G J Hyland, January 2003

1. It is perfectly true that the levels of microwave radiation in publicly accessible locations near GSM and TETRA Base-stations comply, by many factors of 1000, with the current safety guidelines set by the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [1]. These limits are, however, purely thermally based - i.e. they simply limit the intensity of the radiation to ensure that the amount of tissue heating by absorption of microwave radiation is not in excess of what the body's thermoregulatory mechanism can cope with. If heating were the only effect of the radiation, existing guidelines would afford the public adequate protection against the emissions of Base-stations; unfortunately, however, this is not the case. For microwaves are simply one particular realisation of electromagnetic radiation (another, which is more familiar, being light, relative to which microwaves lie on the far side of the infrared) and, as such, have properties other than solely intensity. In particular, the pulsed microwave radiation used in the GSM and TETRA systems of telecommunication is characterised by a number of rather well-defined frequencies (the radiation is highly coherent), which entail, in at least two quite distinct ways, the possibility of non-thermal effects.

2. It cannot be stressed too strongly that non-thermal effects are not simply thermal effects with which a negligible (or indiscernible) temperature rise is associated, but are, rather, a consequence of a fundamentally quite different kind of interaction, from that which causes heating, between the irradiating electromagnetic field and the biological system. This is evident from the fact that non-thermal effects cannot be replicated by conventional heating methods; indeed, non-thermal influences of exposure to microwave/radio-frequency radiation often result in changes that are in 'opposite directions' to those produced by heating, and invariably exhibit a much sharper dependence on the frequency of the radiation than do thermal effects, which, by contrast, are primarily dependent on intensity [2].

3. The first way in which a non-thermal effect can arise is as follows. Although microwave radiation is non-ionising - i.e. its quanta have insufficient energy to break chemical bonds and produce electrically charged ions - it is able to cause subtle changes in the 'architecture' of important biomolecules - such as DNA and enzymes, for example. Through such conformational changes, enzymatic activity and certain other biochemical processes can, in turn, be affected - even those that are apparently not contingent on aliveness, such as the increased leakage of calcium from brain tissue, which has been reported, in vitro, under certain conditions of exposure to radio frequency and microwave radiation (see Para.6 below).

4. The second, more interesting, way is connected with the fact that, as a whole, the alive human organism itself supports (but only when alive) a variety of oscillatory bioelectrical activities, each characterised by a specific frequency. Some of these frequencies happen to be close to those found in the (coherent) GSM/TETRA signals - a coincidence that makes the associated bioactivities potentially vulnerable to being affected in various ways [3]. Effectively, a living organism is an electromagnetic instrument of great and exquisite sensitivity⁽¹⁾ that is able to decode (demodulate) certain frequency characteristics (in particular, low frequency amplitude modulations) of an external electromagnetic field, provided they are close to the frequencies of endogenous bioelectrical activities. In this way, the alive organism is able to 'recognise' and discern the presence of such signals 'informationally', and, in turn, be affected in a purely non-thermal way.

Since these activities are involved in bio-communication and in the control and regulation of bioprocesses essential to well-being, it is reasonable to anticipate that it is the functionality of the alive organism that is most likely to be impaired by exposure to external electromagnetic radiation of sub-thermal intensity containing any bioactive frequencies. Experience in the case of exposure to GSM radiation suggests that the interference is with bioprocesses that are intended to afford natural protection against adverse health effects. This contrasts strongly with the situation at thermal levels where actual material damage to DNA, cells and tissue can occur. It is to be stressed again, however, that unlike heating, non-thermal influences of an informational kind are possible only when the organism is alive: the Dead have no electrical brain activity, for example, with which an external electromagnetic field can interfere!

5. The frequency of the radiation that is used to carry (by appropriate modulations) the voice information (messages) in both GSM and TETRA lies in the microwave band - a frequency range in which there is some evidence (particularly at higher frequencies [2]) that processes as fundamental as cell division can be interfered with in various ways, the somewhat lower carrier frequencies of the radiation used in TETRA facilitating its deeper penetration into tissue. On the other hand, the rates at which the microwaves are emitted in distinct groups of flashes (or pulses) happen to be close to the frequencies of some of the brain's own electrical and electrochemical rhythms; accordingly, these can be (resonantly) amplified (perhaps to a biologically unacceptably high level), interfered with (similar to the case of radio reception), and even entrained by the radiation - i.e. forced to operate at frequencies that are 'unnatural', in that they differ from those that characterise the natural rhythms of the body, thereby possibly compromising homeostasis. The signals emitted by a GSM Base-station are characterised by a number of low frequencies, specifically, 4.26Hz, 8.33Hz, 217Hz, and 1.73kHz, the first two of which lie in the range of the human brain-wave activity (delta and alpha bands, respectively). The frequency of 1.73kHz, on the other hand, is very close to that of the proton nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in the geomagnetic field - protons being the majority component of water, of which living organisms are predominantly composed; irradiation of living systems by low intensity microwaves modulated at this NMR frequency has been found to potentiate certain bioprocesses [5].

6. In the case of TETRA, on the other hand, the nature of the Base-station pulsing is somewhat different, but is again characterised by low frequencies - specifically, 17.6Hz and 70.6Hz- the former characterising the much more accentuated pulsing of the emissions of vehicularly mounted transmitters (and also Handsets). 17.6Hz is close to the frequency (16Hz) at which radio-frequency /microwave radiation of sub-thermal intensities that is amplitude modulated in various ways - in particular, continuously (sinusoidally) and discontinuously (pulsed) - is reported, mainly under in vitro conditions, to cause: (i) a significant increase in loss (efflux) of calcium from brain cells, which is, however, reproducible only under certain modulation conditions [6], and which occurs even in the case of dead brain tissue, as already noted in Para.3; since calcium triggers release of neurotransmitters, any disturbance in the delicate balance of this chemical could well upset the integrity of the nervous (and also the immune) system; (ii) increased levels [7] of Ornithine Decarboxylase (ODC), a (rate limiting) enzyme that plays an important role in DNA replication, and possibly also in cancer promotion (see Para.12); (iii) opposing (and thus possibly stress inducing) effects [8] on the principal inhibitory and excitatory neuro-mediating brain chemicals that underpin the activity of the central nervous system. In addition, it should further be noted that the TETRA frame repetition rate is also close to the frequency at which a flashing light can provoked seizures in people suffering from photosensitive epilepsy (see Para.11).

7. More disturbing is that the low frequencies that characterise the GSM/TETRA pulsing are close to those at which it is known that human mood and behaviour can be influenced in a number of ways (ranging from depression/docility to rage), depending on the kind/ frequency of modulation used [9], it being actually possible to induce sounds, and even words, intercranially by appropriate modulations of the microwave signal [10].

8. What the Mobile Phone Industry and the various national governmental Regulatory Bodies (such as the NRPB in the UK) dispute is that the very weak, pulsed microwave radiation used in GSM and TETRA exerts any non-thermal biological influences that entail adverse health reactions. Their conviction that, provided the intensity of the radiation complies with the ICNIRP safety guidelines, human exposure to this kind of radiation is innocuous derives, however, firstly, from the erroneous belief that electromagnetic fields should be regarded as toxins to the body - rather than an integral feature of its alive state - and, secondly, from an outdated 'linear' mindset that prejudices the conclusion that exposure to weak radiation (below guideline levels) can entail only correspondingly weak effects, and vice versa. The invalidity of the latter is clearly indicated by the existence of the 'informational' influences referred to above, which, being contingent on our aliveness, are inherently non-linear effects - i.e. they depend not only on the electromagnetic field to which an individual is exposed, but also on the state of the individual at the time of exposure (see Para.14): any attempt to understand such effects from a purely linear perspective is thus doomed, in that it is unable to address the most discriminating feature of all, namely, the 'aliveness' of the system under consideration.

9. 'Official' reviews of published research (such as the Stewart Report of the IEGMP [11], the Zmirou Report [12] commissioned by the French government, and the NRPB's report on TETRA [13]) fail to adequately address the issue of electromagnetic sensitivities that are contingent on aliveness. Regrettably, they are characterised by a consistent tendency to put the most negative possible 'spin' on any positive results (that might be suggestive of, or consistent with, possible health problems), demanding further corroboration before accepting them, or rejecting them either on the grounds that, in their opinion, the experiments are flawed for one reason or another, or because of difficulties in identifying credible mechanisms for the (disputed) observed effects. Whilst such scepticism is, of course, healthy and essential to the progress of reliable science, care must, at the same time, be taken to ensure that valuable indicators of potential positive effects are not missed (or prematurely dismissed), and equally, that negative findings (consistent with the safety of the technology) are not automatically deemed exempt from similar scrutiny: at present, there is a definite bias towards regarding any positive results as 'false positives', whilst rarely considering the possibility of 'false negatives' - a dangerous and totally unacceptable state of affairs that is geared to promote a quite unjustified and unrealistic sense of security.

10. The importance of ensuring non-thermal electromagnetic compatibility between mobile phone radiation and energised electronic equipment, such as that in aircraft and hospitals is, of course, generally accepted and respected. Ironically, however, the same does not yet obtain in the case of the alive human organism, despite (i) the fact that the latter is itself an electromagnetic instrument par excellence, which, as already mentioned, can detect electromagnetic fields that are millions of times weaker than those to which the public is exposed by GSM/TETRA Base-stations, (ii) the existence of a wide variety of non-thermal bio-effects induced by microwave radiation (both pulsed and non-pulsed, and of an intensity typical of that to which a user of a mobile phone is exposed) that have been revealed by many laboratory experiments, enjoying varying degrees of corroboration⁽²⁾, which have been performed over the last 30 years on many different kinds of biosystems - ranging from cells in test-tubes to the entire living human organism - most of which have been published in international, peer reviewed scientific journals [14].

11. Whilst the occurrence of non-thermal effects does not, of course, necessarily entail any adverse health consequences, there is, nevertheless, a disturbing consistency [2] between some of these non-thermal bioeffects and the predominantly neurological nature of many of the adverse health reactions reported by certain people (involuntarily) exposed long-term to the radiation from GSM Base-stations, of which there is an increasing amount of evidence, both published [15] and anecdotal. Of particular concern is the way in which this radiation (non-thermally) affects brain function - specifically, its electrical activity, its electro-chemistry, and the blood/ brain barrier - and degrades the immune system. Thus, for example, the exposure to GSM radiation is known to (i) alter the natural rhythms of the brain's electrical activity, as measured by EEG, (ii) disturb the delicate balance of chemicals in the brain - in particular, the dopamine-opiate system - and (iii) to increase the permeability of the human blood brain barrier (thereby facilitating the passage of chemical toxins from the blood into brain fluid), both of which are medically considered to underlie headache, one of the most persistently reported adverse health effects. Similarly, the duration of REM sleep is shortened by exposure to radio-frequency radiation, whilst nocturnal secretion of melatonin is severely reduced, both of which are consistent with reports of sleep disruption⁽³⁾ and concentration problems, and with anecdotal reports of an elevated incidence of certain cancers in some exposed people; for melatonin is an oncostatic hormone - i.e. a hormone that protects against cancer, particularly in females.

Furthermore, the possibility of deliberately provoking epileptic seizures in certain animals by exposing them to pulsed microwave radiation is consistent with reports of an increased incidence of seizures in some epileptic children when exposed to the emissions of GSM Base-stations. The latter finding is not at all unreasonable, given the established ability of a visible light (such as that from a stroboscope) flashing at a rate somewhere between 15-20 times per second to provoke seizures in the 5% minority of people who suffer from photosensitive epilepsy. For visible light and microwaves are both simply different realisations of electromagnetic radiation, and the microwave radiation used in GSM and TETRA similarly 'flashes' (pulses) at rates that the brain is able to recognise; unlike visible light, however, pulsed microwaves are not reliant on the eye and optic nerve to access the brain, since they can penetrate the skull directly.

12. It has already been noted that although microwave radiation is non-ionising - i.e. does not have enough energy to break chemical bonds, particularly in DNA - it can, nevertheless, functionally interfere with the natural processes involved in DNA replication and repair by subtly altering molecular conformation (architecture), for example; this could well account, respectively, for the reports of certain effects observed in vitro, such as chromosome aberrations/ micronuclei formation and for the increased amount of DNA fragmentation found under irradiation. Similarly, the in vivo finding that exposure to pulsed GSM radiation (of an intensity comparable to that realised during mobile phone use) promotes the development of cancer in mice that have been genetically engineered to have a predisposition to cancer is consistent with other (in vitro) studies showing (i) increased levels [7] of an enzyme (ODC) that has been implicated in tumour promotion, and (ii) over-expression (in the short-term) of heat shock proteins (HSPs) in both human and animal cells [17] exposed to GSM radiation; for it has been hypothesised that over-expression of HSPs inhibits natural programmed cell death (apoptosis), thereby allowing cells that should have 'committed suicide' to continue to live; this hypothesis is currently being tested experimentally [18]. Under-expression (associated with chronic exposure), on the other hand, can adversely affect the natural repair of DNA breakage. Taken together, these various effects are, in turn, consistent with (a) the 2-3-fold increase in the incidence of a rare form of cancer in the periphery of the human brain, where the penetration of the (electric field of the) radiation from the handset is greatest (the laterality of the tumours correlating with that of handset use), which has been found in a epidemiological study in the USA [19], and (b) with the increased incidence of cancer amongst users of mobile phones found in a recently published Swedish epidemiological study [20], although in both studies it should be noted that, in the majority of cases considered, exposure was not to (digital) GSM phones, but rather to the somewhat higher powered, older analogue ones, which, having been available for rather longer, permit the effects of exposure over a rather longer period to be studied⁽⁴⁾.

13. It is important to appreciate that the experimental results referred to in Paras.11-12 (which, as already noted in Para.10, were obtained from laboratory studies using microwave radiation of an intensity typical of that found in the vicinity of a GSM handset) are not irrelevant to the consideration of the effects of human exposure to the very much weaker radiation emitted by a Base-station, since the informational content of the latter is the very similar to that of the phone signals; indeed, the increasing number of disturbing reports of rather serious adverse health effects in some animals (particularly cattle [21]) exposed to GSM Base-station radiation could well be valuable warning portents that should not be ignored; equally, the steadily increasing number of reports [22] of unexplained clusters of human cancers and other illnesses in the vicinity of certain GSM Base-stations warrants urgent investigation.

14. It is essential to appreciate, however, in the case of non-thermal influences contingent on aliveness, that it necessarily follows that not everyone will be equally susceptible, even when exposed to exactly the same radiation for exactly the same length of time - susceptibility depending not only on the radiation, but also on the genetic predisposition and neurological/ physiological state of the individual when irradiated, such as the stability of a particular person's electrical brain activity and level of stress prior to exposure. Whilst this admittedly makes the occurrence of non-thermal effects more difficult to predict (and hence to regulate against) than is the case with thermal effects - and, of course, undermines the extent to which they can be considered to be 'established', in the sense required for them to be eligible for consideration in safety deliberations - it does not mean that they can be safely ignored, or that they cannot provoke adverse health reactions in certain people, the severity of which will again vary from person to person, according to the robustness of their immune systems. More meaningful is to ask whether there is an established potential risk to human health from exposure to GSM/TETRA radiation: the answer is undoubtedly 'yes'. It is probably true to say that if a similar degree of risk and uncertainty as to subjective noxiousness obtained in the case of a new drug or foodstuff, it is unlikely that they would ever be licensed.
15. Quite apart from their weaker immune systems, pre-adolescent children are particularly vulnerable - as recognised by the Stewart Report [11] - because of the increased rate at which their cells are dividing (which makes them more susceptible to genetic damage), and because their nervous system is still developing - the smaller size of their heads and their thinner skulls increasing the amount of radiation that they absorb, particularly at 900MHz. Especially vulnerable to interference by the pulsed microwave radiation used in GSM is their electrical brain-wave activity, which does not settle into a stable pattern until puberty⁽⁵⁾. The use of mobile phones by pre-adolescent children is thus to be strongly discouraged, and the siting of Base-station masts in the vicinity of schools and nurseries (including those hidden in church towers and in illuminated signs, such as those at petrol stations, for example) must be strongly resisted: financial gain must not be allowed to be the overriding consideration.

16. In connection with Base-station exposure, it must be appreciated that it is impossible to cite a universally applicable 'safe distance'. The only meaningful approach, at present, is to require, in publicly accessible locations near a mast, that the intensity of the radiation should be below the level at which any adverse health effects have so far been reported; including an additional safety factor of 10, a maximum intensity limit of 10nW/cm2 ( = 10-4 W/m2 - equivalent to 0.2V/m) is, in this way, indicated. The precise distance from a mast at which this level is realised depends, however, on how powerful are the antennae, their height above ground-level, the orientations of the main beams and their 'side lobes' (subsidiary emissions that are much more localised in the immediate vicinity of a mast⁽⁶⁾), and the local topography. The existence of a minimum exposure intensity for the occurrence of non-thermally provoked health problems is, of course, in keeping with the existence of a non-zero minimum (threshold) intensity that has been found to be associated with some non-thermal effects⁽⁷⁾; some others, on the other hand, are found to occur only within a certain range (or 'window') of intensities [4]. It should be noted, however, that the intensity thresholds associated with non-thermal effects and non-thermally provoked adverse health effects are typically at least 1000 times lower than that associated with the onset of thermal heating.

17. To cite the examples of radio and television transmissions (to which we have been exposed for a much longer time than is the case with GSM/TETRA) in an attempt to support the claim that exposure to the (much less intense) radiation used in mobile telephony is harmless is flawed on at least three accounts: (i) the occurrence, in any case, of certain health problems that correlate with exposure to the radiation from such installations [23], (ii) the fact that, unlike that used in GSM/TETRA, the radiation from TV and radio transmitters is not emitted in pulses, in particular, in patterns characterised by frequencies that the brain can recognise, and neither are the carrier frequencies in the (more biologically active) microwave band, and (iii) the beam morphologies are quite different. Furthermore, before taking reassurance from the asserted absence of health problems amongst continental users of TETRA, it should be remembered that it is often the much less biologically active TETRAPOL system (as opposed to TETRA) that is there used.

18. In conclusion, it can hardly be disputed that to enjoy an acceptable quality of life requires more than simply an absence of terminal disease. Adverse health effects in humans of the kinds already reported worldwide - such as headaches, sleep disruption, impairment of short-term memory, etc. - whilst maybe not life-threatening in themselves, do nevertheless have a debilitating effect that undoubtedly affects general well-being, and which in the case of some children could well undermine their neurological and academic development, as is already evident from experience in the case of a number of infant/junior schools at which a GSM Base-station is located. It should be stressed, however, that, to date, the apparent absence on a global scale of more serious pathologies attributable to exposure to the emissions of GSM/TETRA Base-stations is no guarantee of immunity in the long-term; indeed, as mentioned earlier in Para.13, there is already an increasing number of reports [22] of unexplained clusters of cancers in the vicinity of certain GSM Base-stations whose non-involvement remains to be established.

Footnotes:

(1) It is an established fact that the alive human organism can detect external electromagnetic fields that are more than a million times weaker than those found several metres from a typical GSM/TETRA Base-station, the threshold levels of human hearing, sight and EEG response being, typically, of the order of 10-15W/cm2 [4].

(2) Difficulties in replication can often be traced to some crucial difference in experimental protocol that effectively undermines the fidelity of the intended replication. Thus the reason why it has not been possible to replicate some experiments is precisely because the experiments in question have not actually been replicated.

(3) Another possible contributory factor to sleeping problems is the phenomenon of so-called 'microwave hearing', whereby people (even those who are clinically totally deaf) can discern buzzing/clicking sounds in their heads when exposed to low energy, pulsed microwaves. The effect is reported to be most marked around 5kHz [16], which is within a factor 3 of the frequency of 1.73kHz mentioned in Para.5.

(4) It is sometimes argued that, even in the case of analogue phones, exposure is still in its 'early days' in comparison to the much longer latency periods that are generally considered to characterise the kinds of cancers that might be promoted or initiated in certain susceptible people; it should be appreciated, however, that existing latency estimates are not necessarily relevant here, since they are based on experience under non-exposed conditions.

(5) This is so because the multi-frame repetition frequency of 8.34Hz, as well as the 2Hz pulsing that characterises the signal from a handset that is equipped with the energy-saving discontinuous transmission (DTX) mode (which becomes active during periods of listening), lie in the range of the alpha and delta brain wave activities, respectively. The fact that these two particular electrical activities are continuously changing in a child until the age of about 12 years, when the delta-waves disappear and the alpha rhythm is finally stabilised, means that the brain of a pre-adolescent child must be anticipated to be doubly vulnerable to interference from the pulsing of a GSM handset [14].

(6) Whilst the power in a side lobe is certainly much less than in the main beam, the power density can be comparable to that in the main beam several hundreds of metres from the mast because of the closer proximity of a side lobe to the mast (power density at a distance d from the mast is proportional to the ratio: power delivered by the antenna into a beam/ the square of the distance, d). Exposure to such side-lobes could well account for reports of health problems at locations that are not exposed to the main beam, such as occupied areas either immediately beneath an antenna or near the base of a mast.

(7) In addition, it appears that a minimum duration of irradiation is necessary before some non-thermal effects manifest themselves [2].

References:

1. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522 (1998).

2. G.J. Hyland. Non-thermal bioeffects induced by low intensity irradiation of living systems.
Engineering Science and Education Journal 7(6), 261-269 (1998).

3. G.J. Hyland. The physics and biology of mobile telephony. The Lancet 356, 1833-1836 (2000).

4. C.W. Smith C.W. & S. Best. 'Electromagnetic Man', J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1989
(ISBN: 0-460-04698-5).

5. C.W. Smith. Electromagnetic effects in humans, in 'Biological coherence and the response to external stimuli', edited by H. Fröhlich, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris & Tokyo, 1988 (ISBN: 3-540-18739-1).

6. See references in: J.H. Merritt. Interaction of calcium in biological systems with electromagnetic fields, in 'Radio Frequency Radiation Standards' (pp.197-206), edited by B.J. Klauenberg et al., NATO ASI Series, Plenum Press, New York, 1995 (IBSN: 0-306-44919-6). See also Ref. 14.

7. C.V. Byus et al. Increased Ornithine Decarboxylase (ODC) activity in cultured cells exposed to low energy microwave fields and phorbol ester tumour promoters. Cancer Research 48, 422-4226 (1988); L.M. Penafiel et al. Role of modulation on the effect of microwaves on ODC activity in L929 cells. Bioelectromagnetics 18, 132-141 (1997); R. Paulraj et al. Effect of amplitude modulated RF radiation on calcium efflux and ODC activity in chronically exposed rat brain. Indian J. of Biochemistry & Biophysics 36, 337-340 (1999).

8. M. M. Yurinskaya et al. Reactions of the receptor systems of the brain to the action of low- intensity microwaves. Biophysics 41(4), 869-875 (1996).

9. B.N. Rodionov. Energy-informational influences of low energy electromagnetic radiation on biological objects. Vestnik novykh meditsinskikh tekhnologiy VI(3-4), 24-26, 40-42 (1999).

For similar effects using pulsed electromagnetic radiation with carrier frequencies in the short wave band, see - Puharich A. Proc. 6th World Congress of the International Ozone Association, Washington DC, 1983 - contains references to Classified earlier work (1977) and to the confirmation in 1982 by the US Navy that ELF signals are indeed psychoactive, in that they can cause mental depression at 6.66Hz and can lead to manic and riotous behaviour at 11Hz

10. Defence Intelligence Agency. Biological effects of electromagnetic radiation (radiowaves and
microwaves) - Eurasian Communist Countries. DST-1810S-074-76, March 1976.

11. www.iegmp.org.uk/report/text.htm

12. www.web10975.vs.netbenefit.co.uk/zmirou/zmirousite.htm

13. www.nrpb.org/publications/documents_of_nrpb/abstracts/absd12-2.htm

14. G.J. Hyland. The physiological and environmental effects of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, EU Parliament, Bruxelles, March 2001. See - www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/00-07-03_en.pdf

For rebuttal of 'COST's criticism, see - www.cost281.org/activities.php

15. R. Santini et al. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. Influences of distance and sex. Pathol. Biol. 50, 369-373 (2002).

16. E. Postow & M.L. Swicord. Modulated fields and 'window' effects, in 'Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields' (Chapter 12), edited by C. Polk and E. Postow, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, New York & London, 1995 (ISBN: 0-8493-0641-8).

17. P. French et al. Mobile phones, heats shock proteins and cancer. Differentiation 67, 93-97 (2001); D. Leszczynski et al. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer and blood-brain barrier related effects. Differentiation 70, 120-129 (2002).

18. See - New research projects. Microwave News XXII (1), 14 (2002).

19. J.E. Muscat et al. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. J. American Medical
Association 284, 3001-3007 (2000).

20. L. Hardell et al. Cellular and cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 11(4), 377-386 (2002).

21. W. Löscher W. & G. Käs. Conspicuous behavioural abnormalities in a dairy herd near a TV and radio-transmitting antenna. Practical Veterinary Surgeon 79(5), 437-444 (1998); see also: A. Firstenberg, Special section on farms. No Place to Hide 2(4), 15-18 (2000).

22. See, for example: www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,764389,00.html;
www.cfps.fsnet.co.uk/cluster.htm

23. J.R. Goldsmith. Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects. Environmental Health Physics 105, 1579-1587 (1997); Ö. Hallberg & O. Johansson. Melanoma incidence and FM broadcasting. Archives of Environmental Health 57(1), 32-39 (2002).