Wireless broadband Internet access is all the rage.
The noise is drowning out concerns for this technology's risks.
Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love
is going to have it; many in San Francisco want it: wireless broadband
Internet access (WiFi)1
seems too good to be true. At relatively low cost, anyone can get on
the Internet anywhere in a city. All the city needs to do is install
a network of WiFi antennas. An often-repeated argument in favor of
citywide WiFi is that it will help close the digital divide, since
the poorer you are, the more limited your access to the Internet and
its wealth of information resources. Cities like Philadelphia and San
Francisco are actively trying to close the digital gap. One option
Yet, in weighing the options, virtually nothing is heard about the potential
health risks. Saturating an entire city with WiFi adds to the existing burden
of radio frequency radiation (RFR). That burden, called electrosmog2 by some,
consists of long-term, low-level exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation
in the radio frequency and microwave range from familiar sources like radio
and TV broadcast signals, radar, and the ubiquitous cell phone.
Henry Lai, PhD, has been researching the biological and health effects of RFR
for 35 years. His research focuses on the effects of RFR in the range used
by cell phones and other wireless technologies. His laboratory at the University
of Washington in Seattle is the single remaining lab in the US that conducts
such research. Ten years ago, Dr. Lai's laboratory was one of four.
There is no funding in the United States for research of the biological and
health effects of RFR and electromagnetic fields (EMF). No foundation, government
agency, or corporation will lay down money to help clarify the science behind
concerns about WiFi, cell phones, and other wireless devices. Dr. Lai keeps
his lab going by doing cancer research, some of it concerning the use of electromagnetic
radiation to treat cancer.
In Europe, there are many well-funded projects in RFR research. Citizens are
more organized. Public figures have championed the issue. And the European
Union has a much greater public health orientation than the United States.
These days we have to rely on the Europeans for the science of wireless technology
It was not always so. For example, in the early 1990s, the Cellular Telecommunications
and Internet Association (CTIA) came up with $25 million for research into
the potential health effects of cell phones. The CTIA is the cell phone industry's
trade organization. Their intention was to lay concerns about cell phones to
rest. The Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program administered the funds
and research program. When the $25 million was spent, the WTR final report
submitted in 2000 recommended further study. The CTIA cut a deal with the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) to spend another $1 million to review further
research.4 The money is still there. The FDA has been waiting since 1999 when
the deal with CTIA was cut to spend the money. According to the FDA website, "the
FDA plans to convene a meeting in the near future to evaluate all completed,
ongoing, and planned research, looking at health effects associated with the
use of wireless communication devices, and to identify knowledge gaps that
may warrant additional research."5
Initially, the WTR found no cause for concern. But in 1995, Dr. Lai and his
colleague NP Singh, PhD, found that exposing the brain cells of rats to RFR
at a level similar to cell phones produced breaks in strands of DNA. Their
discovery was a turning point in the research and in the CTIA's enthusiasm
for the project. Dr. Lai and Dr. Singh had uncovered a mechanism that explained
how RFR exposure might cause health effects.6
Since 1990, Dr. Lai has maintained a database of research on the effects of
RFR on humans, lab animals, and cell cultures. He has amassed over 300 studies
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. To avoid bias, he excludes
his own research from the database. Of these studies, 56% show a biological
or health effect7 from exposure to RFR. These effects include the following:
• genetic effects, such as to DNA;9
• cellular and molecular effects, such as reduction in enzymes critical
to the central nervous system;10
• changes in electrophysiology, such as reduced activity between nerve
• physiological and behavioral changes, such as impairment of peripheral
An interesting thing happens when the studies from Dr. Lai's database
are placed in two stacks: one stack containing studies funded by the wireless
industry (30% of the studies), the other stack of independently funded studies
(70%). Of the studies that show a biological or health effect from wireless
RFR, 14% are industry-funded, while 86% are independently funded. Of studies
showing no effect, 49% are industry-funded, while 51% are independently funded.
To make the point another way, of industry-funded studies, only 27% found an
RFR effect. Independently funded studies found an RFR effect 68% of the time.
This discrepancy is consistent among the effects listed. Of studies that found
an effect on cancer, 11% were industry-funded; 47% were independently funded.
Cellular and molecular effects: 19% industry, 69% independent. Electrophysiology
effects: 33% industry, 77% independent. Physiological and behavioral effects:
57% industry, 83% independent.
If Dr. Lai's research were included in the tally, the percent of studies
showing an effect from RFR would be even greater. But when Dr. Lai is asked
about these statistics, he often says that 50% of the studies show an effect.
And then he points out that 50% is a significant number, significant enough
to justify a precautionary approach that minimizes exposures.
The differences between the industry-funded stack of studies and the independently
funded stack suggest bias. Bias enters research through the way a study is
designed, the methods used in the study, how data is collected, and how results
are interpreted. It might be that some independently funded researchers are
biased because they are consumed by a burning passion to eliminate RFR exposures
or, even more sinister, destroy the wireless industry. They might have consciously
or unconsciously designed their studies, chosen methods, collected data, and
interpreted the results to show health effects from RFR. However, the rewards
for doing so are not great. Many researchers who advise precaution regarding
RFR have been ostracized, or their research funding has been slashed. Careers
have been stalled and, in some cases, terminated – hardly circumstances
that would encourage jumping on that particular bandwagon.13
The rewards for producing industry-friendly results are obvious: funding, professional
recognition, a clear career path, and employment opportunities in industry.
This is not to say that these researchers are dishonest. It is to say that
rewards are more likely as a consequence of producing the "right" answers.
In other words, researchers typically aren't corrupted into conducting
biased research. More often they're already biased, and the rewards flow
to them as a consequence.14
Within each group, whether industry- or independently funded, results don't
always agree – some studies show an effect, while others do not, regardless
of who did the funding. That difference suggests another kind of problem: scientists
don't know enough yet to conduct decisive experiments that can produce
something like a professional consensus regarding the biological and health
effects of wireless RFR. Many of the scientists who work in this field and
who believe that there's ample reason for concern will say that the science
is not yet conclusive.15 This drives some activists crazy. Yet it is a true
statement about the state of the science.
We should not be surprised that this lack of conclusive science has led the
wireless industry to claim that cell phones and other wireless technologies
are safe. The FDA is with them, stating that "[t]he available scientific
evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless
phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe."16
This carefully constructed statement is intended to reassure us. Yet Dr. Lai's
database puts the lie to the first sentence: it's simply false. The framework
set up for us is that a technology should be adopted, unless there's
conclusive evidence that it does harm. Not all regulatory agencies think this
The UK's equivalent to the FDA, the Health Protection Agency (HPA), has
declared a voluntary moratorium on marketing cell phones to children as a precautionary
measure.17 The moratorium has so far been observed by the UK cell phone industry.
The HPA opens its discussion of the health risks from cell phones with the
There is a large body of scientific evidence relating to exposure to radio
waves, and there are thousands of published scientific papers covering studies
of exposed tissue samples (e.g., cells), animals, and people. It is not difficult
to find contradictory results in the literature, and an important role of the
HPA Radiological Protection Division (RPD) is to develop judgments on the totality
of the evidence in controversial areas of the science.18
Unlike the FDA, the HPA points to contra-dictory science regarding cell phone
radiation. The reassurance is that they're paying attention, not that
cell phones very likely don't cause harm. The HPA goes on to cite the
National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which reviews the science and
recommends standards. The NRPB, and with it the HPA, explicitly adopt a precautionary
standard. With regard to children, the NRPB's 2004 report recommends
that "…in the absence of new scientific evidence, the recommendation
in the Stewart Report on limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains
appropriate as a precautionary measure."19
In 2004, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) decided that
they would not permit cell phone antennas on firehouses. The decision was made
by resolu-tion at the IAFF's annual delegate assembly. The resolution
directed the IAFF to review the potential health risks from cell antennas.
If the science demonstrated a risk, then the union would oppose the use of
fire stations as sites for cell antennas until further science demonstrated
that cell antennas are safe.20 The resolution was passed in August 2004. In
April 2005, the union's Health and Safety Department completed the review
of the science. They found more than ample evidence to conclude that the union
should oppose cell antennas on fire stations. The position paper included 49
references and a bibliography of 40 citations.21 Based on that evidence, the
resolution cites a wide range of effects experienced by fire fighters:
• slowed reaction times,
• lack of focus,
• lack of impulse control,
• severe headaches,
• anesthesia-like sleep,
• sleep deprivation,
• tremors, and
Three things are worth noting about the
substance of the resolution and the union's official position. First,
the firefighters were focused on their
ability to do their job. Second, firefighters were involuntarily exposed
to a health risk. And third, the firefighters oppose cell antennas on fire
until they are proven safe.
The decision that the firefighters faced – a decision we all face – is
how to evaluate the safety of wireless technologies and decide what level of
involuntary risk we are willing to take:23
• use it unless there's good evidence
that it's harmful,
• or don't use it until there's good evidence that it's safe.
this: 47% of independently funded studies found cancer effects, 69%
found effects on cell function, 77% found effects on electrical signaling
in the body, and 83% found physiological and behavioral effects. Suppose
you have several hundred marine biologists study your swimming pool.
Forty-seven percent (or 69% or 77% or 83%) of the biologists say you've
got a shark
in your pool. Would you dive in? Would you let your kids dive in?24
Citywide WiFi is only the latest RFR wireless technology to place us involuntarily
at risk. Cell phone networks are the best-known; these include personal digital
assistants (PDAs) such as the Blackberry™. Wireless networks at home
and at the office are newer than cell phones and are another RFR exposure.
Even if you don't have one, your neighbor might, and that will expose
you. Also relatively new are the Bluetooth technologies used for applications
such as hands-free telephone headsets that operate using RFR. The familiar
cordless phone is another RFR exposure that might put you at as much risk
as a cell phone.25
What these technologies share is reciprocal receiving and transmitting of RFR
signals between an end-user device and antennas that link the device to a network.
There are three characteristics of these RFR signals that are believed to contribute
to the biological and health effects of wireless technologies: signal strength,
frequency, and modulation.26
Citywide WiFi uses a signal strength similar to cell phones. Signal strength
is measured in watts, a standard unit of energy. Wireless networks for the
home and office have less signal strength (although they can be increased with
boosters), while Bluetooth devices and cordless phones have even less strength.
All these technologies use roughly the same frequency band: 0.3 to 3 GHz. GHz
stands for gigahertz. A hertz is a standard measure of electromagnetic radiation
created by sending an alternating electrical current through an antenna that
is one cycle per second. A gigahertz is one billion cycles per second. The
higher the GHz, the faster the current alternates.
An alternative way of measuring RFR is in wavelength. Wavelengths have an exact
and inverse relationship to frequency: higher frequencies correspond to shorter
wavelengths. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation with higher frequencies
and shorter wavelengths than RFR, with red light having a lower frequency and
longer wavelength than blue light.
Modulation refers to whether the signal comes at a constant frequency (as in
AM radio and analog cell phone systems) or in pulses (as in FM radio and digital
cell phones). All digital wireless technologies are pulsed.
Risk increases with signal strength. The frequencies used by wireless technologies
are to some extent "ideal" for affecting our bodies because the
wavelengths are at a human scale. Digital (pulsed) signals are of greater risk
than analog signals.27
Short-term, high-intensity exposures to wireless RFR have received the most
research attention, in particular the acute affects of cell phones. Far fewer
studies have looked at long-term effects of cell phone use let alone the use
of other wireless devices. Even less-studied are the effects of the low-intensity,
persistent exposure to RFR from cell phone and WiFi antennas.
Much of the discussion about RFR health effects is framed as a concern for
people who are electrohypersensitive. Unlike immune-mediated hyper-sensitivity
that responds to allergens, electrohypersensitivity is a reaction to nonionizing
electromagnetic radiation from video display monitors, cell phones, cordless
phones, wireless routers, or other RFR source. Characteristic symptoms of
electrohypersensitivity can include any of the following:28
• localized heat and tingling,
• dry upper respiratory tract and eye irritation,
• brain fog, headache, and nausea,
• swollen mucus membranes,
• muscle and joint pain,
• heart palpitations, and
• progressively severe sensitivity to light.
Critics argue that electro-hypersensitivity
is not a physical ailment but a psychological one. Research led by Olle Johansson,
MD, at the Karolinska
Institute in Stockholm identified changes in mast cells in electrohyper-sensi-tives.29
So Dr. Johansson exposed rats to RFR exposures similar to his human subjects,
assuming that the rat psyche is not predisposed to produce the symptoms
of electrohypersensitivity. The study produced results similar to what
in human subjects: enlarged mast cells aggregated close to the surface
skin. Dr. Johansson went further and tested both electrohypersensitive
and nonsensitive human subjects in similar exposures. Though the nonsensitives
had no hypersensitivity symptoms, the mast cells in their skin showed the
same behavior as electrohypersensitives, although the effect was less severe.30
Based on this research, Dr. Johansson and his colleague Shabnam Gangi proposed
one mechanism for the health effects of RFR as an immunological response,
as to how this mechanism affects internal organs such as the cardiovascular
and neurological systems.31
In The Hidden Disease,32 Finnish journalist Gunni Nordström associates
electrohypersensitivity with multiple chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue
syndrome. People in Sweden made electrohypersensitivity a public health issue
when cathode ray tube-based video display monitors were introduced into offices.
The rise of Silicon Valley – both in the original Silicon Valley and
the many Silicon Valleys that have developed around the world – gave
rise to similar health effects among computer-manufacturing workers. Researchers
observed a relation-ship between materials used in products and their synergistic
reaction with electromagnetic radiation.33 But both funding for research and
data collection on occupational health quickly dried up when these issues came
Electrohypersensitives are not an unlucky few. They are likely harbingers
in a complex landscape of environmental risks. Just like any other environmental
stressor, RFR affects some people more than others. And as with other environmental
stressors, the greater the overall burden, the greater the risk of becoming
one of the "unlucky few."
Citywide WiFi adds to the existing burden of RFR.34 Just as burning more
fossil fuels adds to the level of smog, adding more RFR adds to the level
You don't have to expose your home or your city to the increased burden
created by WiFi. There's a viable alternative: a wired Internet access
and network. The hype might make it seem less convenient and more expensive.
But what's a good night's sleep – or reducing your risk of
cancer – worth?35
1. See the Wireless Philadelphia and San Francisco TechConnect websites:
Wireless Philadelphia accessed October 5, 2006 at http://www.wirelessphiladelphia.org.
and San Francisco TechConnect accessed October 5, 2006 at http://www.sfgov.org/techconnect.
2. The term is more familiar in Europe than in the US because of the
greater political attention paid to the issue by citizen groups and politicians
who support them. Beginning in Sweden in the 1980s, citizens suffering
have been vocal advocates for research into the health risks from nonionizing
electromagnetic radiation and for the reduction of electrosmog. See Swedish
Association for the Electrosensitive website: Swedish Association for
Electrosensitive accessed October 5, 2006 at http://www.feb.se/index_int.htm.
3. Slesin, Louis. EMF Health News. Your Own
Health And Fitness. L. Berman:
KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes.
4. Carlo G, Schram M. Cell Phone: Invisible
Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries About
Cancer and Genetic Damage.
York, NY: Carroll & Graf; 2001.
5. FDA. Cell Phone Facts: Consumer Information on Wireless Phones. Available
at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/wireless/braincancer040606.html. Accessed
July 3, 2006
6. The original Lai and Singh research was published in 1995 (Lai H,
Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand
breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995. 16: 95-104.). The
they published a paper showing even more alarming effects on DNA: double
DNA strand breaks (Lai H, Singh NP. DNA single- and double-strand DNA
rat brain cells after acute exposure to low-level radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 1996. 69: 513-21.). Subsequent research
has confirmed these findings and found that the breaks can persist in
multiple mitotic cycles. Gandhi, G. Genetic damage in mobile phone users:
some preliminary finding. Ind J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2): 99-104.
7. The phrase "biological or health effect" is common in this literature.
Some research is focused specifically on illness while other research
simply looks at effects on the organism which might have a downstream
8. For example, Hardell L, Carlbert M, Hansson K, Mild KH. Pooled analysis
of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones
and the risk of malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int
J Oncol. 2006. 28(2): 502-18.
9. For example, Diem E, et al. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone
radiation (1800mhz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed Gfsh-R17
cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005. 583: 178-83 and Gandhi G. Genetic damage
phone users: some preliminary finding. Ind
J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2):
10. For example, Barteri M, Pala A, Rotella S. Structural and kinetic
effects of mobile phone microwaves on acetylcholinesterase activity.
2005. 113(3): 245-53.
11. For example, Xu S, et al. Chronic exposure to Gsm 1800-Mhz microwaves
reduces excitatory synaptic activity in cultured hippocampal neurons.
2006. 398(3): 253-7.
12. Langer P, et al. Hands-free mobile phone conversation impairs the
peripheral visual system to an extent comparable to an alcohol level
of 4-5 G 100
Ml. Hum Psychoparmacol. 2005. 20(1): 65-6.
13. A telling example is described in the November 2005 edition of
Microwave News: Slesin, L. When enough is never enough: a reproducible
at 12 Mg. Microwave News. 2005. 25(2): 1-2. Beginning in 1992, seven
separate research projects have demonstrated an effect on breast cancer
from extremely low electromagnetic radiation, intensities much lower
than current standards and well below intensities that are supposed
The effect disrupts cell signaling. Each report was ignored. The original
researcher was, as Louis Slesin describes it, "drummed out of the EMF
others have had funding cut and endured other harassments. An even
more chilling example is described in Gunni Nordström's The
Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses Caused by
Chemical Emissions. (New York: O Books. 2004.) She describes how the
once-promising career of Olle Johansson, MD, a leading dermatological
researcher at the Karolinska
Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, has been damaged. With over 400 peer-reviewed
publications and major discoveries in dermatology, Dr. Johansson has
been refused promotion to full professorship, denied research funding,
and denied research
facilities for his continued interest in RFR health effects and for
his advocacy for electrohypersensitives.
14. The notorious example of how pharmaceutical companies shape medical
research and medical practice is described by two insiders: Marcia Angell,
MD, a former
editor at the New England Journal of Medicine and John Abramson, MD,
a professor at the Harvard School of Medicine Angell, Marcia. The
Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random
House; 2004; and Abramson, John. Overdosed
America: The Broken Promise of American
Medicine. New York: Harper; 2005.
15. Dr. Lai's 2005 review article is a good example. It describes
the many issues in the field that remain unresolved: Lai H. Biological
of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. In Encyclopedia
of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering. G.L. Bowlin and G. Wnek: Taylor & Francis
16. FDA. Cell Phone Facts: Do Wireless Phones Pose a Health Hazard? Available
at: http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#22. Accessed July 3, 2006.
17. In April 1999, the UK's Ministry of Health formed the Independent
Expert Group on Mobile Phones to evaluate the safety of cell phones.
Chaired by Sir William Stewart, the commission of independent scientists
became known as the Stewart Group) reported in May 2000 that enough scientific
existed to be concerned about health risks from "subtle effects on biological
functions, especially those of the brain." The Stewart Group noted in
particular that children would be more susceptible to harm. See the Stewart
Group's report: Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. Chilton, Oxfordshire,
UK: National Radiological Protection Board 2000. Available at http://www.iegmp.org.uk.
Accessed July 3, 2006.
18. Health Protection Agency. Mobile Telephony and Health: Health Protection
Advice. Available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/understand/information_sheets/mobile_telephony/health_advice.htm.
Accessed July 3, 2006
19. National Radiological Protection Board. Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK:
National Radiological Protection Board; 2004: 11.
20. International Association of Fire Fighters. International Association
of Fire Fighters, Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine.
21. Ibid. pp. 13-38. Dr. Lai's database was used as a resource.
22. Ibid. p. 13.
23. For an excellent discussion of how to evaluate environmental risk,
see Mary O'Brien's Making Better Environmental
Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 2000.
24. Some might rightfully howl at this analogy. An "exposure" to
a shark is nothing like an exposure to RFR. No analogy is perfect. So
consider another. Hundreds of microbiologists test your pool water for
and 47% find it. Or hundreds of chemists test your pool water for a powerful
toxin with both short-term and long-term effects, something like mercury,
find it at various concentrations. Sharks are just so much more dramatic.
And the analogy makes the same point: how much agreement among scientists
need to be assured that something is safe?
25. Although the signal strength from cordless phones is far less than
cell phones, people tend to use them for longer periods of time: exposure
unit time is less for the cordless phone, but the total exposure is equivalent
that of a cell phone. A European study found equivalent cancer risks
for cell phone users and cordless phone users (Hardell L, Carlbert M
analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless
telephones and the risk of malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003.
Int J Oncol. 2006. 28(2): 502-18.)
26. Lai H. Biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
In Encyclopedia of Biomaterials and Biomedical
Engineering. G.L. Bowlin
G. Wnek: Taylor & Francis Books, 2005.
28. Johansson O. Screen dermatitis and electrosensitivity: preliminary
observations in the human skin. In Electromagnetic Environments and
Health in Buildings.
D. Clements-Croome. New York: Spon Press; 2004: Chapter 20. Nordström
G. The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental
Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions. New York: O Books;
Swedish Association for the Electrosensitive. Available at http://www.feb.se/index_int.htm.
Accessed October 5, 2006.
29. A mast cell is a type of immune cell that stores histamine crystals,
which are released during an allergic response. The skin of the electrohypersensitives
Dr. Johansson examined had an abnormally high concentration of mast cells
to the skin's surface that also had high loads of histamine. In other
words, these subjects' immune-mediated responses are in a reactive state.
30. Johansson O. Screen dermatitis and electrosensitivity: preliminary
observations in the human skin. In Electromagnetic
Environments and Health in Buildings.
D. Clements-Croome. New York: Spon Press; 2004: Chapter 20, Johansson
O, et al. A case of extreme and general cutaneous light sensitivity
with so-called ‘screen dermatitis' and ‘electrosensitivity' – a
successful rehabilitation after vitamin a treatment – a case
report. Journal of the Autralasian College
of Nutrition and Envrionmental Medicine.
1999; 18(1): 13-6.
31. Gangi S and Johansson O. A theoretical model based upon mast cells
and histamine to explain the recently proclaimed sensitivity to electric
magnetic fields in humans. Medical Hypotheses. 2000; 54(4): 663-71.
32. Nordström G. The Invisible Disease:
The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields
and Chemical Emissions.
New York: O Books;
33. LaDou J. Occupational health in the semiconductor industry. In Challenging
the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics
Industry. Smith T, Sonnenfeld DA, Pellow DN. Philadelpha, PA: Temple
University Press; 2006: Chapter 3.
34. The total burden of already existing electrosmog goes beyond send-receive
wireless technologies like WiFi and cell phones and includes pedestrian
technologies like radio and television broadcast signals. Research
by Dr. Johansson and
his colleague Örjan Hallberg at the Karolinska Institute looked
at the incidence of cancer and other 20th Century illnesses in Europe
and the US and
found a striking association between the increase in certain cancers
during the 20th Century and exposure to RFR as measured by radio and
Hallberg O, Johansson O. Cancer trends during the 20th century. Journal
of the Autralasian College of Nutrition and Environmental Medicine.
3-8; Hallberg O, Johansson O. Melanoma incidence and frequency modulation
(Fm) broadcasting. Archives of Environmental
Health. 2002b; 57(1):
O, Johansson O. Fm broadcasting exposure time and malignant melanoma
incidence. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2005; 24: 1-8.
35. The Your Own Health And Fitness radio show (http://www.yourownhealthandfitness.org)
has carried several interviews over the past year on RFR health risks
and safeguards. Havas, Magda. Dirty Electricity
and EMF Health Dangers. Your
Own Health And
Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes; Johansson,
Olle. The Science of RFR Health Risks. Your
Own Health And Fitness. L.
Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes; Johansson, Olle
and Doug Loranger.
Electrosmog. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley,
CA. 2005: 60 minutes; Levitt, B. Blake and Jan Newton. Wireless
Public Health Crisis. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley,
2006: 60 minutes, Sage, Cindy. Smart Exposures:
Understanding Risks from EMF and RFR. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley,
2005: 60 minutes; Sage, Cindy and B. Blake Levitt. Where
You're Exposed and What to Do: EMF and RFR. Your Own Health And Fitness. L. Berman:
KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes; Slesin, Louis. EMF
Health And Fitness. L. Berman: KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley, CA. 2006: 60 minutes.