15/11/2007 - UMTS signals are 10 times more damaging than GSM signals
Also in the News
"There is no doubt - UMTS is ten times more damaging to genes than GSM
radiation", or so Professor Franz Adlkofer of the Verum Foundation claims.
He's got a reasonable amount of authority behind his statement, as the lead
author of the well publicised REFLEX
report that found a wide range of DNA and cellular effects from radiofrequency
He pointed out that the evidence of DNA strand breaks in confunction with the
formation of micronuclei does not allow any further doubting of the genotoxic
effect of UMTS signals: "The DNA strand breaks occur at only 1/40th
of the guideline limits. Hence, UMTS signals are almost ten times as active as
This is yet more evidence
for the growing body of scientists and papers the demonstrate a risk from
electromagnetic fields. It again gives support to the motion that it is time for
both a re-evaluation of ICNIRP guidance levels and implementation of national
precautionary guidance for the general public.
[Original PDF Press Release from next-up.org]
Also in the news
Almost a quarter of three to six year olds own a mobile phone
According to a recent story in the Daily Express, there is now recent
research showing that nearly 25% of three to six year olds in the UK own a
mobile phone. This is not only in complete contrast to the current UK Health
Protection Agency advice that no children under 10 should own a mobile phone,
but is also contrary to common sense with regards to current evidence of a
possibility of risk combined with the increased susceptibility of children's
brains to electromagnetic radiation.
[View original news on the Daily Express]
The Status Quo is not for changing!
A more light hearted entry here - New Scientist managed to dig out an
excellent paper proposal by a William Harvey, well known for his forwarding of
modern understanding of the human circulatory system. However, in this paper
proposal where he first put forward his ideas, he was heavily shot down by
proposing an idea that was completely against existing established knowledge of
how human circulation worked. In fact, it took a good 20 years of ridicule
before Harvey's ideas started to become accepted, and it is now known that his
original hypothesis is indeed very close to reality.
The article is well worth a read as it highlights the difficulty which is
faced by scientists producing research that is against already established
opinions and beliefs - an interesting parallel perhaps with the current
situation in electromagnetic science!
[View New Scientist article in full]