Cell Phone Report Calls for More Responsible Management to Protect Children and Pregnant Women

Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) today released a new report calling for tougher standards to regulate cellular technologies—especially for children and pregnant women.

The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women," said Yale University Professor John Wargo, Ph.D., lead author of EHHI's report.

North Haven, Conn. (PRWEB) February 01, 2012

Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) is releasing a new report calling for tougher standards to regulate cellular technologies—especially for children and pregnant women. This report is the first part of a project researching the health effects of cell phone use. EHHI has reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have examined the potential health threats associated with cellular device use, along with the regulatory standards that have been adopted by the U.S. and other nations. This report provides the context for the second section of the project: an animal study designed to investigate the health effects on offspring of cell phone exposures during pregnancy.

John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of the report, said, “The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women. The weight of the evidence supports stronger precautionary regulation by the federal government. The cellular industry should take immediate steps to reduce emission of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from phones and avoid marketing their products to children.”

EHHI President Nancy Alderman explained how pervasive cell phones are in the United States. “There are nearly 276 million cell phone subscribers in the nation today, up from 97 million subscribers in 2000,” she said. “More than 75 percent of teens own cell phones, and one third of them text more than 100 messages per day. Children between the ages of 8-18 spend an average of 7.5 hours per day—nearly half their hours while awake—on smart phones, computers, televisions or other electronic devices. Exposures to electromagnetic radiation are increasing most rapidly among the youngest in our society, as service providers focus their advertising on children and educational markets.”

Hugh Taylor, M.D., coauthor of the report, summarized his concerns regarding neurological effects from cell phone radiation. “The human brain is especially susceptible to numerous environmental insults that can produce irreversible damage during critical periods of nervous system development between conception and full maturity. A number of peer-reviewed studies reported changes in the nervous systems of rats, mice and humans following exposure to cell phone radiation. These include diminished learning, diminished reaction time, decreased motor function, reduced memory accuracy, hyperactivity and diminished cognition.”

Taylor explained differences in exposure between children and adults, “The thinner skulls of young children permit cell phone radiation to penetrate brain tissues more deeply than occurs in adults. Devices stored in pants pockets while in standby mode can expose rapidly developing reproductive organs to radiofrequency energy. Storage in shirt pockets will increase exposure to breast tissues. Children’s and fetuses’ rapidly developing nervous systems, more rapid rates of cell division, longer potential lifetime exposure, and longer average use per day all heighten their risks of adverse health effects.”

Wargo cautioned, “Cell phones have enjoyed exceptional freedom from government oversight and control to protect against health and environmental hazards before cell phone devices are marketed. There are no enforceable standards to limit human exposure to cell phone radiation. While the U.S. does not require any regulations to restrict advertising or warnings against use of cellular devices by pregnant women or children, many other nations do.”

Cell phones emit non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation that varies in intensity by model of phone, antenna configuration, and signal strength. Most users are unaware that new phones include warnings about the need to hold devices a safe distance from the body, often five-eighths to one inch. Since intensity of exposure falls exponentially as distance between the phone and body increases, users can limit their exposure dramatically by using speakerphones.

The World Health Organization in 2011 classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. Yet some types of tumors take a decade or longer to develop, and if caused by cellular devices, would only be discovered by epidemiological studies that often take a decade to resolve. Since the average useful life of any device is now two years, these findings would be irrelevant to guide management of current technologies or patterns of use.

Summarizing a growing literature in the field of psychology, Wargo explained, “Cellular devices can create feelings of psychological dependency. Common effects reported in the literature include distraction, isolation, hyperactivity, inability to focus on complex and long term tasks, and a heightened sense of anxiety.”

The most immediate threat to public health is the increasing rate of highway fatalities and injury associated with use of cellular devices while driving. The federal government reports that at any one time, approximately 11 percent of all drivers are using their cell phones. Cellular device use while driving poses a serious and avoidable threat to public health and safety. The National Safety Council attributes 23 percent of all traffic accidents to cell phone use—at least 1.3 million crashes per year. Nearly 1.2 million of these are associated with phone calls, while 100,000 are associated with texting. The authors state this loss of life is fully avoidable.

The recycling of cell phones is also a serious concern to the authors. In 2012 nearly 220 million cell phones will be discarded in the U.S., and fewer than 10 percent of these will be recycled. This waste is especially hazardous when burned because of the release of dioxins from some plastic polymers, and diverse metals that do not break down.

Nancy Alderman, president of EHHI, summarized the group’s recommendations. “The government must take greater responsibility for testing cellular technologies before they are marketed to assure their safety, their proper disposal and to educate the public about safe patterns of use.”

To download the full report, visit http://www.ehhi.org.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9153096.htm

Continue lendo

New Acidic Neurotoxic Sweetener from Monsanto!

Neotame, New Neurotoxic Sweetener: FDA Says No Label Needed, Not Even in Organics

A Monsanto-created chemical, Neotame is likely more toxic than Aspartame. The FDA has quietly decided that we don't have the right to know if it's adulterating our food, not even if the food is labeled USDA Organic.

by Heidi Stevenson

2 January 2011

Aspartame can step aside. There's a new sweetener in town and it isn't saddled with the inconvenience of having to be listed on labels, so it can be sneaked into any prepared food, even USDA so-called Organic. So sayeth the FDA. Neotame is a Monsanto-created chemical similar to Aspartame, including its neurotoxic properties.

Monsanto developed Neotame as their Aspartame patent was expiring, and had no trouble in gaining FDA approval in 2002. They added 3-dimethylbutyl, a chemical listed as hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to Aspartame, making it both sweeter and more toxic.

Toxicity

Both Aspartame and Neotame contain substances that are metabolized into formaldehyde, a highly toxic poison, and an excitotoxic amino acid that agitates, thereby damaging, nerves.

At the time Neotame was originally approved by the FDA, Feingold.org, which battles the addition of many dodgy food additives, stated:

We did a search of MedLine to find studies of adverse effects or side effects of Neotame. Only four studies appeared, two of which were not studies, and the other two of which were actually a single study done by NutraSweet company researchers.

Feingold aptly described one of the nonstudies as effectively saying, "If we don't look, we won't know anything bad." The other, by the World Health Organization, is not a look at potential toxicity, but rather is about setting acceptable daily intakes of Neotame, along with other artificial sweeteners. Note: One must wonder how the FDA justifies non-listing of an ingredient for which there's an acceptable daily intake.

Mary Nash Stoddard, founder of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, compared the historic arc of tobacco company research with that of Aspartame. It applies equally well to Neotame:

There is a parallel issue with which to compare the Aspartame issue. That of cigarettes and the deadly effects of smoking. The massive Tobacco Industry is able to produce large volumes of scientific studies showing smoking does not cause: lung cancer, heart disease, strokes or death. Today, mainstream science accepts the fact that smoking can be deadly and addictive. So it is with Aspartame, whose approval was based, not on scientific fact, but as an issue of public policy.

Neotame Labeling

From the beginning, Neotane labeling has been limited. It's in the background noise of products produced by Agribusiness.

Up to this time, Neotame hasn't been sold to the public, but that hasn't been necessary. It's been used widely in prepared foods. So, the less awareness the public has, the less likely it is that people will try to avoid it. For the most part, the technique has worked. Now, very quietly, the FDA has decided that the public shouldn't be informed when Neotame is included in any product. Even Organic products, which are supposed to be unadultered with chemicals, are not required to state when Neotame is inside.

India will soon serve as guinea pigs for Neotame. It will soon be launched there as a tabletop sweetener, like Equal and Splendor, by NutraSweet, which owns and sells the product.

Neotame is now being marketed as Sweetos for use in cattle feed. Molasses has been utlized to get cows to eat foods made unpalatable by chemical additives. Neotame is both less costly than molasses and subject to fewer regulations. How do you like that? A natural food is more stringently regulated than a known-poisonous chemical that's put into food.

The reach of Neotame is likely to be extensive. They're planning to replace other artificial sweeteners with it. A major seller of artificial sweeteners, which goes by the misleading name of Ensigns Health Care Pvt Ltd, intends to use it in place of sucralose.

In the EU, Neotame has been approved by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). As is so common in the EU, the product is hidden behind an E-number. So, labels don't have to say that products contain Neotame. They only need to list "E 961". Naturally, with hundreds of E-numbers, how many people can be aware of which ones are truly dangerous?

It looks like the FDA's loosening of labeling rules for Neotame is part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods—even organics—and even in the meats consumed.

The solution is fairly simple, but not necessarily easy. If you want to avoid foods adulterated with Neotame, among other dangerous additives and overprocessing, then you need to grow your own foods and prepare them yourselves, or purchase only from suppliers whose processing and sourcing is known to you, which generally means locally-produced.

Read the original article on Gaia Health at:

http://bit.ly/ycJGKo

Continue lendo

FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!”

FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug"

In another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!

We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-SD™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.

The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic for two reasons:

1. Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
2. The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”

We discussed the very ambiguous issue of interstate commerce last September—it’s an argument the FDA frequently uses when the basis for their claim is otherwise lacking. As we noted then, the FDA holds that an “interstate commerce” test must be applied to all steps in a product’s manufacture, packaging, and distribution. This means that if any ingredient or tool used in the procedure in question was purchased out of state, the FDA would in its view have jurisdiction, just as they would if the final product had traveled across state lines.

This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.

The implication of the FDA’s interpretation of the law, if upheld by the court, would mean that all food, drugs, devices, and biologic or cosmetic products would be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA is expanding its reach even to commerce within the state, which we argue is far beyond its jurisdiction, in order to protect drug company profits.

Last year we ran a two-part series on the current status of federal and state law—and FDA jurisdiction—and how it affects integrative treatments (part one and part two).

The Centeno-Schultz Clinic takes your blood, puts it into a centrifuge machine that separates the stem cells, and a doctor puts them back in your body where there is damaged tissue. The clinic has argued numerous times that stem cells aren’t drugs because they are components of the patient’s blood from his or her own body.

The FDA says otherwise: “Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.” There they go again, saying that components of your body are drugs and they have the authority to regulate them! It’s the only way the agency can claim that adult stem cell therapy is within FDA’s purview.

However, the agency seems to be of two minds. When ESPN magazine was doing a story on stem cell treatments, the FDA stated that US policy is to allow the injection of stem cells that are treated with “minimal manipulation,” which federal regulations define as “processing that does not alter the relevant biological characteristics of cells or tissues”—which is certainly the case with the Regenexx clinic.

Despite this policy, FDA has been attacking the clinic for the past four years. They have tried injunctions and demanded inspections in their attempts to make the company bend; this court battle is merely the latest salvo.

The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. The hard part has been to get enough of them. But new technology is giving doctors the ability to obtain more stem cells from a patient than previously thought possible, which is why we’re now seeing new treatments. Blood, fat, or tissue is withdrawn from the patient, stem cells are obtained using one of these new processes, and the cells are injected back into the patient where they can repair the patient’s tissue.

Gov. Rick Perry received this kind of stem cell therapy. We and others noted that the governor’s defense of freedom of healthcare choice when it came to his own treatment was starkly at odds with his directive to administer HPV vaccines to young girls against their own (and their parents’) wishes. It’s also at odds with his support for some of the most egregious witch-hunters on the Texas State Medical Board, which he appoints.

Behind Perry’s blatant inconsistency and the latest FDA attempted power grab lies the same problem: a medical system run by special interests under the leadership of the US government, the same government that is supposed to represent “we the people.”

Continue lendo

Dr Young is Nominated for the "Best In Alternative" Medicine

Dear Joshua N Anna Scurry and the Alive Organization, thank you for the honor of your nomination for the "Best in Alternative" medicine. Thank you for considering me for this wonderful honor.

http://web.alivenewyork.com/dr-robert-young-nomination.html

Continue lendo

Greek Study Shows EMF Impacts the Brain Related to Learning, Memory and Alzheimer's

Greek Study Shows Regions of the Brain Related to Learning, Memory, Alzheimer's Impacted by EMF

A Greek study led by Adamantia Fragopoulou and Lukas Margaritis has demonstrated important protein changes in the brain of animals following whole body exposure to RF electromagnetic fields, similar to the kind of microwave radiation emitted from cell phones, portable phones, WiFi and wireless computer equipment. The study, was published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Early Online: 1-25, 2012.

Important regions of the brain necessary for learning, memory and other functions of the mammalian brain were impacted by the microwave radiation, including the hippocampus, cerebellum and frontal lobe, at exposures below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) safety guidelines. A total of 143 proteins in the brain were impacted by the RF radiation over a period of 8 months, providing new evidence for a potential relationship between everyday cell phone use, wireless transmitters and wireless computer equipment and electrosensitivity symptoms, such as headaches, dizziness and sleep disorders, as well as with tumors, Alzheimer's and even metabolic effects.

The study simulated 3 hours of cell phone exposure over eight months, 8 hours of DECT portable phone exposure over eight months, and included a sham exposure control group. The results showed both down regulation and up regulation of the proteins.

Several neural function related proteins (i.e. Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP), Alpha-synuclein, Glia Maturation Factor beta (GMF), and apolipoprotein E (apoE)), heat shock proteins, and cytoskeletal proteins (i.e. neurofilaments and tropomodulin), were shown to be impacted by the radiation, as well as proteins of the brain metabolism (i.e. Aspartate aminotransferase, Glutamate dehydrogenase), in nearly all of the brain regions studied.

Figure 2 from the study shows the 143 proteins that have changed (up- or down-regulated) and their functional relationship based on a literature survey.

Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, M.Sc., PhD Candidate, in the Dept of Cell Biology and Biophysics at University of Athens, Greece, lead author of the study, says, "Our study is important because it shows for the first time protein changes in the mouse brain after EMF exposure and in particular in very crucial regions like hippocampus, cerebellum and frontal lobe, all involved in learning, memory and other complicated functions of the mammalian brain. We have demonstrated that 143 proteins are altered after electromagnetic radiation, including proteins that have been correlated so far with Alzheimer's, glioblastoma, stress and metabolism. In its perspective, this study is anticipated to throw light in the understanding of such health effects like headaches, dizziness, sleep disorders, memory disorders, brain tumors, all of them related, to the function of the altered brain proteins

Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor Emeritus (as of Sept 2010) of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept of Cell Biology and Biophysics, University of Athens, head of the Athens research group, says, "A high throughput approach (mass characterization of biomolecules, similar to microarrays that analyze the total genes of an organism) as that of the Proteomics* has never been used so far in EMF research of BRAIN TISSUES following whole body exposure of model animals (mice) at SAR values below ICNIRP's recommendations. It is also the first time that wireless DECT phones base radiation is involved in lab animal studies and specifically in such molecular effects. The message taken out of this work is that people should be very cautious when using mobile phones next to their body (especially next to their brain), whereas the wireless DECT should be located as far away as possible from places that people use to spend many hours a day, not to mention children of all ages."

PRESS RELEASE RELEASED BY UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS TEAM

Athens, Greece. January 21, 2012. The research group of Professor Lukas Margaritis (Faculty of Biology, University of Athens and the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens), within the framework of the activities seeking for the truth underlining the possible effects of daily life electromagnetic fields, has performed this study as part of the Doctorate Dissertation of Adamantia F. Fragopoulou.

Using ordinary working conditions of mobile phone and wireless DECT base and by applying state of the art proteome science approaches, they demonstrated that a large number of major brain proteins have been changed. Namely proteins that are responsible for the integrity of brain functions, in such critical regions like hippocampus, cerebellum and frontal lobe are below normal levels whereas an equally large number are found well above physiological levels. These “underexpressed” or “overexpressed” proteins may play a role in the short term or long term effects reported as a consequence of mobile phone exposure, including memory deficits, headaches, sleep disorders, brain tumors.

As pointed out in the “DISCUSSION” section of the paper, the possible start-up events may involve the production of ROS (reactive oxygen species) leading to oxidative damage (as suggested recently by Blank and Goodman of Columbia University in New York City); heat shock protein activation; and finally, changing the expression of a large number of brain proteins, as was demonstrated in this study.

The Fragopoulou et al. study is the first large-scale analysis of the mouse brain proteome to be published so far. The research team having recently been awarded a large “Thalis” grant is potentially aiming in elucidating the EMF effects from the molecular level up to the organism level, exploiting the most suitable model systems (mice, insects, nematodes, lizards, cell cultures, human skin).

Published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Early Online: 1–25, 2012 Copyright Q Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

Abstract:

Brain proteome response following whole body exposure of mice to mobile phone or wireless DECT base radiation
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou1, Athina Samara2, Marianna H. Antonelou1, Anta Xanthopoulou3, Aggeliki Papadopoulou3, Konstantinos Vougas3, Eugenia Koutsogiannopoulou2, Ema Anastasiadou2, Dimitrios J. Stravopodis1, George Th. Tsangaris3 & Lukas H. Margaritis1
1Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Athens University, Athens, Greece, 2Genetics and Gene Therapy Division, Center of Basic Research II, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece, and 3Proteomics Research Unit, Center of Basic Research II, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of two sources of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on the proteome of cerebellum, hippocampus, and frontal lobe in Balb/c mice following long-term whole body irradiation. Three equally divided groups of animals (6 animals/group) were used; the first group was exposed to a typical mobile phone, at a SAR level range of 0.17- 0.37 W/kg for 3 h daily for 8 months, the second group was exposed to a wireless DECT base (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications/Telephone) at a SAR level range of 0.012- 0.028 W/kg for 8 h/day also for 8 months and the third group comprised the sham-exposed animals. Comparative proteomics analysis revealed that long-term irradiation from both EMF sources altered significantly (p , 0.05) the expression of 143 proteins in total (as low as 0.003 fold downregulation up to 114 fold overexpression). Several neural function related proteins (i.e., Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP), Alpha-synuclein, Glia Maturation Factor beta (GMF), and apolipoprotein E (apoE)), heat shock proteins, and cytoskeletal proteins (i.e., Neurofilaments and tropomodulin) are included in this list as well as proteins of the brain metabolism (i.e., Aspartate aminotransferase, Glutamate dehydrogenase) to nearly all brain regions studied. Western blot analysis on selected proteins confirmed the proteomics data. The observed protein expression changes may be related to brain plasticity alterations, indicative of oxidative stress in the nervous system or involved in apoptosis and might potentially explain human health hazards reported so far, such as headaches, sleep disturbance, fatigue, memory deficits, and brain tumor long-term induction under similar exposure conditions.

Continue lendo

Are Electric or Hybrid Cars Cancer Causing?

If you frequently use or are in close proximity to cell or cordless phones, computers, fluorescent lights, hair dryers, microwave ovens, televisions, x-ray machines, frequent flyer, drive a hybrid or electric car or other electrical devices, then you should be aware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendations for safe exposure to EMF. The standard unit used in measuring EMF intensity is “Gauss.” Potentially harmful and cancer causing EMF emitted from many common household sources are measured in milligauss (mG) units.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended levels for safe exposure to EMF range from .5 mG to a maximum of 2.4 mG – with 1.0 mG as a preferred standard. Adverse human and animal biological effects have been found at 2.5 mG.

Here are eight acidic toxic sources that may be harmful to your health.

1) Computers: 4 tp 20 mG

2) Hair Dryers: 60 to 20,000 mG

3) Microwaves: 100 to 500 mG

4) Television: 5 to 100 mG

5) Cell phones: 15 to 300 mG

6) Airplanes: Over 100 mG by the engines can exceed over 500 mG

7) Hybrid Cars: Over 100 mG

8) Electric Cars: Can exceed 300 mG.

Continue lendo

Are Cell Phones Cancer Causing?

With the use of cell phones and other wireless devices on the rise, concerns have been raised about possible associated health risks, especially cancer (if you’ve been keeping up with our articles about wireless health risks, skip to the next paragraph). Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted to assess relative risk of thermal health effects like cancer and non-thermal health effects like immune system response; however, diverse results have prevented across-the-board conclusions about whether standards governing wireless emissions should be revised in order to protect public health. Many experts advocate the practice of precautionary cell phone use, and almost all agree, “more research is necessary.”

Recently, though, two studies have been published that give researchers more tangible information to sink their teeth into about the immediate physiological effects of cell phone use, specifically how it affects heart and brain function. In 2010, Havas, et al. demonstrated that talking on a cordless phone (which operates at the same radio frequency, or "RF," as WiFi) can directly impact heart function; forty percent of Havas' study participants experienced changes in heart rhythm, heart rate, or heart rate variability after exposure to cordless phone emissions during three-minute intervals. This year, Nora Volkow, M.D. and her research group published data showing that 50 minutes of cell phone use causes the region of the brain closest to the phone antenna to utilize more glucose for fuel. Although the clinical significance of increased glucose metabolism remains to be determined, this finding proves that cell phone use impacts how our brains function.

The Volkow Study: Cell Phone Use Linked to Changes in Brain Function

Throughout 2009, Volkow’s group conducted a randomized crossover studywith 47 healthy participants, testing the effects of 50 minutes of cell phone use on the subjects' brain activity. The researchers conducted two separate experiments on each study participant, both of which involved placing cell phones on each of the participant’s ears, then measuring how his or her brain metabolized glucose using positron emission tomography (PET scans) with injections of (¹⁸F)fluorodeoxyglucose. The study participants were “blinded” as to whether both of the cell phones were turned off, or the one on the right was turned on and receiving a prerecorded text (with the sound muted). Overall, Volkow’s group found that exposure to cell phone radiation caused brain cells closest to the antenna to metabolize more sugar than they would when not exposed to the RF radiation.

Do the Results Indicate that Cell Phone Use is Harmful?

Not surprisingly, Volkow’s group concluded that “more research is necessary” to determine if increased glucose metabolism in response to RF exposure actually increases risk of health problems. The basic results of this study are monumental, though. Because altered cell physiology must be shown in order to prove the possibility of related health effects, demonstrating a link between altered brain activity in the human model and cell phone use proves that cell phone radiation may cause non-thermal health effects in the human brain.

Interestingly enough, Volkow’s group determined that increased glucose metabolism in brain cells was a secondary effect. In other words, exposure to RF emissions caused some other primary effect(s) which led to brain cells using more sugar than they normally would. The researchers hypothesized that enhanced excitability of brain tissue, neurotransmitter release, increased cell membrane permeability, calcium efflux, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier could all be primary effects.

In an editorial related to the study (and published in the same issue of JAMA) Professor Henri Lai, expert on non-thermal effects associated with non-ionizing radiation, and Professor Lennart Hardell, expert on environmental toxins and cancer development, noted several important findings in the 2011 Volkow et al.study. One of which was, that the increased glucose metabolism effect is probably not caused by heating of tissues. Rather, since the brain regions affected were closer to the antenna, rather than the phone itself, the changes were due to RF energy emitted from the antenna when connecting to a base station signal, not the heating of the phone itself (skin temperature can increase up to 2 degrees Celsius after 10 minutes of contact with an operative phone). Hardell and Lai also suggested that more research be done to address whether regular use of cell phones and other wireless technologies could cause chronicincrease in brain glucose metabolism, and, if so, how such increase would impact health.

Increased Brain Glucose Metabolism and EHS?

Numerous individuals, deemed as having “electrohypersensitivity” (“EHS”) by authorities, have reported symptoms including headaches, cognitive difficulties, dizziness, heart palpitations and arrhythmias when exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). By demonstrating that acute exposure to RF emissions can cause heart beat irregularities in human subjects, the Havas group recently created a tangible nexus between exposure to RF emissions and arrhythmia, which had been a frequently reported, yet "unproved," EHS symptom. If a connection can be made between increased brain glucose metabolism and neurological EHS symptoms, then the Volkow study may prove to be another valuable piece of the puzzle surrounding mechanisms of possible non-thermal health effects associated with RF exposure.

Glucose on the Brain: Food for Thought...

• Glucose, a simple sugar, is a primary food source for the body, especially for the brain. Our digestive systems break down carbohydrates into glucose molecules which are then carried through the blood to be escorted into cells by insulin. The amount of glucose in the blood affects the amount of insulin released by the pancreas, and ultimately affects overall hormonal balance in the body. Could a chronic increase in the metabolism of glucose in the brain eventually place a person at greater risk of insulin related health issues?

• When we are “stressed,” our sympathetic nervous systems are activated and setting off physiological “fight or flight” responses, more glucose becomes available in the blood as a quick source of energy for the body. Increased glucose metabolism in the brain may indicate that cells respond to RF emissions as “stressors,” and that cellular stress response is the primary mechanism behind non-thermal effects.

• Cancer cells thrive on sugar. They rely on anaerobic (i.e. without oxygen) respiration to break down glucose molecules into fuel. Could increased glucose metabolism in brain cells be linked to the development of brain cancer?
  

As the Volkow group concluded, more research is necessary to establish whether actual health risks are associated with increased brain glucose metabolism due to cell phone use. Given what we've just learned from this study, practicing precautionary cell phone (as well as cordless phone and WiFi) use seems the smartest option until we learn more about long-term effects. Use text messaging instead of calling, whenever possible, utilize the speakerphone function when making or receiving calls, and limit children's use to emergencies.

References and Resources:

• Volkow ND, Tomasi D, et al. Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305(8):808-813. [Abstract]

• Lai H, Hardell L. Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Brain Glucose Metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305(8):828-829. [Extract]

• EMF Studies showing links between RF emissions and possible non-thermal health effects

© 2011 Heart MD Institute, PA

Continue lendo