Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research
1.9K views | +17 today
Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research
This collection includes research, updates, and resources related to screen time, wireless, and EMF/RF radiation.  For useful websites with extensive documents for safe technology advocacy, please visit the National Association for Children and Safe Technology (, the Environmental Health Trust ( and EMR Safety ( For additional resources and updates in Education, please visit  
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Wireless Technology & Public Health: Health and Environmental Hazards in a Wireless World // Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Foundation

Wireless Technology & Public Health: Health and Environmental Hazards in a Wireless World // Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Foundation | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |
On October 10, 2015, the Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Foundation sponsored a forum, "Wireless Technology and Public Health: Health and Environmental Hazards in a Wireless World," at the Mountain View Center for Performing Arts in Mountain View, California.

The event brought together leading experts from various disciplines who presented current scientific research regarding the health effects of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones, Wi Fi and other electronic devices on biological systems.

The experts presented the science and personal stories behind the recent call for safer wireless radiation standards by over 200 international scientists.  Links to autism, cancer, infertility, adverse effects on wildlife, cell phone safety and Wi Fi precautions were discussed.

The forum was videotaped and can be viewed online. See links below.


Part 1  Joel Moskowitz, PhD // Wireless Phone Radiation Risks and Public Health Policy

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, U.C. Berkeley School of Public Health, associate producer of the movie Mobilize: A Film about Cell Phone Radiation, discussed new research related to wireless technology, public health and policy. His website is a valuable resource for journalists and the public. In the past year, he helped organize the International EMF Scientist Appeal (EMFScientist.orgsigned by more than 200 EMF scientists and consulted on the Berkeley cell phone “right to know” ordinance
Video (46 mins.):

Part 2  Martin Pall, PhD // How Wireless Devices Cause Cell Harm: Voltage-Gate Calcium Channels

Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus, School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University, author of numerous scientific papers on oxidation and inflammation, discussed the cellular mechanisms of action that explain the adverse biological effects of wireless devices on the human body. 

Video (31 mins.):

Part 3  Suruchi Chandra, MD // Environmental Factors in Autism and EMF Radiation
Suruchi Chandra, MD, Harvard-trained integrative psychiatrist discussed stressors on the developing nervous system, childhood developmental delays, research related to microwave EMF and other toxic exposures, and how this knowledge changed her approach to clinical care.

Video (18 mins.):

Part 4  Peter Sullivan // The Autism Puzzle: Reducing Digital Overload in a Wireless Era

Peter Sullivan, founder of Clear Light Ventures and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, discussed his personal family experience with autism spectrum disorder and how he improved the health of his family through EMF reduction.

Video (16 mins.):

Part 5  Toril Jelter, MD // Health Effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation in Children

Toril Jelter, MD, pediatrician and general practitioner who treats children and adults with electrohypersensitivity, discussed her clinical experience with autism and behavioral changes related to electromagnetic radiation.

Video (20 mins.):

Part 6  Victoria Dunckley, MD // Electronic Screen Syndrome: The Overstimulated Child

Victoria Dunckley, MD, award-winning child psychiatrist and author of "Reset Your Child's Brain," discussed the identification and management of screen-time's physiological effects on mood regulation, cognition, sleep, and behavior in children.

Video (28 mins.):

Part 7  Katie Singer // Electronics in Our Ecosystem: EMF Effects on Wildlife, Birds and Bees

Katie Singer, author of "An Electronic Silent Spring," reported on the impact of exposure to electromagnetic radiation on wildlife.

Video (24 mins.):

Loretta Lynch, JD, attorney and former President of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), discussed corporate influence in government, profiteering and the smart meter issue at the CPUC. Ms. Lynch served the CPUC through California’s energy crisis fighting manipulation of energy sellers.

Video: not available

Part 8 Question and Answer Session

Video (24 mins.):

The forum was organized by Cindy Lee Russell, MD, Vice President of Community Health, Santa Clara County Medical Association.
No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

The Role of Electromagnetic Fields in Neurological Disorders // Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy (2016)

The Role of Electromagnetic Fields in Neurological Disorders // Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy (2016) | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

Terzi, M., Ozberk, B., Deniz, O. G., & Kaplan, S. (2016). The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy.   (In press).

"In the modern world, people are exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as part of their daily lives; the important question is “What is the effect of EMFs on human health?” Most previous studies are epidemiological, and we still do not have concrete evidence of EMF pathophysiology. Several factors may lead to chemical, morphological, and electrical alterations in the nervous system in a direct or indirect way. It is reported that non-ionizing EMFs have effects on animals and cells. The changes they bring about in organic systems may cause oxidative stress, which is essential for the neurophysiological process; it is associated with increased oxidization in species, or a reduction in antioxidant defense systems. Severe oxidative stress can cause imbalances in reactive oxygen species, which may trigger neurodegeneration. This review aims to detail these changes. Special attention is paid to the current data regarding EMFs’ effects on neurological disease and associated symptoms, such as headache, sleep disturbances, and fatigue." 


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Reported Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and "Smart" Meter RF Intensities) // BioInitiative Report

Document can be downloaded at: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Study Suggests Wifi Exposure More Dangerous to Kids Than Previously Thought // Forbes

Study Suggests Wifi Exposure More Dangerous to Kids Than Previously Thought // Forbes | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Robert Szczerba

"Most parents would be concerned if their children had significant exposure to lead, chloroform, gasoline fumes, or the pesticide DDT.  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), classifies these and more than 250 other agents as Class 2B Carcinogens – possibly carcinogenic to humans.  Another entry on that same list is radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF).  The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.

Uh-oh. Not another diatribe about the dangers of our modern communication systems?  Obviously, these devices and the resulting fields are extremely (and increasingly) common in modern society.  Even if we want to, we can’t eliminate our exposure, or our children’s, to RF/EMF.  But, we may need to limit that exposure, when possible.

That was among the conclusions of a controversial survey article published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure entitled “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences.”  From an analysis of others studies, the authors argue that children and adolescents are at considerable risk from devices that radiate microwaves (and that adults are at a lower, but still significant, risk). "....


[Image credit: Adapted from Intel Free Press via Wikipedia]

Do the benefits of immersive learning applications outweigh the dangers of increased cellular and Wi-Fi exposure for children? 

For full post, click on title above or here: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

BioInitiative 2012 Report

BioInitiative 2012 Report | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

The BioInitiative 2012 Report was written by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world*  about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields.  It updates the BioInitiative 2007 Report.

WHAT IT COVERS:  The science, public health, public policy and global response to the growing health issue of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation in the daily life of billions of people around the world.  Covers brain tumor risks from cell phones, damage to DNA and genes, effects on memory, learning, behavior, attention; sleep disruption and cancer and neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s disease.  Effects on sperm  and miscarriage (fertility and reproduction), effects of wireless on the brain development of the fetus and infant, and effects of wireless classrooms on children and adolescents is addressed. Mechanisms for biological action and public health responses in other countries are discussed.  Therapeutic use of very low intensity EMF and RFR are addressed.

WHAT IS NEW: This update covers about 1800 new studies reporting bioeffects and adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (powerlines, electrical wiring, appliances and hand-held devices) – and wireless technologies (cell and cordless phones, cell towers, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless routers, baby monitors, surveillance systems, wireless utility meters (‘smart meters’), etc.

*The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries*,  ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs.  Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS.  One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation.   Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency.   Full titles and affiliations of authors is in Section 25 – List of Participants 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Educational Psychology & Technology!

Screen Time Associated With Health Behaviors and Outcomes in Adolescents // PubMed, American Journal of Health Behavior

Screen Time Associated With Health Behaviors and Outcomes in Adolescents // PubMed, American Journal of Health Behavior | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |


Objectives: To study the associations of screen time (Internet / video games / television) with health-related behaviors and outcomes in adolescents.

Methods: Regression analyses were performed to assess the associations of screen time with several health-related behaviors and outcomes in 2425 Dutch adolescents.

Results: Screen time was associated with bullying, being bullied, less physical activity, skipping school, alcohol use and unhealthy eating habits. Compulsive and excessive screen times were associated respectively with several psychosocial problems and being overweight.

Conclusions: Screen time was of significant importance to adolescent health. Behavioral interrelatedness caused significant confounding in the studied relations when behaviors were analyzed separately compared to a multi-behavioral approach, which speaks for more multi-behavioral analyses in future studies.


For main article:

Via Roxana Marachi, PhD
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from "Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3..."!

Personalized Learning Fuels Data-Privacy Concerns // PBS News Hour via EdWeek

By Stacey Decker

"As schools across the country go high-tech, incorporating data-driven educational apps and software into classrooms, fears about the privacy and security of students' personal information are on the rise.


These concerns may be putting the brakes on school district's efforts to personalize learning, but not in Miami-Dade County, Fla. The 345,000-student district is a pioneer in digital learning, and has given teachers and students access to a host of online apps and programs.


At iPrep Academy, students work almost entirely online. Computer programs collect tons of information about students' interests, preferences, even the names of their friends, to customize lessons. Although Superintendent Alberto Carvalho is confident that the safeguards in vendor contracts, along with his data-security team, are protecting digital data, the threats are real. Hackers try to infiltrate the district's system every day, and not too long ago a cafeteria worker with access to the database stole hundreds of students' names and social security numbers.


John Tulenko of Education Week visits iPrep Academy to see how teachers are using the technology to personalize classroom instruction and what the district is doing to protect student data.

This video segment appeared on PBS NewsHour on April 5, 2016."


For full post, click on title above or here: 


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Cellphone Addiction Concerns Related to Fragmented Attention in Schools // via EdWeek

Cellphone Addiction Concerns Related to Fragmented Attention in Schools // via EdWeek | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Steve Gardiner

[Selected quote]

"In much the same way a chemical dependency controls an addict's life, my students' cellphones control their lives. Students claim they can read and listen to music at the same time. They claim they can do math and text simultaneously. Numerous research studies state otherwise. The ability to multitask with a cellphone is an illusion. With a phone in front of them, students' thinking is fragmented, as is all their work."


For full post, see: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Screen Time Hurts More Than Kids’ Eyes // HealthLine

Screen Time Hurts More Than Kids’ Eyes // HealthLine | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Kristen Fischer  

"It seems like children know how to operate tablets, smartphones, and computers almost from birth.


But those mesmerizing screens expose them to a number of long-term health threats. The American Optometric Association’s (AOA) 2015 American Eye-Q® survey found that 41 percent of parents say their kids spend three or more hours per day on digital devices. It also found that 66 percent of kids have their own smartphone or tablet.


Too much screen time can result in digital eyestrain, which can include burning, itchy, or tired eyes. Headaches, fatigue, blurred or double vision, loss of focus, and head and neck pain are other threats for children using screens too often and too long.

The Eyes Have It

Electronic devices also give off high-energy, short-wavelength blue and violet light.


This light can affect vision and cause premature aging of the eyes. Early research shows that overexposure to blue light can contribute to eyestrain and discomfort. It also can trigger serious conditions later in life such as age-related macular degeneration, which can lead to blindness.


“We know that damage from UV light is cumulative in the eye and that a lifetime of protection is critical in protecting from certain eye-related disease as we age,” said McCarty. “Blue light is very near UV light in wavelength and energy and therefore there is concern for cumulative damage over a lifetime of exposure.”

We know that damage from UV light is cumulative in the eye and that a lifetime of protection is critical in protecting from certain eye-related disease as we age.
Dr. Tina McCarty, American Optometric Association

The younger eye typically has a keen ability to accommodate and focus on close objects as the natural lens of the eye is smaller and clearer, she said. However, the accompanying blue light is more easily transmitted to the retina, potentially causing damage. 


Blue light can also interrupt sleep patterns and circadian rhythms when children view screens close to bedtime. Toddlers may still be settling into healthy sleep patterns, so McCarty says it’s even more critical for blue-light exposure to be eliminated long before these children go to bed.


She said there is “increasing evidence to support a link between blue light exposure and macular degeneration.”... 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Wi-Fi In Classroom Liability Notice Served To New York School District // March 15th, 2016 


Onteroa Board of Education members are served notice of their liability concerning the wi-fi installation in this New York school district. 


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Shallow Minds: How the Internet and Wi-fi in Schools Can Affect Learning // Cindy Lee Russell, MD // VP Community Health, Santa Clara County Medical Association

Also available for download at the bottom of the following page: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

International Concerns //

Resolutions, Recommendations and Statements of Concern

The following organisations, groups and individuals have expressed their concerns about potential adverse health effects for the public, especially children, from the repeated use of wireless technologies.
The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS)

See also 'Precautionary Approach'.  ICEMS, in their Beneveto Resolution (2006) and Venice Resolution (June 2008), have stated their concern for the effects of human exposure to electromagnetic fields on health.  Made up of scientists, medical doctors and engineers from around the world, ICEMS ‘are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological.’ 

We, who are at the forefront of this research, encourage an ethical approach in setting of exposure standards which protect the health of all, including those who are more vulnerable.’  ‘… new standards should be developed to take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people.' 

'We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there is a risk.  Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.  We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and, that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition.'

'We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagersand we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against, not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms.’

ICEMS have produced a series of four videos for teenagers which 

describe how mobile phones can be used more safely and what the potential risks are (January 2010).

European Parliament and European Environment Agency

More information in  'Precautionary Approach'.  The European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (2008) has stated that it isgreatly concerned at the International Bio-Initiative report (2007) concerning electromagnetic fields.  In September 2007 the European Environment Agency (EEA) advised the 27 member states on the basis of the Bio-Initiative report that they should introduce more effective protection of the general public from electromagnetic fields.  In April 2009 the European Parliament called for increased funding for further studies into health effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields (see Precautionary Approach).  In September 2009 the Director of the EAA stated that the evidence for potential risks is strong enough to justify steps to reduce people's exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields and that the current exposure limits needed to be reconsidered.

Bio-Initiative Report

See also Precautionary Approach and Bio-Initiative Report sections.  Briefly, the International Bio-Initiative report (2007), referred to by the European Parliament, has stated that 'There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us.  Until we know whether there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue ''business-as-usual'' deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF*exposures, particularly involuntary exposures'.

*ELF and RF. ELF, extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields from electrical and electronic devices and power lines.  RF, radio frequency radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers and broadcast transmission towers.

'The consequence of long-term exposures in children whose nervous system continues to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time.  This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgement, memory, learning, and control over behaviour'.

'.... we recommend that wired alternatives to Wi-Fi be implemented, particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to elevated RF levels until more is understood about possible health impacts.  This recommendation should be seen as an interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide preventative actions; and more conservative limits may be needed in the future.’... 

For full post, please click on title above or here:  

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Malignant Brain Tumors the Most Common Cause of Cancer-Related Deaths in Adolescents and Young Adults // American Brain Tumor Association

Malignant Brain Tumors the Most Common Cause of Cancer-Related Deaths in Adolescents and Young Adults // American Brain Tumor Association | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

"Chicago, Ill., February 22, 2016

new report published in the journal Neuro-Oncology and funded by the American Brain Tumor Association (ABTA) finds that malignant brain tumors are the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in adolescents and young adults aged 15-39 and the most common cancer occurring among 15-19 year olds. 

The 50-page report, which utilized data from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) from 2008-2012, is the first in-depth statistical analysis of brain and central nervous system (CNS) tumors in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Statistics are provided on tumor type, tumor location and age group (15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34 and 35-39) for both malignant and non-malignant brain and CNS tumors. 

“When analyzing data in 5-year age increments, researchers discovered that the adolescent and young adult population is not one group but rather several distinct groups that are impacted by very different tumor types as they move into adulthood,” said Elizabeth Wilson, president and CEO of the American Brain Tumor Association. 

“For these individuals – who are finishing school, pursuing their careers and starting and raising young families – a brain tumor diagnosis is especially cruel and disruptive,” added Wilson. “This report enables us for the first time to zero-in on the types of tumors occurring at key intervals over a 25-year time span to help guide critical research investments and strategies for living with a brain tumor that reflect the patient’s unique needs.”

Although brain and CNS tumors are the most common type of cancer among people aged 15-19, the report shows how other cancers become more common with age. By ages 34-39 years, brain and CNS tumors are the third most common cancer after breast and thyroid cancer.

“What’s interesting is the wide variability in the types of brain tumors diagnosed within this age group which paints a much different picture than what we see in adults or in pediatric patients,” explained the study’s senior author Jill Barnholtz-Sloan, Ph.D., associate professor, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Scientific Principal Investigator for CBTRUS.

“For example, the most common tumor types observed in adults are meningiomas and glioblastomas, but there is much more diversity in the common tumor types observed in the adolescent and young adult population. You also clearly see a transition from predominantly non-malignant and low-grade tumors to predominantly high-grade tumors with increasing age,” Barnholtz-Sloan said. 

There are nearly 700,000 people in the U.S. living with brain and CNS tumors and approximately 15 percent of these tumors occurred in the AYA population during the 2008-2012 time frame analyzed in this report. Approximately 10,617 brain and CNS tumors are diagnosed among adolescents and young adults each year and are the cause of approximately 434 deaths annually. 

“The American Brain Tumor Association’s recognition of this understudied population, and their commitment to data and information sharing should be applauded,” added Barnholtz-Sloan. “There are clearly unique characteristics of the 15-39 age group that we need to more comprehensively understand and the information in the ABTA report starts that important dialogue.” 

For link to press release, click on title above or here: 

The full report is available at

To learn more or access additional statistics, go to

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

National Toxicology Program: $25 Million Research Study Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer //

National Toxicology Program: $25 Million Research Study Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer // | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

Preliminary Summary (to be updated after the press conference later 5/27/2016)


By Dr. Joel Moskowitz (Director of U.C. Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health)


"Last night the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health issued the first in a series of reports that contains partial findings from their long-awaited, $25 million study of the cancer risk from cell phone radiation. This report summarizes the study of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation on rats. The report on mice will be issued at a later date.


One in 18 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer (30 of 540 or 5.5%).  No cancers were found in the 90 male rats that were not exposed to cell phone radiation. The two types of cancer in the exposed rats were glioma and schwannoma. Both types have been found in human studies of cell phone use.


This well-executed study is likely a "game-changer" as it proves that non-ionizing, radiofrequency radiation can cause cancer without heating tissue.


The risk of cancer increased with the intensity of the cell phone radiation whereas no cancer was found in the sham controls—rats kept in the same apparatus but without any exposure to cell phone radiation.


In contrast to the male rats, in female rats the incidence of cancer among those exposed to cell phone radiation was not statistically significant.


The researchers believe that the cancers found in this experimental study were caused by the exposure to cell phone radiation as none of the control animals developed cancer. The researchers controlled the temperature of the animals to prevent heating effects so the cancers were caused by a non-thermal mechanism.


One of two types of second-generation (2G) cell phone technology, GSM and CDMA, were employed in this study. The frequency of the signals was 900 MHz. The rats were exposed to cell phone radiation every 10 minutes followed by a 10-minute break for 18 hours, resulting in nine hours a day of exposure over a two-year period. Both forms of cell phone radiation were found to increase cancer risk in the male rats.


Glioma is a common type of brain cancer in humans. It affects about 25,000 people per year in the U.S. and is the most common cause of cancer death in adults 15-39 years of age. Several major studies have found increased risk of glioma in humans associated with long-term, heavy cell phone use. 


In humans, schwannoma is a nonmalignant tumor that grows in Schwann cells that cover a nerve which connects to the brain. Numerous studies have found an increased risk of this rare tumor in heavy cell phone users. In the rat study, malignant schwannoma was found in Schwann cells in the heart.


For more information about this study see


The NTP report is available at


No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels? // Wall Street Journal

Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels? // Wall Street Journal | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Dr. Joel Moskowitz

"The Wall Street Journal asked me to write an essay about why cellphones should have warning labels. Dr. Larry Junck, a neurology professor, was asked to write the opposing arguments.

The two essays were published with the title, "Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?" in the print edition of the Journal on May 23, 2016.  The online version was posted on the Journal's web site a day earlier.  

Prior to publication, the Journal shared with me four of Dr. Junck's assertions. However, my responses were cut due to space limitations. 

My essay below contains additional links and references that do not appear in the WSJ version. I have annotated the article with my comments indented in italics.

Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?

Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2016


Supporters of warnings say consumers should be alerted to phones’ possible risks. Opponents say the risk, if any, is not great enough to warrant it.


We press them against our ears every day, often for hours. We carry them around with us in our pockets, front, rear and breast.


In short, we do lots of things with our cellphones that we’re not supposed to do, according to the warnings and instructions for proper use that typically come with these products in one form or another.


For now, how seriously one takes warnings about possible risks associated with radio-frequency waves emitted by cellphones largely depends on whether one believes the many studies that suggest there are links to risks of cancer or other ill effects, or the many studies that suggest there is no proof of such risks.


Whatever studies one believes, some concerned observers believe that cellphone companies should make a more assertive effort to warn consumers of the possibilities of such risks. And one way to do that, these advocates say, is with a clearly printed label on the outside of the device.


My Comment: I actually wrote the following, which was edited by the WSJ. “Whether by means of software inside the devices, package labeling, or other forms of communication, cellphone users need better information about the risks and harm reduction options associated with their choices.”


Or would that, as some others argue, just unnecessarily scare customers away from a product whose possible threat to public health is not certain?


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., a researcher and the director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, believes that such labels are needed. Arguing that warning labels aren’t called for is Larry Junck, professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Health System.



YES: Consumers Should Be Alerted to the Possible Risks


By Joel M. Moskowitz


Consumer products from toothpaste to stepladders come with obvious safety-warning labels. Why shouldn’t cellphones?


Cellphone use in the U.S. has mushroomed over the past two decades. But the industry falls seriously short in its efforts to provide cellphone users with information about the health risks associated with their choices and ways they can minimize possible harm.


Exposure to radio-frequency, or RF, radiation is a major risk of cellphone use. Manufacturers have a legal duty to provide warnings that are clear and conspicuous when products raise health and safety concerns. But, typically, RF safety instructions are buried in user manuals with tiny print, hidden within smartphones, or made available on the Internet.


There have been numerous calls for clearer warnings. The Environmental Working Group and 11 other consumer groups in 2013 submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission calling for better disclosure about the risks of RF emissions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, representing 60,000 physicians, submitted a similar letter. Consumer Reports in 2015 recommended that cellphone manufacturers “prominently display advice on steps that cellphone users can take to reduce exposure to cellphone radiation.”


While the research is not conclusive, higher-quality studies show that mobile-phone use is associated with brain-tumor risk and reproductive harm. In 2011, for example, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, declared RF radiation “possibly carcinogenic” based on evidence of increased brain-tumor risk.


By 2016, we have evidence from more than a dozen epidemiological studies that heavy cellphone users, usually over long periods, 10 years or more, face increased risk of malignant and nonmalignant brain tumors(References 1-3)


The U.S. incidence of nonmalignant brain tumors has increased in recent years, especially among adolescents and young adults. It’s unlikely the increase was entirely due to improved detection because, according to one review, we would expect to see a plateau, then a reduction in incidence, which has not occurred. The most serious type of brain cancer has increased in parts of the brain near where people hold their phones. Observations that overall increases in brain cancer were not seen after the introduction of cellphones merely serve to illustrate that there can be a considerable lag between exposure to a carcinogen and the cancer’s diagnosis. (Refs. 4-5)


Skeptics about the risks of cellphones often cite studies that are flawed. They ignore evidence in a 2014 review of 10 studies associating exposure to cellphones with reductions in sperm motility and viability. And while some have argued that the IARC did not have adequate evidence to classify RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic,” the IARC is considered the gold standard for making such determinations. Last year, 220 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the effects of electromagnetic fields signed an appeal to governments to strengthen consumer disclosure and RF radiation standards citing “numerous recent scientific publications” showing effects of such fields on living organisms.


As for people who claim there is no mechanism to explain how cellphones cause cancer, in 93 out of 100 laboratory studies, low-intensity RF radiation was found to cause a cellular-stress response which can lead to carcinogenicity. (Ref. 6)


Insurers are paying attention. Lloyd’s, the London insurance market, in a 2010 report on emerging risks, took no position on whether cellphones cause harm, but warned that scientific and legal developments could change the insurance climate, as occurred with asbestos. Similarly, Swiss Re AG in 2013 identified “unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields” as a leading risk for the industry. Concerns about the cost of potential claims against the cellphone industry have led some insurers to exclude coverage for claims related to electromagnetic fields in their commercial general liability policies.


Even before we had scientific consensus about the public health threat from tobacco, Congress mandated warning labels on cigarettes in 1965.


The public has a right to know that cellphone radiation exposure can be reduced by keeping devices away from the head and body, and by using a speakerphone, wired headset, or text messaging.

Dr. Moskowitz is a researcher and the director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at University of California, BerkeleyDr. Moskowitz, a Ph.D., has a website on electromagnetic-radiation safety. He can be reached at



NO: The Risk, if Any, Is Not Great Enough to Warrant It


By Larry Junck


Each year, about 78,000 Americans are diagnosed with a malignant or benign brain tumor. These lead to about 17,000 deaths—seventh among deaths due to cancer. As a physician kept busy caring for people with brain tumors, I would like nothing more than to see some of these tumors prevented.


Unfortunately, a label warning purchasers of cellphones about an unproven brain-tumor risk would not be a step toward that goal.


Consider that brain tumors have not increased in incidence in correlation with cellphone use. If cellphones were an important cause of brain tumors, we would have seen an increase perhaps starting in the 1990s, when cellphones came into widespread use, or starting several years later, if it took several years of cellphone use to cause a brain tumor. While the number of people diagnosed with brain tumors has risen, the increase has been mainly among the elderly, who use cellphones less than others. The increase started before the 1990s, and the numbers have leveled off. The increase is believed to be largely due to our improved detection of brain tumors using CT scans and MRI.


My Comments: Malignant tumors often require decades to develop before they are detected so one would not necessarily expect to see a strong correlation between cellphone adoption rates and brain tumor incidence.


Brain tumor increases in the 1990s that preceded widespread cellphone use may be accounted for by cordless phone use. Cordless phones were adopted before cellphones; they emit RF radiation, and Hardell's research has found cordless phone use to be associated with increased brain tumor risk. 


Also, there is no known scientific mechanism by which mobile phones might cause brain tumors. For carcinogenic chemicals and other environmental causes of cancer, we can generally show that these cause mutations in DNA or changes in other molecules, sufficient to explain the resulting cancers. However, radiofrequency emissions such as those emitted by cellphones generally pass through tissues without causing these effects. 


My Comments: There is peer-reviewed evidence for several mechanisms that explain how low-intensity cellphone radiation can cause oxidative stress, free radicals, and DNA damage leading to cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. See the papers referenced in #6 below. There are also papers that describe a mechanism for sperm damage.


The research shows that the cellphone's RF emissions are absorbed by the head and body. The young child's brain absorbs twice as much radiation as the adult brain.


Numerous epidemiologic studies considered together do not conclusively show an increase in risk of brain tumors associated with cellphone use. The majority of studies show no association at all. A number of studies do suggest an increase in risk, but some of these studies depend on patients’ recall of their cellphone usage and thus are susceptible to bias. 


My Comments: It often takes decades of independently-funded research before scientific consensus is reached about a health risk. 


Much of the cell phone radiation research has been funded by the telecommunications industry. In our 2009 review of the epidemiological research, we found that studies with industry funding tended to use lower quality research methods. These studies either failed to find increased brain tumor risk or dismissed the significant evidence of risk that was observed. Dr. Henry Lai has reported that the industry-funded studies were also much less likely to report biological effects. 

The higher-quality research on long-term, heavy cell phone use among adults consistently finds increased brain tumor risk. The risk is roughly doubled after 10 years of cellphone use. Although little research has been conducted on children, a few studies suggest that the risk is greater for children and adolescents who use cellphones.


Although a few industry-funded scientists recommend we take precaution about cellphone use, many argue we should wait 25 or more years until they complete their current research studies. In contrast, the 220 scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal believe that we have sufficient evidence to take precaution now. They argue for stronger regulations and better disclosure.


Regarding bias in studies that depend on patient recall, it is true that people err when they report their cellphone use in these studies. They tend to underestimate the duration of calls and overestimate the number of calls they make. These two biases cancel each other out. The net effect when the data are analyzed for the total amount of cellphone use is to underestimate the association between cellphone use and brain tumor risk.


One of the largest studies, the Interphone study done in 13 countries and published in 2010, showed no increase in risk in its primary analysis. A widely criticized secondary analysis showed that among the 10% of subjects who recalled the highest usage, incidence of glioma (the most common of serious brain tumors) was increased by 40%—of marginal significance due to the small number of tumors in the secondary analysis. Based largely on this study, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” in humans, a category that includes coffee and pickled vegetables. Many experts have expressed opinions disagreeing with this classification because of the lack of good evidence supporting it.


My Comments: The 13-nation Interphone Study reported in a 40% increased risk of glioma for heavy cellphone users who used cellphones 1,640 or more hours in their lifetime, which averages to about 30 minutes a day over 10 years (Table 2). This was a primary, not a secondary analysis of the data.


The Interphone Study has been criticized by many scientists for its methodological shortcomings, but most of the biases are in the direction of underestimating brain tumor risk. For example, the Interphone study presented a secondary analysis in Appendix 2 of the paper which corrected one methodology problem. This analysis found an 82% increased risk of glioma for the heavy cellphone users instead of the 40% increased risk reported in the main body of the paper.


In another paper, the Interphone Study reported a 289% increased risk of acoustic neuroma for heavy cellphone users.


The 30-member IARC expert group depended heavily on the Interphone study and research by Lennart Hardell and his colleagues when they decided to classify RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011.


IARC classified Asian pickled vegetables and coffee as “possible carcinogens” because consumption of the first increases risk of esophageal cancer, and the second, bladder cancer. The cellphone industry has cited these findings to diminish IARC’s classification of radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B possible carcinogen to humans, which is also the same category as DDT and lead.


Other conceivable risks of RF have also been studied. An example is effects on sperm. A meta-analysis of many studies looking for an association of cellphone use with changes in sperm reported that one of three variables studied, sperm motility, shows a small but statistically significant relationship. But the authors do not indicate how sperm development might be affected by RF from cellphones, considering that RF emissions are concentrated near their source and that cellphones are generally held far from the scrotum while in use.


My Comments: The most recent meta-analysis found that cellphone radiation harms both sperm motility and viability -- two of the three effects examined.


Several mechanisms have been proposed for sperm damage (see my post, “Effects of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality”).


Cellphones emit radiation at least once a minute whenever they are powered on. Since males often store cellphones in their pants pocket, they are exposing their genitals to this radiation. A Cleveland Clinic study of 361 men undergoing infertility examination found that the “decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones.”


Most scientific organizations that have studied this issue, such as the World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute, find no convincing evidence of risk of brain tumors or other harms. The Food and Drug Administration states, “The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cellphones with any health problems.”


My Comments: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found evidence of genotoxicity from exposure to cellphone radiation in the 1990’s. Based upon the research, the EPA advocated for stronger regulations than the FCC adopted in 1996. Congress ended the EPA’s funding for research on RF radiation so the EPA has not conducted any research since the 1990’s.


The FDA called for a government-funded study in 2001 to resolve their concern that cellphone radiation is harmful. The federal government has funded one major study, but fifteen years later the investigators have yet to report any results. Further, the study examines the effects of second-generation cellphone technology which will soon be obsolete as most cellphone use fourth-generation LTE.


The federal health agencies currently have little expertise regarding RF health effects because most federal scientists with expertise have retired or passed away.


The FCC’s cellphone radiation regulations have not changed since 1996. Although the FCC has been gathering input from scientists and the public since 2003, it has never issued a review of the evidence it has received. A recent Harvard publication reported that the FCC has been “captured” by the industries it regulates including the telecommunications  industry.


Before WSJ editing, my original essay contained information about the cellphone industry – their tendency to oppose and lobby against all “Right to Know” legislation that crops up from the grass roots. I know of six states where allegations have been made that proposed regulations to inform about potential cellphone risks have failed under industry pressure.


Meanwhile, supporters of stronger warnings point to reports in the insurance industry citing the possibility of increased liability to claims of health damage from cellphones, but such conclusions appear to be based on fear of liability arising from public concerns that are not based on evidence of harm. I submit that public policy should be based on actual risk, not on popular perceptions that aren’t supported by evidence.


My Comments: Of course public policy should be based upon actual risk, not perceived risk. And insurers are probably worried about both compensating victims of actual harm associated with cellphones, as well as paying for the expense of defending lawsuits regardless of the merits.


The insurance industry has a legitimate concern that the cellphone industry will someday be held liable for cellphone radiation health effects because the scientific evidence has grown substantially over time. Moreover, the cellphone industry funded much of the early research that found evidence of harm which suggests that the industry knew the risks but failed to act responsibly. Although most cellphone companies issue safety information about how to reduce RF radiation exposure, the information is not user-friendly.


Do risks of cellphones require more study? Yes, especially looking for any long-term risk to children who use them extensively over many years. Meanwhile, there is not much basis for modifying our use of mobile phones because of the risk of brain tumors or other risks from RF emissions.


If a risk exists at all, it is not high enough to justify a warning label for consumers. Warning labels are best reserved for risks that are both more clear-cut and larger. Perhaps use of cellphones while driving is an example.


My Comments: Hardell and his colleagues have found a three-fold risk of brain cancer for 25 or more years of wireless (cellphone and cordless) phone use and a four-fold risk of acoustic neuroma for 20 or more years of use. Given how widespread cellphone use is these risk estimates should be of great concern to neuro-oncologists. Some research suggests that children who use cellphones may have greater long-term risk of brain tumors.


I discussed two risks for which we have the most evidence: brain tumors and sperm damage. In addition, there is scientific evidence for other health problems associated with cellphone radiation. These risks include other head and neck tumors, breast cancer, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and reproductive health risks including miscarriage and fetal effects (e.g., ADHD).


Bottom line: There is less “harm” in warning consumers about potential risks based on what we know or suspect than in failing to do so and later on facing another tobacco or asbestos debacle. Precautionary warnings are the least we can do at this point in time.


Dr. Junck is professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Health System. He can be reached at



  1. Scientific reviews of epidemiological research on cellphone use and brain tumor risk


Hardell, Carlberg (2013). Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones.


Morgan, Miller, Sasco, Davis (2015). Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review).


Myung, Ju, McDonnell, Lee, Kazinets, Cheng, Moskowitz (2009). Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis.


World Health Organization (2013). IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.



  1. Epidemiological studies that report evidence of increased brain tumor risk associated with long-term, heavy mobile phone use: Malignant tumors (glioma)


Carlberg and Hardell, 2012


Cardis et al, 2011


Coureau et al, 2014


Hardell et al, 2002


Hardell et al, 2004


Hardell et al, 2005


Hardell et al, 2006


Hardell et al, 2006


Hardell et al, 2009


Hardell et al, 2010


Hardell et al, 2013


Hardell et al, 2013


Hepworth et al, 2006


Interphone Study Group, 2010


Lakhola et al, 2007


Schuz et al, 2006



  1. Epidemiological studies that report evidence of increased brain tumor risk associated with long-term, heavy mobile phone use: Non-malignant tumors (acoustic neuroma or meningioma)


Aydin et al, 2011 (child study; unclassified tumors)


Benson et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)


Cardis et al, 2011 (meningioma)


Carlberg and Hardell, 2015 (meningioma)


Coureau et al, 2014 (meningioma)


Hardell et al, 2006 (acoustic neuroma)


Hardell et al, 2009 (acoustic neuroma)


Hardell et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)


Hardell et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)


Interphone Study Group, 2011(acoustic neuroma)


Lonn et al, 2004 (acoustic neuroma)


Moon et al, 2014 (acoustic neuroma)


Schoemaker et al, 2005 (acoustic neuroma)



  1. Evidence of increased brain tumor incidence in the United States: Non-malignant tumors (also see

    Brain tumor increases in the 1990s that preceded widespread cellphone use may be accounted for by cordless phone use. Cordless phones were adopted before cellphones; they emit RF radiation, and Hardell's studieshave found them to be associated with increased brain tumor risk. 


Dolecek et al, 2015 (meningioma in adults)


Gittleman et al, 2015 (brain/central nervous system tumors in children & adolescents)


Ostrom et al, 2016 (meningioma in adolescents and young adults)



  1. Evidence of increased brain tumor incidence in the United States: Malignant tumors (also see


Gittleman et al, 2015 (brain/central nervous system tumors in children & adolescents)


Zada et al, 2012 (glioblastoma multiforme)



  1. Mechanisms that explain biologic effects of low intensity radiofrequency fields


Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: Radiofrequency fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates.


Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure.


Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress.


Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields.


Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.


Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.


Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders.


Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism.


Yakymenko et al (2015) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.

Zhu et al (2016). The apoptotic effect and the plausible mechanism of microwave radiation on rat myocardial cells." 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Even Apple Is Acknowledging That The “iPads in Education” Fad is Coming To An End // Quartz

Even Apple Is Acknowledging That The “iPads in Education” Fad is Coming To An End // Quartz | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |
By Marta Cooper

“A disaster.”


“Largely gaming devices.”


“Students use them as toys. Word processing is near to impossible.”



These were the findings from a survey of high school students and teachers in a district in the US state of Maine on how effective iPads were for learning and teaching. Almost 90% of teachers and 74% of students preferred laptops over tablets, according to the Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal.


Even Apple has bent to the will of students and teachers. Following the poll, the tech giant and Maine’s Department of Education are now offering schools in the state the chance to trade in iPads ordered in 2013 for new MacBook Air laptops, at no additional cost.


“If we had known how big a transition it would have been [to switch] from laptops to iPads we would have proactively done some good work with teachers to make the transition easier for them,” Mike Muir, the policy director of the Maine Learning Through Technology Initiative, told Quartz.


Muir said that Apple was “disappointed” by the survey’s results. According to one of the teachers surveyed, tablets provided “no educational function in the classroom.” More than 1,700 laptops will be delivered to two schools in the state later this year. (We have reached out to Apple for comment.)


Integrating technology and learning has been a bumpy ride. Last year, a school district in Los Angeles, the second-largest in the United States, aborted a plan to hand out iPads to every student and educator in the area. Launched in 2013, the $1.3-billion project was marked by poor planning and technical glitches. Other districts in Texas and North Carolina have also shelved their iPad learning initiatives.


One teacher in Virginia thought giving her third graders an iPad would enhance their learning, but found that, for all the device’s benefits in terms of adding more varied activities to lessons, it undermined her pupils’ conversation and communication skills."...


For full post, click on title above or here: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

We’re Not Talking About What Virtual Reality (VR) Is Doing To Our Eyes … And Our Brains // Venture Beat

We’re Not Talking About What Virtual Reality (VR) Is Doing To Our Eyes … And Our Brains // Venture Beat | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Dan Crawley
"An expert view on the health and safety risks around virtual reality … or everything you wanted to know about VR but were afraid to ask."


[Selected Excerpt]


"Oculus Rift’s health and safety warnings explicitly state that kids under 13 shouldn’t use the VR system.

It’s likely linked to fears of stereoscopic images harming children’s still-developing eyesight. They’re the same fears that arose when Nintendo’s 3DS handheld debuted in 2011, and they won’t go away.

Dr. Tom Piantanida wrote a review of HMD safety back in 1993 and suggested that VR headsets could trigger latent visual problems in people with intermittent exotropia — a condition quite common in young children where one eye sometimes turns outward.


Piantanida argued that HMDs and other stresses can trigger episodes of double vision in these children, which can then lead to permanent visual changes.

“The visual system attempts to overcome the inconvenience of double vision by suppressing one of the images,” said Piantanida. “This suppression, if it occurs in very young children and if it is sustained, can lead to permanent visual changes of the type commonly called amblyopia or ‘lazy eye.’ Thus, in a small number of very young children, HMDs … have the potential for triggering latent visual anomalies that can produce permanent visual changes.”...


For full post, click on title above or here: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Big Data: A Paradigm Shift in Education from Personal Autonomy to Conditioning Toward Excessive Consumerism 

Downloaded from: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

12/12/15 Letter from Pediatric Neurologist and Neuroscientist Martha Herbert, Ph.D, MD to Montgomery County School District // Harvard Medical School

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

“Game-changing” [$25M National Toxicology Program] Federal Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer // Mother Jones

“Game-changing” [$25M National Toxicology Program] Federal Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer // Mother Jones | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Josh Harkinson
[image Robert Piras/Shutterstock]

It's the moment we've all been dreading. Initial findings from a massive federal study, released on Thursday, suggest that radio-frequency (RF) radiation, the type emitted by cellphones, can cause cancer.

The findings from a $25 million study, conducted over two and a half years by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), showed that male rats exposed to two types of RF radiation were significantly more likely than unexposed rats to develop a type of brain cancer called a glioma, and also had a higher chance of developing the rare, malignant form of tumor known as a schwannoma of the heart. The effect was not seen in females.


The radiation level the rats received was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to when they use cellphones, said Chris Portier, a former associate director of the NTP who commissioned the study.


As the intensity of the radiation increased, so did the incidence of cancer in the rats. (The highest radiation level was five to seven times as strong as what humans typically receive while using a phone.) Although ionizing radiation, which includes gamma rays and X-rays, is widely accepted as a carcinogen, the wireless industry has long noted that there is no known mechanism by which RF radiation causes cancer. The researchers wrote that the results "appear to support" the conclusion that RF radiation may indeed be carcinogenic.


The findings should be a wake-up call for the scientific establishment, according to Portier, who is now a contributing scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. "I think this is a game changer," he said. "We seriously have to look at this issue again in considerable detail."

"The NTP does the best animal bioassays in the word," Portier added. "Their reputation is stellar. So if they are telling us this was positive in this study, that's a concern."


Past animal studies have been inconclusive. Most of those suggesting a connection between cellphone radiation and cancer had first exposed rodents to toxic chemicals to induce tumors, which were then shown to grow in response to radiation exposure. But the new study did nothing in advance to stimulate cancer in the animals.


The NTP first decided to investigate the carcinogenicity of cellphone radiation in 2001, partly in response to epidemiological studies showing a correlation between gliomas and cellphone use. Some of the studies even showed that the cancers were ipsilateral—meaning they tended to appear on the same side of the head where users held their phones. But other epidemiological studies haven't found links between cancer and cellphones.

The Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with regulating the health aspects of consumer products, says on its website that there is "no evidence linking cell phone use with the risk of brain tumors." It does acknowledge some risk associated with carrying cellphones too close to the body, but only due to the phones' heating effect.


The NTP findings cast doubt on that conclusion: The study was designed to control for heating effects by ensuring that the body temperature of the exposed rats increased by less than 1 degree Celsius. "Everyone expected this study to be negative," a senior government radiation official told Microwave News, which was shown partial results from the study earlier this week. "Assuming that the exposures were carried out in a way that heating effects can be ruled out, then those who say that such [carcinogenic] effects found are impossible are wrong."


The study was expensive in part because it required the construction of special exposure chambers that allowed thousands of mice and rats to receive standardized dozes of radiation. For about nine hours per day, for periods ranging from two months to the lifetime of the animal, the rodents were exposed to the RF radiation frequencies used by second generation (2G) phones—the standard at the time the study was initiated.


Only the test results for rats have been released so far. Female rats didn't experience significantly higher than normal cancer rates. However, among male rats that received the highest radiation exposures, 2 percent to 3 percent contracted gliomas and 6 percent to 7 percent percent developed schwannoma tumors in their hearts, depending on the type of radiation used. None of the male rats in the control groups developed those cancers.

Potentially confounding the results, the rats exposed to radiation on average lived longer than those that weren't. Some outside reviewers argued that the study's authors should have given more weight to that caveat. Reviewers were also puzzled that the unexposed control rats didn't exhibit the usual number of brain tumors. "I am unable to accept the authors' conclusions," wrote Michael Lauer, the deputy director of the National Institute of Health's office of extramural research.

In the United States, of about 25,000 malignant brain tumors diagnosed each year, 80 percent are gliomas. Malignant brain tumors are the most common cause of cancer deaths in adolescents and adults ages 15 to 39." ...

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Optometrist Warns Screen Use May Cause Early Macular Degeneration

Optometrist Warns Screen Use May Cause Early Macular Degeneration | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Lisa Knight

"A Palmerston North optometrist is warning that light emitted from smartphones, tablets and computers could be putting users at risk of early onset macular degeneration.


Harmful 'blue-violet' light is emitted from the LED screens of devices such as smartphones and tablets, and close proximity to the light makes the risk of damage worse, as well as contributing to eye fatigue, according to optometrist Brian Naylor, of Visique Naylor Palmer.


He said the blue light damage was of growing concern as people spent more time on digital devices while working and studying, and children were exposed at an early age to screens.


"Recent figures show that a typical multiscreen user in New Zealand is clocking up just under seven hours of screen time daily, which includes laptops, TV and smartphones," Naylor said.


"All of these emit significant amounts of blue-violet light, which is the highest-energy wavelength of visible light, and because of that can penetrate through the eyes' natural filters, all the way to the back of the eye."


The effects of blue light are believed to be cumulative, and computers are the worst culprits, closely followed by tablets and smartphones.


"Over-exposure to blue light can cause headaches, dry eyes, and difficulty sleeping in the short term, and there are potential longer-term effects that we are also worried about."


Naylor said, in particular, blue-violet light was a proven risk factor of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), along with genetic factors, smoking and diet. 


He recommended that those who spent long periods of time on computers, tablets and smartphones, think about protection, including lenses specially designed to help filter blue light.


Reducing time spent on devices wherever possible would also help."...


For full post, click on title above or here: 





No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Modern Electronic Devices: An Increasingly Common Cause of Skin Disorders in Consumers // PubMed - NCBI

Modern Electronic Devices: An Increasingly Common Cause of Skin Disorders in Consumers // PubMed - NCBI | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research | 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Amid Internet Addiction Fears, 'Balanced' Tech Diet for Teens Recommended

Amid Internet Addiction Fears, 'Balanced' Tech Diet for Teens Recommended | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Benjamin Herold
"Although researchers have yet to reach a consensus on whether 'Internet addiction' is real, parents are increasingly—and justifiably—concerned about their children's technology and media usage, according to a new report released today by Common Sense Media.

The tonic, the report suggests, is a "balanced" technology diet for children that includes tech-free times and zones.  Common Sense also recommended that parents and caregivers put down their own phones while driving, at the dinner table, and during family time.

"However the research community eventually comes to a consensus on whether and how to diagnose Internet addiction, it is clear that there has been a massive change in how we access and engage with technology," according to the report, titled "Technology Addiction: Concern, Controversy, and Finding Balance."

For full post and access to download report: 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

Pediatric Researchers Suggest Potential Dangers For Children From Cellphone Exposure // Baltimore Sun

Pediatric Researchers Suggest Potential Dangers For Children From Cellphone Exposure // Baltimore Sun | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

Andre K. McDaniels
"Doctors and scientists from Harvard and Yale medical schools warned Tuesday that pregnant mothers limit their unborn babies exposure to potentially harmful radiation by keeping cellphones away from their tummies because of the possible impact on brain development.

The doctors offered the advice during the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting in Baltimore where they also said parents should limit their children’s use of cellphones, iPads and other wireless technology because it can cause behavioral and concentration problems.


There is little research on the impact of the microwave radiation and radio frequency radiation emitted by wireless devices on children, but the doctors said early studies provide enough evidence to suggest that parents should take caution.

The doctors comments could stoke a longtime debate over the health dangers of cellphones, but the industry disputed their warning.


The CTIA, the association representing the U.S. wireless communications industry, including carriers, suppliers and manufacturers, cited a Food and Drug Administration statement that there is not enough evidence to show that cellphones can cause a health risk.


“CTIA and the wireless industry defer to the scientific community when it comes to cellphones and health effects,” the group said in a statement. “The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk for adults or children.”


The group said that, in addition to the FDA, the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society and numerous other international and U.S. organizations and health experts, have said the scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the radio frequency energy emitted by cellphones.

“The FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are 'safe,'” the association said. “The FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis, and its standard for RF exposure is based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies.”


Still, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified both microwave radiation and radio frequency radiation as a “possible” human carcinogens, the researchers at Tuesday’s conference said.


They also presented early research that they say may prove an even bigger correlation.


In one study, Dr. Hugh Taylor, chair of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at Yale School of Medicine, put cellphones on the top of cages containing pregnant mice. He then studied the behavior of the offspring and found that they had decreased memory and were hyperactive.


“They weren't paying attention to their surroundings,” Taylor said in a web call during Tuesday's conference. “They were very hyperactive. They were bouncing off the walls without a care in the world.”

Dr. Martha Herbert, with Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, looked at the biological factors that can go wrong in autism and found a strong correction with the electromagnetic field of Wifi. The fields disturb calcium signaling in the brain, which is supposed to regulate the flow of information at the cell membrane going into the nucleus, she said in a phone interview after her presentation.

“It can make the brain get too excited and irritated,” Herbert said. “It is not inconceivable that it can cause (autism), but there are other factors that can play a role. It certainly can aggravate it.”


In other research, brain models and computer simulations show that children absorb ten times more microwave radiation than adults because a child's skull is thinner and smaller.


Parents should not panic over the research, said Dr. Stephen J. Thompson, medical director of the division of pediatric neurology at the University of Maryland Medical Center. But, he said, it also shouldn’t be dismissed.


“These are good studies being done by reputable people and presented at a national conference that is considered one of the best to disseminate this information,” said Thompson, also an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “But to overact and go into panic mode is not necessarily the wisest choice.”

Thompson said that it is good practice anyway to limit children’s exposure to screen time. It is always better to read a book or send a child outside to play if given the choice, he said. The studies give scientists reason to look in to the issue more, he said.


At Tuesday’s conference, the researchers were joined in their warning by the head of the Environmental Health Trust, a Wyoming-based group that examines and advocates about environmental health hazards, including those it says are caused by wifi and cellphones.

“As a scientist, I can tell you we have a lot of uncertainty; there is no a question about that,” said Devra Davis, the trust’s founder. “But as a grandmother, I can tell you we have enough knowledge that we cannot continue to experiment on our children.”


While more study is needed, the researchers said parents can take simple actions to prevent exposure.

For instance, Yale’s Taylor said he always encourages his pregnant patients to keep phones away from their stomachs. The researchers also said people should not put phones in their pockets as the radiation could cause impotence or low sperm count. Women shouldn’t keep it in their bras or shirt pockets. Also, don’t put wireless baby monitors near babies’ heads.


Sometimes it can take years for research to get done, the researchers said.

“Science is like a crossword puzzle,” Herbert said. “You can make a judgment far before every last thing is straightened out.” 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

BabySafe Project // Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation

BabySafe Project // Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation


We join together as physicians, scientists and educators to express our concern about the risk that wireless radiation poses to pregnancy and to urge pregnant women to limit their exposures.


We recognize that the exquisitely delicate systems that direct the development of human life are vulnerable to environmental insults, and that even minute exposures during critical windows of development may have serious and life-long consequences.


We know that the scientific process demands a thorough and exhaustive examination of the possible impact of wireless radiation on health; however, we believe substantial evidence of risk, rather than absolute proof of harm, must be the trigger for action to protect public health.


We call on the research community to conduct more studies to identify the mechanisms by which a fetus could be affected by wireless radiation exposures. We call on our elected leaders to support such research and to advance policies and regulations that limit exposures for pregnant women. We call on industry to implement and explore technologies and designs that will reduce radiation exposures until such research is carried out.


We affirm our role as health and science professionals to inform the public about the potential dangers associated with early-life exposures to wireless radiation, and invite all professionals engaged in obstetric, pediatric, and environmental health advocacy to join us in our quest to ensure the safety and health of future generations.



Mikko Ahonen, PhD,
Researcher, University of Tampere, Finland

Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic, Ontario, Canada

Sinerik Ayrapetyan, PhD, Chair, United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Armenia

Murat Bakacak, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and IVF Center, School of Medicine, Kahramanmaraş Sutcu Imam University, Turkey

Priyanka Bandara, PhDEducator in Environmental Health, NSW Australia

B.D. Banerjee, MD, PhD, MVPH, MBBS, Chairman, Research Project Advisory Committee, University College of Medical Sciences (UCMS) & GTB Hospital, University of Delhi; Former Head, Department of Medical Biochemistry, UCMS, University of Delhi; Professor, UCMS and Lab Incharge, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, UCMS, University of Delhi, India

Toni Bark, MD, Founder and Medical Director, Center of Disease Prevention Reversal, United States

Carlo Bellieni, MD, Former Secretary, Bioethics Committee of the Italian Pediatrics Society; Neonatologist; Bioethicist, Italy

Igor Beliaev, Dr.Sc., Head, Laboratory of Radiobiology at the Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science; Professor, Laboratory of Radiobiology in the Department of Ecological and Medical Problems, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia

Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York

Robert W. Boxer, MD, Emeritus Fellow, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, United States

Warren Brodey, MD, Norway

David R. Brown, ScD, Public Health Toxicologist, Environment and Human Health, United States

Lois Brustman, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York

Sarah J. Buckley, MD, General Practitioner Family Physician; Author, Australia

Larry Burk, MD, CEHP, Former President, Rhine Research Center; Co-founder, Duke Integrative Medicine; Founding Board Member, American Board of Scientific Medical Intuition; Integrative Physician and Musculoskeletal Radiologist, United States

David Buscher, MD, Former President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, United States

Sheila Bushkin-Bedient, MD, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, New York

Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD, Researcher, Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Carla Campbell, MD, MS, Associate Teaching Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel School of Public Health, Philadelphia

David Carpenter, MD, Director, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York

Barry Castleman, ScD, Environmental Consultant, United States

Richard Clapp, DSc, MPH, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health, Boston University, Massachusetts

Aly Cohen, MD, FACR, FABOIM, Founder and Medical Director, Integrative Rheumatology Associates, PC; Founder and Medical Director, The Smart Human LLC, New Jersey,

Marc Cohen, PhD, MBBS, FAMAC, FICAE, Professor, School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Victoria, Australia

Stephen Scott Cowan, MD, Board-certified Pediatrician, Holistic Developmental Pediatrics, United States

Kerry Crofton, PhD, Co-founder and Executive Director, Doctors for Safer Schools, Canada

Nathan Daley, MD, MPH, Resident of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida

Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, MVSc, Professor, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India

Paul E. Dart, MD, FCA, Allergist and Holistic Medicine Practitioner, Eugene, Oregon

Suleyman Dasdag, PhD, Secretary General, The Turkish Biophysical Society; Professor, Biophysics Department of Dicle University, Turkey

Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting scholar, University of California at Berkeley, California

Adilza Condessa Dode, PhD, MSc, Researcher, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil

Larysa Dyrszka, MD, Pediatrician, New York

Dagmar Ehling, MAc, LAc, DOM(NM), DIpl OM, FABORM, Founding Partner, Oriental Health Solutions LLC, Durham, North Carolina

Erica Elliott, MD, Family Practice & Environmental Medicine, New Mexico

Dr. Elizabeth Evans, MA, (Cantab) MBBS (London), DRCOG, United Kingdom

Joris Everaert, MSc, Biologist, Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Belgium

Daniel Favre, PhD, Biologist and Apiary Advisor, Association Romand Alert, Switzerland

Aleksandra Fucic, PhD, Biologist, Genotoxicologist and Scientific Advisor, Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Goran Gajski, PhD, Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Stephen Genuis, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Canada

Andrew Goldsworthy, PhD, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College, London

Beatrice A. Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, California

William B. Grant, PhD, Director, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San Francisco, California

Janet Gray, Ph.D, Director, Program in Science, Technology & Society, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York

Oleg Gregoriev, DrSc, PhD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Russia

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

Magda Havas, PhD, Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada

Lena Hedendahl, MD, General Practitioner, Luleå, Sweden

Martha Herbert, PhD, MD, Pediatric Neurologist and Neuroscientist, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts

Paul Héroux, PhD, Head, In Vitro Toxicology Laboratory, Occupational Health, McGill University, Canada

Gunnar Heuser, MD, Professor Emeritus, University of California at Los Angeles, California

Hiie Hinrikus, PhD, DSc, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, Co-founder and Director, Institute of Science in Society, United Kingdom

Polly J. Hoppin, ScD, Research Professor, University of Massachusetts,  Program Director, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Lowell, Massachusetts

Heidi Hutner, PhD, Director of Sustainability Studies, Stony Brook University, New York

Isaac Jamieson, PhD, Architect and Environmental Scientist/Consultant, Biosustainable Design, London

Toril H. Jelter, MD, FAAP, General Practitioner and Certified Pediatrician, Mount Diablo Integrated Wellness Center, California

Olle Johansson, PhD, Researcher of Neuroscience, Karolunska Istitutet and Professor, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Dr. Bharti Kalra, Consultant, Department of Gynaecology, Bharti Hospital, Karnal, India

Ellen Kamhi, PhD, RN, The Natural Nurse, Arizona

Süleyman Kaplan, PhD, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

Maryam Kashanian, MD, Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital, Tehran, Iran
David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, Founding Director, Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, Yale University; President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Kassie Kelln, MD, Faculty of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Kavindra Kumar Kesari, PhD, Research Scientist, Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Lisbeth E. Knudsen, PhD, Director, Bachelor and Master Program in Public Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Sianette Kwee, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biochemistry, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

Miriam Labbok, MD, Founding Professor and Director of the Carolina Global Breastfeeding Institute (CGBI); Founder and Board Member of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine; Professor of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Thomas LaCava, MD, Medical Director, Francis Holistic Medical Center, Massachusetts

Henry Lai, PhD, Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, University of Washington, Washington

Bruce Lanphear, MD, Professor of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Michael Lerner, PhD, President, Commonweal, United States

Celia Lewis, PhD, Former Researcher, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Center for Coastal and Watershed Systems, Connecticut

Luana Licata, PhD, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy

Cynthia Johnson MacKay, MD, Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York

Don Maisch, PhD, Founder,, United States

Victoria Maizes, MD, Executive Director, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, Arizona

Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD, Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment, United Kingdom

Lynn Marshall, MD, FAAEM, LMCFP, Former President of the Canadian Society for Environmental Medicine; Faculty Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, University of Toronto and Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Canada

Dr. Alfonso Balmori Martínez, Biologist, Human Ecological/Social/Economical Project, Spain

Asish Mehta, MD, MCh, DNB, Neurological surgeon, Mumbai, India

Ron Melnick, PhD, Retired Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, United States

Stella Canna Michaelidou, PhD, President of the National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Cyprus, Turkey

Sam Milham, MD, Adjunct Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, New York

Anthony B. Miller, MD, Professor Emeritus, School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada

Hamid Mobasheri, PhD, Head of Laboratory of Membrane Biophysics and Macromolecules, Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran

Joseph T. Morgan, MD, Fellow and Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Oregon 

SMJ Mortazavi, PhD, President of the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC); Professor, Medical Physics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director and Principal Investigator, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

Dr. Joachim Mutter, Physician of Internal Medicine, Germany

Lisa Lavine Nagy, MD, The Preventive and Environmental Health Alliance Inc., Massachusetts

Darcia Narvaez, PhD, Professor of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Illinois

Gary R. Olhoeft, SBEE, SMEE, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics (Electromagnetic and Environmental), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado

Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience; Bioelectromagnetics Researcher, Western University, Canada

Dr. Goknur Guler Ozturk, Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

Hildur Palsdottir, PhD, New York University School of Medicine, New York

Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, Pediatrician, Bayside Medical Group, California

Claudio Gomez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Researcher, University La Fe, Valencia, Spain

Michael A. Persinger, PhD, Professor, Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular and Human Studies Programs, Departments of Psychology and Biology, Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada

Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Excel Science Center; Professor Attendant, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado

Rangasamy Ramanathan, MD, LAC+USC Women’s & Children’s Hospital, San Francisco, California

William J. Rea, MD, Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas

Mary Redmayne, PhD, Adjunct Research Associate, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, Clinical Professor of Family and Community Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, California

Elihu D Richter, MD, MPH, Retired Head of the Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the Injury Prevention Center, Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Lisa Ridgway, MD, Pediatrician, Victor Med Clinic, Victor, Idaho

Aviva Romm, MD, Private practice, Boston, Massachusetts

Dr. Nader Salama, Professor, Department of Urology & Andrology, Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Egypt

Timur Saliev, PhD, Lead Researcher, Center for Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Annie J. Sasco, MD, DrPH, Director of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, University of Bordeaux, France

Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network, United States

Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, Founder and CEO of Worldview Enterprises; President Emeritus and Senior Fellow, Institute of Noetic Sciences;  Senior Scientist, California Pacific Medical Center, California

Gerry Schwalfenberg MD, CCFP, FCFP, Assistant Clinical Professor,  Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada

Nesrin Seyhan, BsC, PhD, Director, Gazi Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (GNRK) Center; WHO EMF IAC Representative of Turkey; Professor, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey

Amit J. Shah, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Georgia

Kara Sheinart, MD, Neurologist affiliated with Mount Sinai Hospital & Medical Center, New York

Fatih Senturk, MSc, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey

Maya Shetreat-Klein, MD, Pediatric Neurologist and Pediatrician, New York

Stephen Sinatra, MD, FACC, CNS, CBT, Cardiologist, Manchester Memorial Hospital, Connecticut

Narendra P. Singh, PhD, Research Professor, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, South Carolina

Eugene Sobel, PhD, Emeritus Professor, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Colin L. Soskolne, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology, University of Canberra, Australia

Ken Spaeth, MD, MPH, Occupational and Environmental Medicine Professor, Hofstra University, North Shore – LIJ Health System, New York

Yael Stein, MD, Physician and Researcher, Hebrew University – Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

Anne Steinemann, PhD, Professor of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne School of Engineering, Australia

Hugh Taylor, MD, Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Connecticut

Arin Tomruk, MSc, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey

Leonardo Trasande, MD, Associate Professor, Institute of Environmental Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, Practicing homeopathic doctor; Guest lecturer; Author and Distributor of Homeopathic Books and Information, California

John Wargo, PhD, Professor of Risk Analysis, Environmental Policy and Political Science, Yale University, Connecticut

Ulrich Warnke, PhD, Professor and Director, Department of Biomedicine, University of Saarland, Germany

Lucy Waletzky, MD, Psychiatrist (private practice), New York

Andrew Weil, MD, Founder and Director of Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, Arizona

John West, MD, Co-founder and Chairman, Board of the Breast Health Awareness Foundation and General Surgeon, United States

Chris White, MD, Founder an Director, Essential Parenting; Board-Certified Pediatrician, United States

Professor Igor Yakymenko, PhD, DrSc, Principle Researcher, Laboratory of Biophysics, Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

Jingduan Yang, MD, Director of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Program, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Pennsylvania

*  *  *

Wafaa Aborashed, Executive Director, Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities

Nancy Alderman, MES, President, Environment and Human Health. Inc.

Maxwell Anderson, BSN, RN, Berkeley City Council (retired), California

Mary Beth Brangan & James Heddle, Co-Directors, EON

Giorgio Cinciripini, Co-founder, Italian Network of No-Electrosmog NGOs

Frank Clegg, CEO, Canadians For Safe Technology

Anton Fernhout, Environmental Engineer with MEng Environmental Sciences, Association Romande Alerte aux Ondes Electromagnétiques (ARA), Morges, Switzerland

Debbie Floyd, Executive Director, Klinghardt Academy, Alternative and Naturopathic Treatments for  Lyme Disease, Autism, Chronic Illness, New Jersey

Marjukka Hagström, LLM, MSocSc, Principal Researcher, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland

Desiree Jaworski, Executive Director, Center for Safer Wireless

Tarmo Koppel, Chair of Labor Environment and Safety, Ergonomics Lab at Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

B. Blake Levitt, Former New York Times contributor, Medical/Science Journalist, Author

Ellen Marks, California Brain Tumor Association, California

Deborah McCutcheon, BScH, MBA, Medical and Government Policy, National Team Leader, Canadians for Safe Technology, Canada

Jean Monro, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FAAEM, DIBEM, MACOEM, Medical Director and Founder, Breakspear Hospital, United Kingdom

L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust

Janet Newton, Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Policy Institute

Carolyn Raffensperger, MA, JD, Executive Director, Science and Environmental Health Network

Camilla Rees, MBA,

Kathleen Riley, ND, Founder and Physician, Eclectic Naturopathic Medical Center, LLC, Connecticut

Cindy Sage, MA, Co-Editor, BioInitiative 2012 Report, Sage Associates

Katie Singer, Author: Garden of Fertility, Honoring Our Cycles, An Electronic Silent Spring, New Mexico, USA

Donna Wolf, RD, CLT, Registered Dietitian/Nutritionist and Certified LEAP Therapist, San Diego, California

Patricia J. Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education and Visiting Scholar, Adelphi University, School of Nursing and Public Health, New York


For more, please see 
No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD!

The Bond Between Business and Education // Baltimore Sun OpEd by Cynthia Boyd and Leslie Weber

The Bond Between Business and Education // Baltimore Sun OpEd by Cynthia Boyd and Leslie Weber | Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research |

By Cynthia Boyd and Leslie Weber 


In a recent commentary, former state schools superintendent Nancy Grasmick concludes that "our goal should be for the education community to work hand-in-hand with businesses to deliver 'personalized' learning opportunities" ("An inextricable bond between education, business," Jan. 15).


Yet to our dismay, the relationship between business and the public schools is lauded without a single mention of the policies and ethics that must underlie such "conversations" and "bonds."

A key issue is conflict of interest in the business-educational technology relationship: How much are our school leaders allowing themselves to be influenced by corporate concerns, particularly in the field of educational technology, rather than focusing on the needs of students, teachers and schools?


Consider an example from the field of medicine, where there is wide recognition of the unwarranted influence business interests can have. Influence by pharmaceutical companies makes it more likely for a physician to prescribe a medication manufactured by those companies. Consequently, both of our state's medical schools and policy-making organizations at the state and federal level have very strict rules about such interactions.


The issue in our public schools is not that different when one considers the increasingly cozy relationship between educational technology companies and school administrations. As technology proliferates in school settings, an increasing number of companies vie to gain influence over its use.


The primary motive of business is to make a profit; the primary goal of public education is to serve the public good.

This doesn't mean that business and education cannot work together. But in contrast to Ms. Grasmick's view, the ultimate purpose of education is not to further success in the global marketplace.

Education technology is big business; with the ed-tech market totaling more than $8 billion in 2012-2013 and investors flocking to the K-12 market, according to a recent article in the Atlantic.


Ms. Grasmick argues that the use of “computers, the Internet and social media” should be at the forefront of education. Technology as a learning tool certainly has its place, but the positive and negative consequences of “using a wide array of technology to deliver academic content” have yet to be thoroughly researched, both in terms of educational and even health outcomes. The costs of such programs should also be considered.  For example, Baltimore County Public Schools is spending over $270 million on tablet-style computers and personalized learning, and the district is planning to spend $40 million on classroom projectors.  The opportunity costs (a concept any supporter of business should understand) here are considerable; imagine what such money could buy in terms of smaller class sizes and safer school buildings.


Within the Baltimore County Public Schools system, the STAT (Students and Teachers Accessing Tomorrow) initiative is now pressing ahead with a 1-to-1 computer environment in elementary classrooms, with a focus on online educational programs and “personalized learning” to achieve the goals of which Ms. Grasmick writes.  School administrators, whose official role is to educate 110,000 children, have been participating in speaking engagements, technology tradeshows, and even advisory committees that connect them closely with the very same companies contracting with their schools. They have received awards from technology organizations backed by those same technology companies. The annual BCPS State of the Schools program is also sponsored by companies with a financial interest in selling to the system; this includes the supplier of computers for the 1-to-1 program. Are we “hand-in-hand with business to deliver ‘personalized’ learning opportunities” or have we already crossed directly into conflict of interest?

Ethical boundaries are necessary in leadership, in both education and business, to maintain both objectivity and clarity of purpose. Breaking down such essential barriers by blurring the lines between the needs of the market and the purpose of education will shortchange our children."


Cynthia Boyd and Leslie Weber, Baltimore 

No comment yet.