In response to the safety of wireless technology

Op Ed By David Morrison

In response to Edward Louie’s letter to the editor on June 15 regarding an article about a cell tower scheduled to be installed on SE 72nd & SW Salmon, I would like to point out that Mr. Louie is educated in risk analysis and is not involved with research on the biological effects of chronic microwave exposure.

Dr. Christopher Wild, also a risk analyst working with the International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the W.H.O, is directly involved with research in cell biology.

At IARC, he headed the Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Dr. Wild’s field is to understand the interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors in the causation of human cancer. Dr. Wild was elected Director of IARC, January 2009 and remains there still.

Dr. Wild has this to say re: pulsed, radio frequency microwave radiation from all sources: “Given the potential consequences for public health it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure (to wireless technology).”

In May of, 2011 (IARC) the World Health Organization classified microwave radiation, from all wireless devices, a Class 2B possible Carcinogen, the same category as chloroform, lead, DDT, and auto exhaust.

The WHO. does not make its determinations lightly as Mr. Louie seemed to suggest. IARC Scientists reviewed hundreds of studies of so-called non-ionizing radiation before they voted.

Edward Louie based his argument on thermal effects or the heating of tissue and he suggests that there may be a safe, so-called, non-thermal level of microwave radiation that humans, animals, plants and all living cells can tolerate and thrive within.

Dr. Kenneth Portier, with the American Cancer Society, is an expert in the design, analysis, and interpretation of environmental health data and has contributed to the development of national and international risk assessment guidelines. He has received numerous awards from the International Society for Risk Analysis and has this to say:

“The ‘thermal threshold’ is a fallacy arising from the assumption that living organisms can be described in terms of conventional equilibrium thermodynamics; whereas by general consensus they are open systems meticulously organized and maintained far away from thermodynamic equilibrium. EMF (electromagnetic frequencies) effects often deviate from classical dose-response behavior.

“Extremely weak electromagnetic fields with energies below the thermal threshold can indeed have macroscopic effects because these fields affect an astronomical number of molecules simultaneously…”

In other words, they depart from the usual assumption that biological effects should go up linearly with field intensity (exposure).

For example it has been found that low doses of microwave radiation cause more harm to the blood brain barrier than higher doses; lower doses such as those utilized with wi-fi in our schools.

Louie referred to a fraudulent study to support his assertions that there is a non-thermal exposure level that humans, animals and plants can live with and thrive.

That study concludes that “17 sites were tested in the U.K. and found no exposure levels that exceeded 1% of the recommended levels set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).”

Not only does that result prove absolutely nothing about harm, but the study itself was done by Anders Ahlbom who was part of the IARC committee. However he was thrown out of the WHO. and barred from voting on the Class 2B Grouping due to conflicts of interest with the telecom industry.

Unfortunately this sort of thing is not uncommon. Many high profile agencies are flooded with industry money. Some scientists who, like some politicians, function as telecom shills who pick up their checks and do their job on behalf of industry. ICNIRP is an organization solely funded by industry money and does what industry tells it to do and as such, is corrupt.

Not so coincidentally, 75% of studies that are industry-funded show no biological effects while 75% of independently funded studies do show biological effects.

The International Institute for Building-Biology and Ecology website says:

“According to government and industry sources, microwaves from mobile phones and other wireless communication devices do no biological harm to human health.

Yet according to professor emeritus, physicist, geneticist, cell biologist and multiple prize-winning scientist; Dr. Martin L. Pall, the opposite is true, and the research results in this regard are simply not ambiguous, as the naysayers claim.

Dr. Pall’s position is that we face…”an environmental pollutant that poses a grave risk to human health, and indeed to all life on earth.”

That opinion was shared by the 190 scientists from 38 nations who, just last month, submitted the International EMF Scientist Appeal to the United Nations, UN member states and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk from this rapidly increasing environmental pollutant.

The scientists who have signed the Appeal have collectively published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation.

It was submitted 11 May 2015 to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, to Dr. Margaret Chan, MD, Director General of the World Health Organization, and to the United Nations Member States.

Pediatric Neurologist, Martha Herbert, MD, of Harvard University said, regarding microwave radiation from the use of wi-fi in our schools:

“…Current technologies were designed and promulgated without taking account of biological impacts other than thermal impacts. We now know that there are many impacts that have nothing to do with the heating of tissue.  More information: 
More information:

“The claim from wi-fi proponents that the only concern is thermal impacts is now definitively outdated scientifically. EMF/RFR from wi-fi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function.

“This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.”

Our children and our teachers are now exposed to 7-8 hours of chronic, low-level microwave radiation from powerful wi-fi routers every day at school. Children and pregnant women are the most vulnerable.

When I measured the radiation from a wi-fi router at Mt. Tabor Middle School, it was 50 X’s higher than what we measured standing 100’ from a cell tower!

If the reader doubts what you have read so far please use the link below for 34 studies that show biological effects from wi-fi:

Everyone should know that the telecommunications industry can no longer get liability insurance. In June, 2013, the risk management company; Swiss Re Sonar categorized wireless technology in it’s HIGHEST EMERGING RISK category. (

Finally, an important quote from award winning New Zealand scientist, Dr. Neil Cherry :

“Electromagnetic fields and radiation damage DNA and enhance cell death rates and therefore they are a Ubiquitous Universal Genotoxic Carcinogen that enhances the rates of Cancer, Cardiac, Reproductive and Neurological disease and mortality in human populations.

“Therefore there is no safe threshold level. The only safe exposure level is zero, a position confirmed by dose-response trends in epidemiological studies.”

In response to the safety of wireless technology

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top