Cell Phone Radiation Is Dangerous – You Need To listen To The Right Scientists

Today I would like to share with you a UK documentary on the electromagnetic pollution debate. It’s a great little film. I enjoyed watching it as much today as when it came out a few years ago.

In this film you will learn:

– how an electrosensitive person from Stockholm, Sylvia, lives her daily life under the protection of various shielding materials and anti radiation paint

– how the Swedish government have a very different approach to the use of WiFi in schools, to that of the UK and the US. Even if only one person is affected in a classroom the WiFi is immediately removed.

– how the UK government spurned the advice of Sir William Stuart the chairman of their own  advisory group. He clearly states that there are adverse health effects from using cell phones

– that governments around the world are basing their safety levels on the advice of the world health organization. But the chief scientist at the WHO,  Dr. Michael Repacholi, was formerly on the payroll of the cellphone industry!

Let there be no doubt the current safety standards offer little protection from the wireless onslaught. You need to take your own steps to protect you and your family from EMFs. Heres the video.

Interviewer:  Three percent of the population suffer from this disability.  Translate that to the UK, and it’s about 2 million people.  Yes, as far as our government’s concerned, there are none.

We set off for Stockholm and Swedish Sylvia’s city center flat.  She’s plotted a route to avoid all the masts.  She wants to show us just how seriously her government takes her condition.  Like the UK, this is a place where more and more people are acquiring WiFi, but there’s a key difference.

Woman:  Okay, Sylvia, this is my living room, and today the painter has been here.  And you see he has started painting black.

Interviewer:  And this is anti-radiation paint?

Woman:  Yes.  It’s very expensive.

Interviewer:  Anti-radiation paint – paid for by the local authority.  It shields her from neighbors’ WiFi and from nearby phone masts.

So, the Swedes have the same scientific evidence, but they recognize sufferers.  In Swedish schools, even if there’s only one person apparently affected by WiFi, the system’s removed and the classroom shielded.

You’d think our government would base its decisions on the advice of their top man, the one who’s employed to protect our health, Sir William Stuart.  But instead, it seems to have turned to others.  First, the World Health Organization – it’s robust in its language, saying there are no adverse health effects from low-level, long-term exposure.

Is that an accurate reflection of the science, do you think?

Sir Wm. Stuart:  I think they’re wrong.

Interviewer:  How are they wrong?

Stuart:  Because there’s evidence.

Interviewer:  So, why do you think the WHO, one of the most influential public health bodies in the world continues to put out that message?

Stuart:  I think they’ve got to review the statement that they’re making.  I think it’s not an accurate reflection.

Interviewer:  Then, there’s this – it’s unlikely that you’ll have heard of ICNIRP, but it’s an international group of scientists which our government relies on to set our radiation limits.  But, here’s the problem – it doesn’t recognize any biologic effects, so it bases our exposure limits on a thermal effect.  In other words, the radiation has to be so strong that it heats our organs before it’s restricted.  That’s why our safety limits are so high.

How responsible do you think it is for governments to set limits for this form of radiation according only to a thermal effect?

Professor Henry Lai:  Well, I think it’s irresponsible to just set standards using a thermal standard.  If you just set it based on a thermal effect, you’re ignoring a large amount of danger.

Interviewer:  Most countries, including the UK, set their radiation limits according to the ICNIRP guidelines.  They can’t be wrong, can they?

Professor Olle Johanssen:  Well, hopefully not, because as you say, governments, and in that way whole countries, the entire populations rely upon them.  And I do hope they deliver the right and correct message.  However, I know also that they are heavily industry funded.  Their basic message is that if you’re below a certain thermal level, then it’s all right.

Interviewer:  Are they right to set their guidelines only according to thermal effect?

Johanssen:  No, no, no.  That’s just rubbish.  You cannot put any emphasis on such guidelines.

Interviewer:  So, why do we?  I went to Rome to meet the man our government seems to favor over its own advisor, Sir William Stuart.  He’s a scientist who’s responsible for the WHO’s position, and who founded the standard-setting body ICNIRP.  He’s a controversial character.  Dr. Michael Repacholi no longer works for the WHO, but he’s made decisions that affect all our lives.

When you say, on the WHO website, there are no known adverse health effects, is that really giving people the complete picture of the science out there?

Repacholi;  When that statement was put on the website, it was meaning that no health effects have been established.  And when an effect has been established, it means it has been repeated in a number of laboratories using very good study techniques.

Interviewer:  But Henry Lai and OlleJohanssen will say they’ve found them.  There are any number of highly esteemed scientists who will say they’ve found them well beneath those levels.  Are they wrong?

Repacholi:  If they’re published, they are in the mix because every review panel looks at all the studies along with other studies to see if they’re comparable with those studies or point in the same direction.  It’s called a weight of evidence approach, and if that weight of evidence is not for there being an effect or not being an effect, that’s the only way you can tell if there really is an adverse health effect.

Interviewer:  But, here’s the controversy – Dr. Repacholi used to work for the very industry that helps create this form of radiation.  Before working for the WHO, he’d been an expert witness for the phone industry, defending their right to site masts in controversial locations.

Are you truly independent, do you think?  As a scientist?

Repacholi:  Well, I don’t know how people perceive me, people can say what they like.  I know what I am;  I will only say what the science says.  To me, that’s an independent view.

Interviewer:  You did work for industry before WHO and ICNIRP.

Repacholi:  I did.

Interviewer:  And you worked for them afterwards as well.

Repacholi:  I did.   I challenge anyone to say I’ve changed my mind because of my funder.  Because I sure as hell haven’t.

Interviewer:  So, our government has a choice:  follow the recommendations of scientists like Dr. Repacholi and WHO, who effectively say, “Roll it out!  And don’t stop unless someone proves there’s a risk,” or follow their own advisor, who says, “Hold on, don’t rush ahead until we know for sure it’s safe.”

Until that’s resolved, it’s our kids who become the test bet.