By Diana Ostermann
Diana resides in South Haven, Michigan, and is a retired wireless data strategy manager with 22 years experience.
The wireless industry has enormous financial clout in terms of advertising dollars, lobbyists and political contributions to suppress the publication of information showing that wireless radiation harms health, especially in the US. That doesn’t mean there are no studies showing harm from EHS, just that you have to look a little harder, and in non-mainstream media to find them. Check the EHS studies shown here: http://www.es-uk.info/info/research.asp
This site provides much information on the effects of microwave radiation on the heart, one of the EHS symptoms: http://www.magdahavas.com/pick-of-the-week-24-microwave-radiation-affects-the-heart/
Here is a site talking about how Sweden recognizes EHS as a physical disability (not a disease) and has laws requiring that the EHS disabled person be accommodated. http://omega.twoday.net/stories/576915/
As for conflicting studies, one must look at the source of funding for the study to know if it is reliable or biased. Dr Henry Lai’s frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacks—those funded by the wireless industry and those funded independently—Lai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.
One of the ways the wireless industry counters studies finding negative health effects from wireless radiation is by funding studies deliberately structured so as to ensure no such effects are found, or else placing scientists biased in favor of finding no effect on a study team. Dr Magda Havas found this was so in the Interphone Study and the interpretation of its results.
EHS is an acquired disability (not a disease) developed from the accumulated damage done to the body by chronic exposure to wireless radiation. If the current trend continues, the ever increasing levels of radiation that our society is imposing on us will create more and more EHS disabled people. In fact, one environmental physician in Austria, Gerd Oberfeld, has predicted that the incidence of EHS will rise from about 5% today, to about 50% by 2017 http://www.scribd.com/doc/53913663/Link-between-EMF-and-human-disease-radiation-in-Ireland-1-000-times-higher-than-recommendation.
EHS is just the tip of the iceberg. In May of 2011 the World Health Organization declared wireless radiation, like that used by wireless smart meters, a class 2B carcinogen. So while many people will not develop EHS, they may well develop cancer or other diseases in ten or more years. Here’s a site with a thorough analysis of the topic, including lists of studies finding harm from wireless radiation. http://www.norad4u.com/knowledge/studies
Lastly, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has published a resolution calling for a halt to the installation of smart meters based on their threat to health, labeling their continued installation “extremely irresponsible”.
“The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine opposes the installation of wireless “smart meters” in homes and schools based on a scientific assessment of the current medical literature (references available on request). Chronic exposure to wireless radio frequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action.”
The full resolution can be found here: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=6985