulatory agencies worldwide are based on, and designed to protect from only these thermal effects (e.g. SAR values of cellphones).
Other, so called non-thermal effects are generally disregarded and assumed non-existing. The reasoning being that cellphone radiation belongs to the category of non-ionizing radiation and that there exist no officially acknowledged mechanisms that could explain how RF-EMFs can interact with biological systems other than through absorption of the energy waves in tissue, which is known to result in heating (e.g. microwave oven).
Non-ionizing means that the radiation doesn't carry enough energy to completely remove an electron from an atom or molecule and therefore can't break up atomic bonds when it passes through matter, as is the case for higher frequency radiation like x-rays and gamma rays.
In simple terms the official viewpoint can be summarized as follows:
'As long as RF radiation doesn't break up the molecules in our bodies and as long as it is not intense enough to heat the tissue over a critical threshold, it is safe.'
'Since current academic physics can't explain any other mechanism of potential interaction with human biology there is no need to consider such a mechanism.'
This reasoning is obviously based on severe cognitive bias and incomplete information. It contains several fallacies and it neglects scientific evidence:
-
To argue that breakage of chemical bonds (ionizing) and heating are the only ways how RF-EMFs could negatively affect an organism, because no other mechanism is known, is logically void. (Argumentum ex Silentio, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, Onus Probandi)
-
DNA single- and double-strand breaks in human cells have been demonstrated to occur through exposure to non-ionizing cellphone radiation. It has been deduced that this could not have been the result of heating, or thermal effects. See this study for example. (Suppressed Evidence/Cherry Picking)
-
Literally hundreds of other published research papers clearly show that non-ionizing RF radiation has a wide variety of effects on biological systems at, or below the legal limits of intensity (SAR values) - so likely caused by non-thermal effects. See Research Section. (Suppressed Evidence/Cherry Picking)
-
Empirical tests done with biological and neurological measurement methods, such as brainwave analysis with an EEG, blood count analysis by means of dark-field microscopy, Kinesiological Muscle Testing and Electro-Acupuncture, all reproducibly demonstrate instant effects on humans even after a single short phone call. (Suppressed Evidence/Cherry Picking)
-
The boundary at which radiation becomes considered ionizing is not clearly defined, since different molecules and atoms ionize at different energy intensities and frequencies. (Faulty Generalization)
-
It is scientifically undisputed that non-ionizing radiation still carries sufficient energy to excite the movement of electrons to higher orbital energy states. This represents an electro-chemical and energetic alteration in the state of matter/tissue and it is simply not known if heating is the only result. (Argumentum ex Silentio)
-
Informational qualities of electromagnetic radiation, e.g. through polarization, are disregarded despite scientific evidence for the biological relevance. See latest research. (Suppressed Evidence/Cherry Picking)
-
Potential subtle-energetic phenomena and interactions are overlooked, because current equipment can't directly detect these energies and related theoretical models are widely unnoticed by academic institutions. (Argumentum ex Silentio)
observed biological effects
Hundreds of scientific research studies have contributed to a worrisome list of reoccurring adverse health effects and biological dysfunctions resulting from exposure to cellphone radiation at, or below the legal limits of intensity. This list includes - but is not limited to - the following:
(More than 280 papers with significant findings that have been published in recent years can be accessed through our Research Section for reference)
-
Brain tumors and other cancers (child leukemia and prostate cancer among others)
-
Sperm motility and infertility
-
Genome/DNA damages and dysfunctions
-
Fetal and neo-natal responses to exposure during pregnancy
-
Blood-brain barrier permeability
-
Neural and cerebral (brain) damages and dysfunctions
-
Effects on cerebral blood flow
-
Changes in brainwave activity (EEG)
-
Hormonal and glandular dysfunctions
-
Sleep and circadian rhythm dysfunctions
-
Behavioral changes / cognitive function impairment (e.g. learning/concentration)
-
Auditory system function impairments and tinnitus
-
Various changes in biochemistry (blood, proteins and other molecules)
-
Increased cellular stress, apoptosis (cell death) and cell growth inhibition
-
Increased oxidative stress / impaired antioxidant function
-
Plant growth inhibition and interferences with wildlife and insect orientation
-
Melatonin suppression through short-wave optical radiation (blue light from display)
The last point on the list relates to a type of energy that is often overlooked in the discussion on cellphone radiation. Short-wavelength optical radiation, or simply blue light is emitted by a cellphone's display covering the spectrum of peak biological sensitivity.
This type of light is highly relevant for the regulation of melatonin in human beings and it therefore has a direct influence on our wake-sleep cycles and on our immune system. The wavelengths of interest are naturally present in the light spectrum emitted by our Sun and they are absolutely required for us to function properly during the day. Problems for our health only start to occur if we are exposed to these wavelengths at night. Those of us who spend several hours each evening in front of our cellphones, computers, or TVs are most severely affected and precautionary measures are very advisable.
Precaution and protection are especially important for our children. Their central nervous systems, immune systems and circadian rhythms are much more sensitive to external stimuli and the development of these systems could potentially be altered irreversibly by continuous unnatural interferences.
Read our article on Blue Light Radiation to learn what to do about this problem.
why is there a controversy?
Despite the overwhelming evidence for this wide variety of adverse, non-thermal effects caused by exposure to RF radiation many of the findings are ignored, or discredited and the existence of adverse health effects is generally not being acknowledged, or officially recognized by regulatory agencies and governmental institutions.
One reason is that it is generally quite easy to insinuate some kind of bias, or error to many research studies. This is exploited by lobbyists related to the telecom industry who work hard to challenge, or discredit any significant positive finding, no matter what the insinuated error, or bias actually relates to, or how severe it is. In some cases a challenge can be reasonable. In most cases however, errors that are causally irrelevant to the results are used to discredit the findings of a study altogether.
Another reason is that there are also many scientific studies that find no adverse health effects at all. Whether a study finds significant effects, or not is often related to how a study is designed and what parameters are examined under which specific conditions. There are several frequency bands and modulation types for cellphone signals to which individual biological systems, compartments and structures respond very differently.
Let's use a fictional example to clarify this:
If a study looks for a certain cellular reaction, or biochemical alteration due to exposure to RF-radiation of - let's say - 800 MHz (i.e. GSM800) it might very well find nothing. However, with a slightly different frequency within the range used by cellphones (currently approx. between 700 MHz and 2600 MHz for the carrier frequency) the results could have been very different. Also simply altering the type of modulation of the original 800 MHz frequency could have changed the findings. And lastly, had the researchers looked elsewhere in the body for an effect at this same 800 MHz frequency with the initial modulation they could have very well found a biological response.
So, if a negative, or insignificant finding would for some reason be desired by the sponsor of the study it would be very easy to create one.
This brings us to the next important consideration:
A critical factor for the results of a study seems to be the source of funding.
It has been shown that industry funded research on potential adverse health effects of cellphone radiation is significantly more likely to produce results in favor of the industry compared to independently funded research - see a comprehensive systematic review study conducted on this particular issue by the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland.
...The controversy is further fueled by yet another factor:
The underlying physical mechanisms that are required to theoretically explain the observed interactions between biology and artificial electromagnetic fields remain unclear.
Transverse electromagnetic waves as they are described by current physics textbooks and as they are used to transmit our communication data do indeed not seem to have the required properties to interact with our biology in such a detrimental way...
What causes the adverse health effects?
The evidence for interferences between artificial electromagnetic fields and human biology is overwhelming. However, since traditional electromagnetic waves only seem to interact with matter (i.e. body tissue) by vertebral collapse (meaning the energy is partially absorbed) with heating as the only known result, these waves do indeed not seem to qualify as the primary cause for the many biological interferences that are being observed. But then what else could it be?
There are three scenarios that have to be considered each individually and potentially applying in combination:
1. Traditional (transverse) electromagnetic waves could potentially be interacting with biological systems in ways that are not yet understood. This is definitely possible, but relatively unlikely given the amount of research that has been done with these waves.
2. The local distortion of the magnetic field of the Earth (the "background magnetic field") by electronic and magnetic devices in operation (such as a cellphone) could cause changes, or dysfunctions in organisms that are exposed to these local field distortions. That there are local distortions around any technical device is a measurable fact. This is not up for debate. However, little to no research is available related to the consequences of such subtle distortions on biological organisms. Nevertheless, since humans and pretty much all other living beings are highly dependent on natural magnetism to function properly and everything on this Earth is constantly immersed in the Earth's magnetic field, it is reasonable to assume that distortions in this field can have some sort of effect on us. We consider the background field distortion caused by a cellphone to have a high probability of being a contributing factor to the observed biological dysfunctions, but further research is required. Read the article Cellphones & Health and the information about the Charlatan Chip for more on this topic.
3. A phenomenon that has been overlooked by mainstream science for over 100 years could potentially hold the key to understand this issue. A second, much more biologically relevant electromagnetic wave form with totally different characteristics than the known and accepted transverse electromagnetic waves, likely does exist. These waves seem to be active primarily in the near-field of an antenna and they can apparently interact with structures in our bodies over a wide range of frequencies and wavelengths. Interaction seems to take place primarily through resonance with said organic structures. The legendary inventor and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla has done a lot of research on these phenomena and others have added to it over the years. However, this type of radiation has not (yet) made its way into textbook physics and mainstream academic sciences. The probability of these secondary waves being a major contributing factor to biological dysfunctions can be considered very high, since the available theoretical models fit the data perfectly.
"The elephant in the room" - an unknown type of electromagnetic wave?!
These waves are not so unknown after all. Electromagnetic longitudinal waves, or Scalar Waves are however, likely the most overlooked and officially least researched phenomena within the fields of electrosmog and electromagnetism in general. In fact, mainstream academic science and governmental institutions are officially not acknowledging their existence, even though they have been technically used and demonstrated by Nikola Tesla more than 100 years ago (Tesla Waves/Tesla Radiation) and Lord Kelvin at the time publicly confirmed Tesla's findings.
A conclusive theoretical framework that doesn't require any postulates and is completely derived from accepted mathematical equations that are found in every physics textbook has long been produced and published, along with sound experimental evidence. The German field-physicist Prof. Dr. Ing.- Konstantin Meyl first published his theory of the Electromagnetic Potential Vortex in 1990 with Scalar Waves being a direct derivative. (Scalar Wave = Tesla Radiation = Electromagnetic Longitudinal Wave)
In general, longitudinal waves are waves where the disturbance in the medium manifests in the direction of energy propagation. Standardized sound-waves in air are an example of well known longitudinal waves. Here one molecule bumps into the next one and the disturbance is transported like a domino effect.
In contrast, what we know as traditional electromagnetic waves are transverse waves. This means that the disturbance manifests in a direction transverse (at 90 degree angle) to the direction of energy propagation - similar to the surface waves that can be observed on water when a stone is dropped from above. Here the disturbance goes up and down, while the energy travels outward horizontally.
So these vortical/longitudinal wave forms don't exist in official academic physics textbooks - yet. However, many not well understood bio-electric mechanisms in the human body are being gallantly explained by this theory. The same applies to the mysterious non-thermal effects of cellphone radiation that can be clearly observed, but not mechanically explained with conventional physics. On top of that the model accounts for unexplained natural geo-pathogenic phenomena such as the anomalies recorded over water veins for example and certain branches of alternative medicine that produce empirically verifiable results but currently lack mechanical explanation find support from this theory. Finally, several inconsistencies in electromagnetic theory and classical electrodynamics are corrected by an extension to the famous equations of J.C.Maxwell, specifically by replacing the so called vector potential with the model of the Potential Vortex. The resulting set of equations can be used to mathematically derive the particle set of nuclear physics when those particles are interpreted as field-vortexes.
This extension to electromagnetic theory enables nothing less than a unification theory describing the fundamental rule-set of our physical reality - a so called "little" Theory Of Everything (TOE). ..."Little" because it still doesn't account for non-physical reality, i.e. Consciousness, metaphysics and subjective concepts like meaning, or purpose - extremely valuable nonetheless.
In case you are a physicist, or an otherwise scientifically interested/educated individual and you now wonder why you have never heard of this theory before, take this advice...
Pay respect to the scientific method and look into this by yourself with open-minded skepticism. It is the only approach that protects you from falling into the ego trap of disregarding something without personally verifying it, simply because it is not currently being acknowledged by the broader scientific establishment, or because it contradicts dominant scientific belief, or your current personal worldview. A habit that many dogmatic scholars I have met tend to have unfortunately. I know this probably doesn't apply to you, I'm just saying... You could miss out on something big here.
Click here to learn more.
Presuming the model is correct, these resulting electromagnetic longitudinal waves and centripetal field-vortices constitute what we believe to be the most explosive (or rather implosive), most fascinating and probably most far-reaching phenomena within this whole field of research, readily having in store some profound disruptive implications for medical science, electrical engineering, energy technology and fundamentally for theoretical physics and electrodynamics.
the importance of scalar waves *
The reasons for the high relevance and priority of Scalar Waves in the discussion on cellphone radiation are:
-
Scalar Waves seem to be the type of electromagnetic waves primarily used for data and energy transmission by Nature.
-
The human organism appears to rely heavily on these types of waves, for example for intra- and extra-cellular communication processes, for the conduction of electromagnetic signals through neural networks and for reading and writing processes within the DNA. Therefore our bodies would provide countless structures that are potentially sensitive to- and could interact with artificial Scalar Waves.
-
Research indicates that these vortical waves have positive, or negative information technological effects on living organisms determined by the direction of their spin, or by their polarization. The spin direction predominantly produced by artificial sources seemingly happens to cause the observed negative effects. See this recent publication in Nature.
-
Our cellphones' antennas seem to emit artificial Scalar Waves as a by-product to the technically used Hertzian Waves and they appear to be primarily present in the near-field of the antenna.
Read our articles on Cellphone Radiation and on Scalar Waves for more information.
*The challenge is that the theory that can explain the officially unexplainable is not endorsed by the dominant academic opinion. So from an official perspective we have to accept that we still do not understand the involved mechanisms and interactions that can, or do take place between our biology and artificial electromagnetic fields.
final thoughts
It is evident that some sort of biological interference takes place, even at radiation intensities that can be several orders of magnitude lower than the legal limits. Specific frequencies and the phenomena appearing in the near-field seem to be the primary determinants for non-thermal biological interference, not the radiation's intensity.
What has only briefly been mentioned in this article is the local distortion of the Earth's natural magnetic field (or the magnetic background field) caused by any electronic application. This additional potential cause for biological dysfunctions is further discussed in the article Cellphones & Health along this Knowledge Section and in the product description of the Charlatan Chip.
Instantaneous non-thermal effects can easily be demonstrated by any doctor with access to biological measurement equipment such as Electro-Acupuncture, Kinesiological Muscle Testing, or a Dark-Field Microscope (see Rouleaux-Effect). You can also subjectively verify the existence of biological interference by conducting growth experiments on plants. Additionally we see the results of the hundreds of scientific research studies suggesting adverse health effects through RF radiation.
The steadily surfacing evidence and coverage by mainstream media of a potential link between long term cellphone use and brain tumors is unfortunately "just" the tip of the iceberg as we have seen.
What's also important to note is that every person and every immune system responds somewhat differently to the effects of cellphone radiation and electrosmog. Not everyone eventually gets sick, or becomes electro-sensitive (allergic). Some immune systems can cope with this additional stress-factor better than others, but like any kind of pollution it is a burden for many organisms on this planet, definitely including us humans.
The subjective nature of this strain makes it much more difficult for science to deliver one-fits-all fully objective results on the matter through epidemiological research. We will have to stay accustomed to be using words like "potentially" or "possibly" or the like when referring to adverse health effects associated with cellphone radiation.
Ironically that is exactly what the tobacco industry is doing to this day. If you read the statements given by tobacco companies on their websites you will read that cigarettes "potentially" and "under certain circumstances" and "in certain individuals" cause illness. ...Sounds familiar?
As the past has shown with issues like asbestos, amalgam and tobacco we should neither rely on soothing statements made by industry-employed "specialists" or lobbyists, nor should we blindly trust that governments and regulatory agencies will be able to protect consumers accordingly when this is in conflict with substantial financial interests of a powerful industry.
The attitude that seems most appropriate under these circumstances is to be aware of the potential hazards and to act accordingly by proactively researching and discussing this topic with friends, family and in the public domain and to furthermore apply all possible precautionary measures.
Our children should be a primary concern in the matter, because their central nervous system is still developing and artificial electromagnetic fields can potentially interact with this sensitive system in a way that could alter its development irreversibly. Moreover, the skull structures of children are much thinner than those of adults and it is well known that a child's brain absorbs considerably higher amounts of radiation.
As long as there are open questions and obvious reasons for concern, why take any unnecessary risks? Proven protective measures are readily available.
BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY
So what can we do?
The good news is, there is a lot we can do to greatly reduce our exposure, at least to the near-field radiation of our cellphones. We have put together a list of simple, free, and very effective precautionary measures that anyone can and should take when using a cellphone or other wireless equipment. Click here for the list...
In addition to these simple precautionary measures there is an emerging industry building around the topic of personal protection and shielding against electrosmog.
We recognize the effort of spreading awareness and trying to offer solutions to the potential hazards of cellphone radiation from the different organizations operating in this field, but there are issues with some of the commercially exploited approaches to protection, which we address in our article Essentials of Protection.
This venture came into being out of our personal need to find an adequate and effective solution to protect our children and ourselves from the potentially harmful effects of cellphone radiation and electrosmog in general.
The bottom line is that our extensive research in the field of electromagnetism and its biological compatibility lead us to the protective approaches that we make available through this website. After testing all commercially exploited approaches these were the only ones that we found we could conscientiously endorse and that is why we won't sell or use anything else.
We hope you find our content useful. If you would like to learn more about any of the subjects dive further into our KNOWLEDGE SECTION and check out additional literature and web-links here.
We appreciate any feedback - be it constructive criticism, further suggestions, or compliments concerning our content or products.
Simply email us at contact@safercellphone.org.
Now let's dig a little deeper into the details, if you like...