The new name is advice for Mobile Phone users.
The reason is that PSRAST has ceased to exist, and I don’t have the competence on my own to stand behind and defend the interdisciplinary evaluations of the organisation.
Jaan Suurkula, M.D.
There is almost a tenfold difference between the radiation impact of different mobile phone models.
The so called Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is not a perfect indicator of the impact but good enough to give a guidance. It indicates the amount of electromagnetic energy that is absorbed measured in Watts/kg. The maximum allowed level is 1.6 Watts/kg.
It is advisable to choose a phone with the lowest SAR values.
Samsung has set a good example
Samsung developed an antenna that directs the radiation to a large extent away from the head. The result is that their smartphones have lower SAR values than most of the others.
Steve Jobs of Apple refused to consider SAR values
Former Iphones have been around 1.2, which is far above the best ones, but the last one, Iphone 6 is at the top of “bad” radiators pack with a SAR value of 1.58 and this only when the phone is held 5mm away from the skin.
Here are the twelwe least radiating ones (as of March 2014):
|1.||Verkool Vortext RS90||0.18|
|2.||Samsung Galaxy Note||0.19|
|3.||ZTE Nubia 5||0.225|
|4.||Samsung Galaxy Note II N7100||0.23|
|5.||Samsung Galaxy Mega||0.321|
|6.||Kyocera Dura XT||0.328|
|8.||Samsung Galaxy Beam||0.36|
|9.||Samsung Galaxy Stratosphere II||0.37|
|11.||Samsung Jitterbug Plus||0.4|
Here are the twelve with strongest radiation:
|1.||Apple iPhone 6 (when all three emitters are turned on – mobile, Bluetooth and WiFi)||1.58|
|2.||Motorola Droid Maxx||1.54|
|3.||Motorola Droid Ultra||1.54|
|4.||Alcatel One Touch Evolve||1.49|
|6.||Kyocera Hydro Edge||1.48|
|8.||Kyocera Hydro XTRM||1.44|
|11.||ZTE Warp 4G||1.41|
|12.||Nokia Lumia 925||1.4|
There are many devices on the market sold without any tenable evidence.
Fortunately there is a science-based solution that can reduce the influence of cellphone radiation. To understand it, you need first to know how the damage works:
1. The nature of the influence
The radiation causes formation of free radicals. If the radiation generates more free radicals in the tissues than the body can neutralize so called oxidative stress occurs. There are individual differences in the ability to protect the body against oxidative stress.
Probably it is mostly those who have weaker protection against free radicals experience a negative influence from exposure to mobile phone radiations.
There are people who have been strongly exposed for many years without any symptoms and diseases. These probably have strong biochemical defenses against the radiation perhaps both through the powerful antioxidants that our cells produce and by eating powerful antioxidant foods. Also the condition of the individual, especially the level of stress probably contributes to antioxidant capacity.
I think much of the controversy regarding the effect of cellphone radiation is because there are considerable individual differences in antioxidant capacity. I think it is necessary to consider this aspect in order to get a proper understanding. It cannot be excluded that only people with weak defenses are affected by ordinary cellphone usage to a significant extent.
2. How to reduce the impact
These substances neutralize the free radicals. Generous daily use of antioxidants reduces the impact of cellphone radiation to an important extent.
We want to emphasize that generally, the officially recommended daily allowance for important antioxidant vitamins are generally far to low.
Below you find some of the most important antioxidants.
Vitamin C. It is a very effective and valuable antioxidant for the whole body including the brain. It appears to play an important role in the brain, and its concentration is 10 times greater there than in the blood. The stores of vitamin C in the brain are the last ones to be depleted, indicating that it plays a very important, not yet fully understood role.
The Recommended Daily intake (RDI) is in most countries 10-20 times too low for Vitamin C. It is non-toxic and can therefore be taken generously in gram-sized-doses, preferably in Slow-release tablets.
The requirement is dependent on the health and stress level of the person as well as the ability to produce own antioxidants. Therefor the dose needs to be adapted individually. For best possible protection, take the “bowel tolerance dose“. This is the dose you can take without the mild, completely harmless gastrointestinal reaction that occurs when the body gets more than it needs. Dr Sandra Goodman has written a good text about finding out the Vitamin C dose you need. When ill, you may need tens of grams and this will have a beneficial effect.
Vitamin C was actually produced by our ancestors until about 60 million years ago, when a genetic defect occurred so that we lost the ability to produce this vitamin. All other mammals are able to produce Vitamin C except a few more mammal species. The biochemistry of other mammals is otherwise the same. So Vitamin C is a perfectly natural and necessary substance for our health, and that we may need very high doses of it when ill.
If you don’t take any other antioxidant, do take vitamin C , but better follow the advice below.
DNA damage prevention and repair
scientists say there is reason to believe vitamin D3 is able to stabilize the structure of DNA so that it is not damaged by free radicals. Vitamin E has also been found to be able to prevent DNA damage and even repair it in some instances.
For the repair of DNA,
- Selenium. In addition to being necessary for antioxidant enzymes, it is required for DNA repair.
- Betacarotene Found in carrots and many other vegetables.
- Quercetin also stimulates DNA repair. Apples and Citrus fruits are good sources. All berries likewise, especially elderberries and blueberries. It is also found in cruciferous veggies, including broccoli, cabbage and sprouts. Leafy green veggies, including spinach, kale. Onions.
This list is incomplete. I wanted just to mention some of the most common and easily available foods for this purpose.
There is not yet sufficient research to establish to what extent these substances can protect and repair the DNA, but already available knowledge indicates that the effect is substantial so there are good reasons to use these foods, also because they also have many other positive health effects. For good results it is wise to be well provided with said substances along with a high level of antioxidant protection.
The harmfulness of cellphone radiation is proven beyond reasonable doubt by now as shown in this blog (see “Cellphone hazards proven beyond doubt“).
Therefore, if you wish to be polite and considerate you need to avoid exposing people to the radiation from your phone.
Here is an excerpt from our guidelines found at “Mobile Phone Etiquette“.
Avoid calling close to other people
Because of the proven harmfulness of mobile radiation it is not polite and considerate to use mobile phones in situations where other people have to be close to you. Therefore, we suggest you follow thesse guidelines:
Don’t call in situations where people cannot withdraw:
- In elevators especially as the radiation is often very strong here
- In queues
- In restaurants
- In meetings, conferences and lectures
- In cinemas, theatres, music shows and similar
- In all kinds of vehicles where you travel with others.The radiation is increased in vehicles because the metal walls reflect it. See for example “Trains ‘trap’ mobile phone radiation” (BBC Health), quote:
“Research carried out by scientists in Japan suggests that using a mobile phone inside a train carriage could have serious health risks for other passengers.“
Don’t call close to especially delicate people
- Don’t call close to pregnant women. A very large study has proven that mobile phone radiation harms fetuses, (Se “Using a mobile phone while pregnant can seriously damage your baby” )
- Don’t call close to children. They have a thinner skull and their brain is therefore exposed to a greater extent.
For more, see: “Mobile Phone Etiquette“.
For understanding why, read: “Safety advice“.
WHO’s warning about increased brain tumor risk from mobile phone usage has scared many. But there is no cause for great concern. This is because brain tumors are rare.
For example, professor Lennart Hardell in Orebro university, Sweden, found a 390% increase in one kind of brain tumor, and of course this sounds daunting. But in absolute terms that meant an increase of only two in one thousand. Other tumors had a smaller increase.
Therefore there is no reason to have a great fear of brain tumors because you have been using a mobile phone. The risk is small even if it is increased by mobile phone radiation exposure. But it is wise to limit phone use primarily for other reasons:
It is possible to reduce the risks
Knowledge is being developed how to reduce cancer risk. Research suggests that free radicals play a key role in in the development of tumors. Therefore it is advisable to increase your intake of antioxidants.
Also regarding the other negative effects on the brain, free radicals probably play an important role. So in any case, do increase your use of antioxidants.
Reduce the exposure
In essence, minimize the time you use the phone. Usa a land-line whenever possible.
For details, see our advice on how to reduce exposure in the article “Safety advice“.
Do not force others to be exposed
Don’t call in situations where other people cannot move away from you like in elevators, busses, trains, restaurants etc.
For more details, see “Mobile phone etiquette”
Copyright PSRAST 2013. May be quoted provided you mention the URL the heading of the source and “by PSRAST”.
A cause of the mass death of bees?
Bee workers sound distress signals
The sounds of bees in beehives were registered before and during exposure to mobile phone radiation. Drastic changes occurred in the latter case. Worker bees started “piping”, a sound that they generate to signal a disturbance in the bee colony.
Navigation impaired – leading to collapse of colonies
In 2007 a study reported that DECT phone microwaves interferred with the navigation skills of the bees and this lead to the death to bee colonies. The research was done by physicist Jochen Kuhnat Koblenz-Landau university, Germany.
Source: “Mobile phones and dying bees”
However this research has been critisized for usin very strong radiation – DECT stations placed inside hives, so this would not prove that more normal radiation is harmful.
A more recent study does indeed indicate that also more modest radiation distubs the navigation of bees. It was done by Dr. Sainuddin Pattazhy, an environmentalist and reader [an academic title for a professors- competent scientist not holding a professorate] in Zoology from Kerala.
The study reported that when a cellphone was kept near a bee hive, bee foragers didn’t return to the hive and the colony population dwindled within five to ten days.
Source: Beekeeping times
How bee navigation is disturbed
In a ‘Statement’ issued in April 2007, Dr. Ulrich Warnke of the University of Saarland mentioned clearly that man-made electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields disturb orientation and navigation of bees. He stated that this was the conclusion reached based on results of research done by him and other scientists. The research findings are:
(a) the integuments of bees have semiconductor and piezoelectric functions. This means they are transducers of pulse modulated high frequency microwave-fields into an audio frequency range. Several constructions of the integument work like dielectric receptors of electromagnetic radiation in the microwave region.
(b) Magnetite nanoparticlesare found in the abdomen of bees.
(c) Magnetite is an excellent absorber of microwave radiation at frequencies between 0.5 and 10.0 GHz through the process of ferromagnetic resonance. Pulsed microwave energy absorbed by this process is first transduced into acoustic vibrations (magneto acoustic effect).
(d) Free-flying honeybees are able to detect static intensity fluctuations and ultra low frequency magnetic fields as weak as 26 nT against the background earth-strength magnetic field.
(e) Magnetic field (MF) bursts at a frequency of 250 Hz oriented parallel to the field-lines of the earth magnetic field induce unequivocal jumps of misdirection of up to +10°. And,
(f) the magnetic induction levels in the environment are in the extremely low frequency range usually between 0,001 and 170 μT; in the high frequency range between several nT and several μT. So these levels are commonly higher than the threshold of sensibility of bees to variations of magnetic fields.
On balance the consequence of all this investigations is that orientation and navigation of bees may be disturbed by man-made technical communication fields.
Universität des Saarlandes
Dr. rer. nat. Ulrich Warnke
FB 8.3 Biowissenschaften
Geb B6 8, Bot. Garten
Source: Statement by Dr. Ulrich Warnke on bee nagivation.
There exists observations that bees are affected by cellphone radiation. A disturbance of their navigation ability can be theoretically explained. So there are reasons to suspect that mobile phone radiation may contribute to the mass death of bees in the US and Europe.
However the use of a certain pesticides, the neonicotinoids, have also been implicated, and these are now banned in 27 European countries. Scientists believe that the mass death of bees may be the result of a combined effect of various concurring envirionmental factors including mobile phone radiation, pesticide damage and parasite diseases (varrola).
The loss of bee pollination may have serious consequences for agriculture resulting in an important decrease of productivity and consequent food scarcity.
The Chairman of WHO:s expert group for assessing the cancer hazards of mobile phones, professor Anders Ahlbom, is the founder of a lobby firm for supporting mobile phone industry interests. His brother Gunnar runs the firm. This was recently discovered by investigative journalist Mona Nilsson. Ahlbom is renowned for his active support of mobile phones in various contexts since over a decade, but not until now has his partiality been revealed.
Ahlbom chairs the expert group on epidemiolgy at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO). He did not disclose this conflict of interest when he was appointed as chairman. He was dismissed from the expert group, right before he was to lead the international conference of IARC on the hazards of electromagnetic radiation.
Mona Nilsson writes in her Press Release about Ahlbom, that was issued one week before said conference (our highlightings)
– The industry-loyal scientists are easy to recognize. They systematically repeat a set of policy messages that counter the results of independent scientists and coincide with the interests of the industry. This is crystal clear in the case of Professor Ahlbom, who has dismissed all studies indicating health risks or biological effects whenever he has chaired an expert panel on this subject. He even denies the results of his own research if it indicates a health risk. * There is no doubt he speaks to the benefit of the industry.
Source: Conflict of interest at the WHO Press release May 23rd 2011 by Mona Nilsson.
We have been appalled by the flat denial of the European Union and WHO of any risks of mobile phone radiation, referring to their experts. This denial comes into a new light now that it was revealed that one of the most influential scientists in the whole world is heavily biassed in favor of cellphones. As a chairman of the most important and authoritative expert group in the world on this issue, he has had ideal preconditions for suppressing and distorting the truth about the dangers of cellphone radiation.
This is a blatant case of bias, further confirming our opinion that the denial of cellphone hazards by WHO, EU, the US and others has only been possible because their scientific advisors are biassed or corrupt. This is because the evidence proving that mobile phone radiation is harmful is so strong that any competent and impartial scientists will inevitably conclude that it is hazardous. For more, see our website section “Corrupt Science“.