by Sue Kovach
Every day, we’re swimming in a sea of
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical
appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and a slew of other
technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and
microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio next to your bed,
to the cellular phone you hold to your ear—sometimes for hours each
day—exposure to EMR is growing and becoming a serious health threat.
But there’s a huge public health crisis looming from one particular
threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from the
handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the
signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors,
genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9
Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media
machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a
product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish
epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate
conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10
George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical
scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first
telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell
phone use. That program remains the largest in the history of the
issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his
work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone
In this article, we look at:
why cell phones are
Dr. Carlo’s years-long
battle to bring the truth about cell phone dangers to
the industry’s campaign to
discredit him and other scientists in the field
what you can do to protect
Cell Phones Reach the
Market without Safety Testing
The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when
communications technology that had been developed for the Department
of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits.
This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured
government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without
The rationale, known as the “low power
exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens
based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that
time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high
power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and
cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an
exemption that continues today.
An eager public grabbed up the cell
phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, “Those phones were
slowly prompting a host of health problems.”
Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed
every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers
government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit
exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain
tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9
The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to
Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds.
Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so
low that we can’t detect it.
The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In
fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies’ service
contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service
provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is
largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets
new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use.
Yet, Dr. Carlo points out,
“None of those studies can prove
safety, no matter how well they’re conducted or who’s conducting
What’s going on here?
While the answer in itself is
simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.
Study Reports Cell Phones are Safe
In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers
published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
sent the media into a frenzy.10
Newspaper headlines blared:
“Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use
is Safe,” while TV newscasters proclaimed, “Go ahead and talk
all you want—it’s safe!”
The news seemed to be a holiday gift for
cell phone users. But unfortunately, it’s a flawed study, funded by
the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The
industry’s public relations machine is working in overdrive to
assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide.
According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design,
could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that
it proves there’s no risk from cell phones is a blatant
misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very
dangerous false sense of security.
“Epidemiological studies are targets
for fixing the outcome because they’re observational in nature
instead of experimental,” Dr. Carlo explains. “It’s possible to
design studies with pre-determined outcomes that still fall
within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed
epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed
journals because they’re judged against a pragmatic set of
standards that assume the highest integrity among the
Key problems with the study are:
There are few discernable
differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who
wasn’t. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty
much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With
few differences, it’s nearly impossible to find a risk.
Users were defined as anyone who
made at least one phone call per week for six months between
1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone
user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with
less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation
exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is
The “exposed” people used ancient
cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones
used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to
the 2 billion cell phone users today.
From 1982 to 1995, cell phone
minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones
much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure.
During the study’s time frame,
people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial
subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would
most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the
There were no biological hypotheses
tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game.
Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of
cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage,
blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular
communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting
the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users.
The study itself was inconsistent
with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish
population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when
in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the
world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data
does not add up.
The cell phone industry constantly
guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting
public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo.
“Industry-funded studies in many
cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with
the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public
information steps over the lines of propriety that are
appropriate for protecting business interests—especially when
the casualty of the interference is public health and safety.”
To learn more about the dangers of cell
phones and to read Dr. George Carlo’s full formal analysis of the
Danish cell phone study, visit the Safe Wireless Initiative
Prompts Safety Studies
In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest
$28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this
sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by
Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone
manufacturer NEC. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and
he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to
the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with
dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell
phone to her head for hours each day.
The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall
Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association
at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA),
went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell
phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk.
TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell
phones, so that meant they were safe.
The media demanded to see the studies,
but, says Dr. Carlo,
“The industry had lied. The only
studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At
that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product
that had never been tested for safety.”
Heads Cell Phone Research
Cell Phone Radiation: What You
Need to Know
Originally developed for the
Department of Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for
safety. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory
Questions about cell phone safety
arose in the early 1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit
alleging that cell phones caused his wife’s death due to brain
To address the questions surrounding
cell phone safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit
organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR).
Dr. George Carlo was appointed to head WTR’s research
Under Dr. Carlo’s direction,
scientists found that cell phone radiation caused,
European research confirmed Dr.
Carlo’s findings. Studies suggest that cell phone radiation
Dr. Carlo brought safety information
about cell phones to the public through his book,
Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the
Wireless Age, and by creating the Safe Wireless
Initiative and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns
The best protection against cell
phone radiation is keeping a safe distance.
Always use a headset to
minimize exposure to harmful cell phone radiation.
Forced to take action, the cell phone
industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology
Research (WTR), to perform the study. Dr. Carlo developed
the program outline and was asked to head the research. Oversight of
the issue was charged to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), though it could have and probably should have gone
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
fought hard for jurisdiction. But the industry had enough influence
in Washington to get whatever overseer it wanted.
It simply didn’t want to tangle with EPA
because, says Dr. Carlo,
“… the EPA is tough.”
“Anything that’s ever made a
difference in terms of public health has come from the EPA,” he
“But safety issues that are covered in corruption and
questions seem to always have a connection to the FDA, which has
been manipulated by pharmaceutical companies since it was born.”
When called to help with the cell phone
issue, Dr. Carlo was working with the FDA on silicone breast implant
research. The choice of Dr. Carlo to head WTR seemed unusual to
industry observers. An epidemiologist whose expertise was in public
health and how epidemic diseases affect the population, he appeared
to lack any experience in researching the effects of EMR on human
Based on this, a premature conclusion
was drawn by many:
Dr. Carlo was an “expert” handpicked
by the cell phone industry, and therefore his conclusions would
only back up the industry’s claim that cell phones are safe.
Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be
an easy target. He quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists
to work with him, bulletproof experts owning long lists of
credentials and reputations that would negate any perception that
the research was predestined to be a sham. He also created a Peer
Review Board chaired by Harvard University School of Public
Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that made FDA officials
more comfortable since, at the time, the agency was making negative
headlines due to the breast implant controversy.
In total, more than 200 doctors and
scientists were involved in the project.
Once all involved agreed on what was to be done, Dr. Carlo presented
the study’s stakeholders in the industry, the government, and the
public with a strict list of criteria for moving forward.
“The money had to be independent of
the industry—they had to put the money in trust and couldn’t
control who got the funds,” he says. “Second, everything had to
be peer reviewed before it went public, so if we did find
problems after peer review, we could use that information
publicly to recommend interventions.”
A third requirement was for the FDA to
create a formal interagency working group to oversee the work and
provide input. The purpose of this was to alleviate any perception
that the industry was paying for a result, not for the research
But the fourth and last requirement was
considered by Dr. Carlo to be highly critical:
“Everything needed to be done in
sunlight. The media had to have access to everything we did.”
The Research Begins
The program began, but Dr. Carlo soon discovered that
everyone involved had underlying motives.
“The industry wanted an insurance
policy and to have the government come out and say everything
was fine. The FDA, which looked bad because it didn’t require
pre-market testing, could be seen as taking steps to remedy
that. By ordering the study, law makers appeared to be doing
something. Everyone had a chance to wear a white hat.”
Dr. Carlo and his team developed new
exposure systems that could mimic head-only exposure to EMR in
people, as those were the only systems that could approximate what
really happened with cell phone exposure. Those exposure systems
were then used for both in vitro (laboratory) and in vivo (animal)
The in vitro studies used human
blood and lymph tissue in test tubes and petri dishes that
were exposed to EMR. These studies identified the micronuclei in
human blood, for example, associated with cell phone near-field
radiation. The in vivo studies used head only exposure systems and
laboratory rats. These studies identified DNA damage and other
Says Dr. Carlo:
“We also conducted four different
epidemiological studies on groups of people who used cell
phones, and we did clinical intervention studies. For example,
studies of people with implanted cardiac pacemakers were
instrumental in our making recommendations to prevent
interference between cell phones and pacemakers. In all, we
conducted more than fifty studies that were peer-reviewed and
published in a number of medical and scientific journals.”
to Discredit Findings, Scientists
But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at the
start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never
defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell
phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to
prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by
the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being
said by the scientists behind closed doors.
The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come.
Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers,
but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the
problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the
report, complaining that the researchers went off target.
When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues
published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine
in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall
program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree
on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward.
Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not
seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended
instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations
The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire
warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When
the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists
were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted
to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried
everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a
lot to lose.
Fearing the industry would selectively release research results at
best, or hold them back at worst, Dr. Carlo and his colleagues took
the information public on their own, creating a highly visible war
between the scientists and the industry. An ABC News expose
on the subject increased the wrath of the industry.
According to Dr. Carlo,
“The industry played dirty. It
actually hired people to put negative things about me and the
other scientists who found problems on the internet, while it
tried to distance itself from the program. Auditors were brought
in to say we misspent money, but none of that ever held up. They
tried every angle possible.”
This included discussions with Dr.
Carlo’s ex-wife to try to figure out ways to put pressure on him, he
says. Threats to his career came from all directions, and Dr. Carlo
learned from Congressional insiders that the word around Washington
was that he was “unstable.” But all the character assassination
paled in comparison to what happened next.
Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlo’s house mysteriously burned down.
Public records show that authorities determined the cause of the
blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo refuses to
discuss the incident and will only confirm that it happened. By this
time, enough was enough.
Dr. Carlo soon went
“underground,” shunning the public eye and purposely making himself
difficult to find.
Phones are Dangerous
A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to
a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation
fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume.
Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the
cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the
Both the near-field and
far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can
wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is
compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and
“The near field plume is the one
we’re most concerned with. This plume that’s generated within
five or six inches of the center of a cell phone’s antenna is
determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal
to the base station,” he explains. “The more power there is, the
farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying
A carrier wave oscillates at 1900
megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our
biological tissue and doesn’t do damage. The information-carrying
secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem,
says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range
familiar to the body.
Your heart, for example, beats at two
cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the
information-carrying wave as an “invader,” setting in place
protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause
biological problems that include:
leakage in the blood-brain
disruption of intercellular
an increase in the risk of
The health dangers of recognizing the
signal, therefore, aren’t from direct damage, but rather are due to
the biochemical responses in the cell.
Here’s what happens:
Cellular energy is now used for
protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden,
keeping nutrients out and waste products in.
Waste accumulating inside the cells
creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both
disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.
Unwanted cell death occurs,
releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the
fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to
replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the
most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
Damage occurs to proteins on the
cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular
communication. When cells can’t communicate with each other, the
result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the
blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can’t keep dangerous
chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in
With the background levels of
information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of
the widespread use of cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless
communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very
Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost
all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive
patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular
communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include
inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches.
Could this explain the increase in
recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder?
“One thing all these conditions have
in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular
communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top
of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and
Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated
them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new. The
recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the
cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader,
only works because the body recognizes something it’s never seen
As to increases in brain tumors
tied to cell phone use, it’s too early to tell due to a lack of hard
data, says Dr. Carlo.
“We’re never going to see that in
time to have it matter. Here in the US, we’re six years behind
in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the
best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an
increase, the ticking time bomb is set.”
Epidemic curve projections, however,
indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases
of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed
studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic
By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that
number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide.
“This means we’re on the beginning
curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the
occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that
it portends serious public health consequences,” says Dr. Carlo.
“This is what’s not being told to
the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a
cell phone is to use an air tube headset (below image). If you
use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire
of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio
waves and thereby increases your exposure.”
Detecting Electromagnetic Radiation
Invisible electromagnetic radiation surrounds us each day, emanating
from diverse sources such as power lines, home wiring, computers,
televisions, microwave ovens, photocopy machines, and cell phones.
While undetectable to the eye, scientists have proposed that
electromagnetic radiation may pose serious health effects, ranging
from childhood leukemia to brain tumors.
As scientists continue to unravel the precise health dangers of
electromagnetic radiation, it makes good sense to avoid these
potentially dangerous frequencies as much as possible. A gauss meter
is a useful tool you can use to measure electromagnetic radiation in
your home and work environments.
Using the gauss meter (click below images) at varied locations, you can easily detect
electromagnetic radiation “hot spots” where exposure to these
ominous frequencies is the greatest. Armed with this crucial
information, you can then avoid these areas, re-arranging furniture
or electronic devices as needed in order to avoid unnecessary
exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
Following the loss of his home, Dr. Carlo collaborated with
Washington columnist Martin Schram—who in the course of the work did
his own research to corroborate Dr. Carlo’s view on things—to write
Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age (2001).
He wrote his book as what he thought would be a last volley
at the cell phone industry.
“I needed to tell the whole story in one place. I didn’t have the
resources or the manpower to match what the cell phone industry was
doing to try to discredit the work,” says Dr. Carlo.
“Based on the
book, a number of lawsuits were brought against the industry, and
insurance carriers began excluding cell phone-related health risks
in their coverage. It created a very difficult situation in the
industry and for myself. I was worn out fighting that battle. In
2002, after I’d done my book tour, I just decided to take a break
for a couple of years.”
Instead of taking a break, however, Dr.
Carlo ended up working
behind the scenes, setting up an organization and a registry for the
benefit of consumers. It was a creative solution as part of the
settlement of a lawsuit brought by a Illinois citizen against the
cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo personally. The lawsuit
alleged that the cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo were
conspiring to hide the dangers of cell phones.
Dr. Carlo was offered
a way out of the suit because his book had made it clear he wasn’t
on the same page as the industry.
“I wanted to make sure the litigation brought at least some value to
consumers. We created the
Safe Wireless Initiative for disseminating information on the dangers and on prevention, and
Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry to track information voluntarily provided by cell phone users,
particularly those who believe they’re experiencing health effects.
Post-market surveillance hadn’t been done before, and the registry
does that. It will help direct future research of potential health
effects related to cell phone use. In the end, we did the best we
could to get some benefit for consumers.”
To repair damage and build the body’s defenses against the onslaught
of EMR, supplements—along with dietary changes, stress reduction,
weight control and exercise—make you stronger, more balanced, and
better able to face the assaults of EMR. Antioxidant supplements
that fight free radicals are especially desirable.
Says Dr. Carlo:
“You as a human being are put under siege by the
electromagnetic soup we’re swimming in, and this isn’t hyperbole,
it’s true. When you answer your cell phone, radio signals are around
you. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Our
general ability to compensate for those insults is becoming
compromised by the ever-increasing background of EMR.”
Taking as many precautions as you can goes a long way to reducing
the risks. However, Dr. Carlo cautions that there is no silver
“It’s a complicated problem, and while we tend to
look for a quick fix, there is none here. Over the next decade, I
hope we figure out how to change the way signals are transmitted. A
thousand years from now we will have evolved, but that’s not helping
us now. This will take time, but consumers have to be empowered to
help themselves in the interim.”
Research Confirms Cell Phone Dangers
The industry took its tricks elsewhere—to Europe, which had picked
up the ball and began funding independent research to corroborate or
confirm the work of Dr. Carlo and his team. The work was completed
in mid-2004 and when it was released,12 it not only provided
independent scientific corroboration of the work done by Dr. Carlo’s
group, but also took the work a step further and showed how the
problems were occurring mechanistically. This information formed a
biologically plausible hypothesis for how cell phone radiation could
be related to so many diseases.
Dr. Carlo noted,
“The industry exerted pressure on the scientists
who conducted the work, including renowned German scientist Dr.
Franz Adlkofer. It first tried to change the conclusions of the
work, then to delay its public release. Then Dr. Adlkofer, the lead
scientist, was attacked in the media and threatened privately with
no more research money, a ruined reputation—similar to what we
experienced in the WTR. But this situation attracted the attention
of a German documentary filmmaker, who decided to do a film on the
cell phone issue.”
It was enough to bring Dr. Carlo into view again, as he was asked to
participate. The film, The Boiling Frog Principle, by Klaus Scheidsteger, builds on information from his first film,
Phone War, and will be released in 2007.
The Cell Phone War
This movie, “The Cell
Phone War”, was produced in 2005, and has brought forth important
information previously withheld from consumers.
Because new facts
continue to emerge, I am now completing work on a 90-minute cinema
which will integrate
the latest political and scientific evidence from around the world.
We expect to release
that film in 2007.
In only the past
year, scientific knowledge about the mobile phone health problem has
even as efforts to
suppress it have increased!
Thus, the new film,
“The Boiling Frog Principle”,
is a dramatic
continuation of the messages contained in “The Cell Phone War”.
Its intent is to integrate
the latest political and scientific evidence from around the world,
and bring forth to consumers important information on cell phone
dangers that was previously withheld.
Currently in the US, there are seven class action lawsuits moving
forward against the cell phone industry, says Dr. Carlo, and nine
other cases that are personal injury cases brought by people with
brain cancer. In the past two years, two workers compensation awards
were given to people with brain tumors based on a link between their
tumors and their cell phone use in the workplace.
Both of these
cases occurred in California.
“What we have now is a major litigation burden, a vulnerability the
cell phone industry has never before been under,” Dr. Carlo says.
“They’re uninsured for these health risk claims and are already
positioning themselves for a congressional bailout, like the Savings
and Loan crisis of the late 1980s. They’ll lose a couple of these
lawsuits and once they do, there’ll be an onslaught of new
litigation against them.”
The country can’t afford for the cell phone industry to go under,
Dr. Carlo says, as it would have a disastrous impact on the entire
economy—some estimates say over 30% of investment stocks in
retirement funds are tied to telecommunications shares.
Congress will figure out a way to bail out the industry.
“The industry thinks they can afford to continue on with this
institutional arrogance, endangering millions of men, women and
children because, at the end of the day, they believe they’ll not be
held accountable. They think they can continue to manipulate
It’s been nearly 12 years since the WTR was funded. Despite Dr.
Carlo’s revealing research and the corroborating research of other
scientists from around the world that continue to follow, a search
of media reports today on the subject of cell phone dangers tends to
suggest one of only two conclusions: There is no risk, or no one has
yet proven the risk. That’s at odds with more than 300 studies in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting an increased risk
of disease. Clearly, something doesn’t add up.
The industry’s manipulation of the media to consider only one study
at a time obfuscates the big picture. Individually, there’s little to
see. But the depth and breadth of the science that points to the
problem, and the compilation of studies, make the future look
September 11 tragedy, where no one in
government talked to each other and did not see it coming for lack
of a big picture view, the health crisis from cell phone use looms
“When you put all the science together, we come to the irrefutable
conclusion that there’s a major health crisis coming, probably
already underway,” warns Dr. Carlo.
“Not just cancer, but also
learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and psychological and behavioral
problems—all mediated by the same mechanism. That’s why we’re so
worried. Time is running out. When you put the pieces of the puzzle
together, it’s such a wide ranging problem. It’s unlike anything
we’ve ever seen before.”
The most effective technique for protecting yourself against the
dangers of cell phone radiation is keeping the phone at a distance
from the body. Simply using a hands-free headset is a big step.
Headsets keep the cell phone’s antenna at a distance of six to seven
inches away from the body, thus eliminating near-field exposure.
Wired headsets can act as an antenna to draw some ambient EMR, but
not much, so using one is still preferable to holding the phone to
your head. Wireless headsets should be avoided, as they draw much
more far-field EMR.
The safest headsets have hollow air tubes, similar to those used in
stethoscopes, instead of wires. They offer protection against both
near-field and far-field exposure. If possible, avoid wearing the
phone at your waist, which exposes the hip bones to radiation. Eighty percent of red blood cells are formed in the hip bones.
are also newer cell phones available capable of functioning in
speaker phone mode. This enables you to talk on the phone while
keeping it at a safe distance from your body.
If you are able to conduct most of your
conversations using a speaker phone, this could enable you to use a
cell phone without encountering the intense radiation exposure that
occurs when holding it to your ear.
Protection against Cell Phone Radiation
As growing evidence points
to the potential adverse health impact of exposure to
cell phone radiation, scientists are seeking strategies
to prevent or mitigate these effects. Currently,
nutritional researchers are exploring whether melatonin,
vitamin C, and vitamin E can ameliorate the
detrimental effects caused by radiation emitted by cell
To date, a total of eight studies have pointed to the
protective effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E in
stemming the damage caused by cell phone emissions. In
particular, these agents show promise in averting the
increased oxidative stress that is thought to contribute
to an increased risk of certain cancers. These studies
have unveiled statistically significant protective
effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E against the
effects of the radiation frequency at which cell phones
emit and receive radio frequency radiation.
Six of these eight studies were controlled, short-term
studies (ranging from 10-30 days) in rodents. Each study
examined 24-30 subjects. Study subjects were divided
equally into three groups: one group received radiation
exposure; another received active treatment with
melatonin only, vitamin C only, or vitamins C and E
before radiation exposure; and a control group did not
receive radiation or active treatment.
After the treatment period,
scientists examined skin sections for radiation injury
and analyzed blood and urine for markers of oxidative
stress. They found significant kidney damage, skin
changes, oxidative stress, and fibrosis in the animals
who received radiation exposure only. Remarkably, these
effects were reversed in the groups that received
melatonin13-16 and vitamins C17-18
Another two controlled studies in rodents, one of 10
days’19 and another of 60 days’ duration,20 revealed
that melatonin significantly protects against retinal
(eye)20 and kidney tissue19 damage caused by cell phone
radiation, as compared with subjects that did not
Despite this compelling evidence, other avenues of
research still need to be pursued after contradictory
findings from seven different studies that have looked
into the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin
levels in the body.
In one study, melatonin levels in the blood were
measured in 226 male electric utility workers who were
categorized according to cell phone use. The study
concluded that workers who used cell phones for more
than 25 minutes per day had decreased melatonin
production and revealed a relationship between increased
cell phone use and decreasing melatonin levels in the
Yet six other studies—two in humans22-23 and four in
rodents24-27— found that melatonin levels remained
unchanged after radiation exposure. One human study did
suggest that cell phone radiation may impact melatonin
onset time. These were small studies, however, the
majority of which were less than 28 days’ duration.
Melatonin is a vital natural neurohormone (hormone
secreted by or acting on a part of the nervous system)
that acts as a potent free radical scavenger and
antioxidant. Melatonin regulates the daily circadian
rhythm and is essential to self-repair and regeneration.
Given melatonin’s protective
effects, these findings warrant further research into
the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin in
larger, longer-term, well-controlled human studies.
Video - Dr. George
Carlo EMF Cell Phone Dangers Interview
1. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J,
et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European
countries. Int J Cancer. 2007 Apr 15;120(8):1769-75.
2. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Mobile phone use and
the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology. 2004
3. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two
case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless
telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during
1997-2003. Int J Oncol. 2006 Feb;28(2):509-18.
4. Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M, Hallquist A. Cellular and
cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in
different age groups. Arch Environ Health. 2004 Mar;59(3):132-7.
5. Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. The prevalence of symptoms
attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional
representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed.
6. Westerman R, Hocking B. Diseases of modern living:
neurological changes associated with mobile phones and
radiofrequency radiation in humans. Neurosci Lett. 2004 May
7. Available at:
8. Available at:
9. Available at:
10. Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK,
Johansen C. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a
nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec
11. Hayes DL, Wang PJ, Reynolds DW, et al. Interference with
cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. N Engl J Med. 1997
12. Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H.
Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in
human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa
cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005 Jun 6;583(2):178-83.
13. Oktem F, Ozguner F, Mollaoglu H, Koyu A, Uz E. Oxidative
damage in the kidney induced by 900-MHz-emitted mobile phone:
protection by melatonin. Arch Med Res. 2005 Jul-Aug;36(4):350-5.
14. Ozguner F, Aydin G, Mollaoglu H, Gokalp O, Koyu A, Cesur G.
Prevention of mobile phone induced skin tissue changes by
melatonin in rat: an experimental study. Toxicol Ind Health.
15. Ayata A, Mollaoglu H, Yilmaz HR, Akturk O, Ozguner F,
Altuntas I. Oxidative stress-mediated skin damage in an
experimental mobile phone model can be prevented by melatonin. J
Dermatol. 2004 Nov;31(11):878-83.
16. Yariktas M, Doner F, Ozguner F, Gokalp O, Dogrutt H, Delibas
N. Nitric oxide level in the nasal and sinus mucosa after
exposure to electromagnetic field. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.
17. Balci M, Devrim E, Durak I. Effects of mobile phones on
oxidant/antioxidant balance in cornea and lens of rats. Curr Eye
Res. 2007 Jan;32(1):21-5.
18. Oral B, Guney M, Ozguner F, et al. Endometrial apoptosis
induced by a 900-MHz mobile phone: preventive effects of
vitamins E and C. Adv Ther. 2006 Nov-Dec;23(6):957-73.
19. Ozguner F, Oktem F, Armagan A, et al. Comparative analysis
of the protective effects of melatonin and caffeic acid
phenethyl ester (CAPE) on mobile phone-induced renal impairment
in rat. Mol Cell Biochem. 2005 Aug;276(1-2):31-7.
20. Ozguner F, Bardak Y, Comlekci S. Protective effects of
melatonin and caffeic acid phenethyl ester against retinal
oxidative stress in long-term use of mobile phone: a comparative
study. Mol Cell Biochem. 2006 Jan;282(1-2):83-8.
21. Burch JB, Reif JS, Noonan CW et al. Melatonin metabolite
excretion among cellular telephone users. Int J Radiat Biol.
22. Wood AW, Loughran SP, Stough C. Does evening exposure to
mobile phone radiation affect subsequent melatonin production?
Int J Radiat Biol. 2006 Feb;82(2):69-76.
23. De Seze R, Ayoub J, Peray P, Miro L, Touitou Y. Evaluation
in humans of the effects of radiocellular telephones on the
circadian patterns of melatonin secretion, a chronobiological
rhythm marker. J Pineal Res 1999 Nov;27(4):237-42.
24. Koyu A, Ozguner F, Cesur F, et al. No effects of 900 MHz and
1800 MHz electromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone on
nocturnal serum melatonin levels in rats. Toxicol Ind Health.
25. Hata K, Yamaguchi H, Tsurita G, et al. Short term exposure
to 1439 MHz pulsed TDMA field does not alter melatonin synthesis
in rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 Jan;26(1):49-53.
26. Bakos J, Kubinyi G, Sinay H, Thuroczy G. GSM modulated
radiofrequency radiation does not affect 6-sulfatoxymelatonin
excretion of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Dec;24(8):531-4.
27. Heikkinen P, Kosma VM, Alhonen L, et al. Effects of mobile
phone radiation on UV-induced skin tumourigenesis in ornithine
decarboxylase transgenic and non-transgenic mice. Int J Radiat
Biol. 2003 Apr;79(4):221-33.