Telus Mobility Electromagnetic Radiation

1. 1990: Professor Ross Adey, a biologist, funded by Motorola.
2. 1990: Dr. Henry Lai, funded by the National Institutes of Health.
3. 1991: Dr. Jerry Phillips, funded by Motorola.
4. 1993-98: Dr. George Carlo, epidemiologist, funded by the Wireless Industry Association.
5. 2000: The ECOLOG study funded by T-Mobile.
6. 2011: The Interphone International Case-Control Study funded by T-Mobile, Vodafone, European Union, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and others.

Summary of published findings:

• Mobiles affected the number of brain tumors in animals.
• Electromagnetic fields caused DNA breaks in rats.
• Cell phone users were twice as likely to suffer from brain cancer and rare tumors.
• Strong indications for the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology.
• Strong indications for genotoxic effects like single and double stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes.
• High frequency electromagnetic fields influence cell transformation, cell growth promotion and cell communication.
• Birth deformities and loss of fertility in animal studies.
• Disruptions of other cellular processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the control of cell functions by enzymes.

To my knowledge none of these researchers have refuted these findings.

Telus Mobility must have known about these studies

This is absolute proof that the wireless Industry and companies like Motorola and T-Mobile knew of these findings from their own research as far back as 1990. If they knew then of course Telus Mobility must have known. But they didn't tell their customers. At least they didn't tell me. And they still aren't telling me, as evidenced by their recent communications to me below.

The following research has been peer-reviewed and published. Google each for countless articles.

1. Professor Ross Adey research, 1990

“Professor Ross Adey, a biologist, had his funding withdrawn by Motorola before completing research which showed that mobiles affected the number of brain tumors in animals."
Brain tumors and cell phones linked

2. Dr. Henry Lai research, 1990

Dr. Henry Lai, who has been studying the biological effects of electromagnetic fields for 20 years, was asked three times by the National Institutes of Health to change findings on how they caused DNA breaks in rats.”
Brain tumors and cell phones linked

3. Dr. Jerry Phillips research, 1991

"Dr. Jerry Phillips worked with U.C. Riverside’s [Ross] Adey on Motorola-funded research beginning in 1991.” He describes a pleasant relationship with them until studies linked exposure to changes in the incidence of brain tumors in rats. “Motorola was adamant that Adey never mention DNA damage and RF radiation in the same breath.” Phillips said. ”
Brain tumors and cell phones linked
Powerwatch.org.uk
Google "Motorola, Adey, DNA damage and RF radiation" for much more

4. Dr. George Carlo research, 1993/98

The Wireless Industry Association hired epidemiologist Dr. George Carlo to manage a six-year, $28 million research program looking into cell phone safety. That program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use.
The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation

5. ECOLOG study, 2000

Commissioned by:
T‐Mobil
DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom MobilNet GmbH

"In 2000, the same year the Stewart Report was commissioned by the UK Government, T-Mobil in Germany (the parent company of T-Mobile) commissioned a highly-rated independent research institute, the ECOLOG Institute in Hanover, to review all relevant available research to date with regard to the health risks from mobile telecommunications."

"This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers found strong indications for the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology. Experiments on cell cultures at power flux densities much lower than the guidelines, yielded strong indications for genotoxic effects of these fields, like single and double stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes. The findings that high frequency electromagnetic fields influence cell transformation, cell growth promotion and cell communication also point on a carcinogenic potential of the fields used for mobile telephony. The study also found teratogenic effects (birth deformities) and loss of fertility in animal studies. Moreover, disruptions of other cellular processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the control of cell functions by enzymes, have been demonstrated."
Summary of the ECOLOG study for T-Mobile
ECOLOG Study PDF

6. The Interphone International Case-Control Study, 2011

Even the World Health Organization Admits That Cell Phones Cause Cancer

The largest study of cellphone use and brain cancer to date which was also financed by the cell phone industry is the Interphone International Case-Control Study, in which researchers from 14 developed countries participated, including Canada.

On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), presented the final results of their RF–Cancer review of the Interphone Study in Lyon, France. They found that radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer. The WHO now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

"More than two dozen scientists and doctors from 14 countries [that] IARC Director Christopher Wild called "the world's leading experts" - issued a joint statement that cell phone and other types of radiofrequency (RF) and microwave radiation might cause cancer." Microwave News

Return to top

***** Warnings from Cell Phone Manufacturer's Manuals *****

Note: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the United States, Industry Canada (IC) of Canada, and regulating entities of Japan, the European Union, and other countries require all cell phone manufacturers to warn consumers to never carry their cell phone in their pocket or they will be exposed to radiation emission that exceeds federal safety guidelines.

Cell phone manufacturers warnings are hard to find. Here is a quick and short list of what I've been able to uncover to date. I have a feeling that these may change over time as more and more proof is published on cell phone dangers.

Apple iPhone - “For body-worn operation, iPhone’s SAR measurement may exceed the FCC exposure guidelines if positioned less than 15 mm (5/8th inch) from the body….for body-worn operation, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) away from the body.”

LG Shine (AT&T) - “To comply with FCC RF exposure requirements, a minimum separation distance of 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) must be maintained between the user’s body and the back of the phone.”

Samsung SGH-a737 (AT&T) - “For body-worn operation, this phone has been tested and meets FCC RF exposure guidelines when used with an accessory that contains no metal and that positions the handset a minimum of 1.5 cm from the body.”

Motorola E815 (Verizon) - “If you wear the mobile device on your body, always place the mobile device in a Motorola-supplied or approved clip, holder, holster, case or body harness. If you do not use a body-worn accessory supplied or approved by Motorola, keep the mobile device and its antenna at least 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) from your body when transmitting.”

LG VX8350 (Verizon) - “This device was tested for typical use with the back of the phone kept 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) from the body. To comply with FCC RF exposure requirements, a minimum separation distance of 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) must be maintained between the user’s body and the back of the phone, including the antenna, whether extended or retracted.”

BlackBerry - Cell phones include an FCC-required consumer safety warning to never carry the phone closer than 1” from the body or radiation would exceed the FCC safety limit of 1.6 SAR. Blackberry 8300 warning reads; “keep this device at least 0.98 inches from your body... and SHOULD NOT be worn or carried on the body.” [CAPITALIZATION in the original]

This is only a partial list.

***** Sample text of some cell phone manufacturer's warnings *****

Apple iPhone Manual

"For optimal mobile device performance and to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: When on a call using the built-in audio receiver in iPhone, hold iPhone with the dock connector pointed down toward your shoulder to increase separation from the antenna. When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips, or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) separation between iPhone and the body. iPhone is designed and manufactured to comply with the limits for exposure to RF energy set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the United States, Industry Canada (IC) of Canada, and regulating entities of Japan, the European Union, and other countries. The exposure standard employs a unit of measurement known as the specific absorption rate, or SAR. The SAR limit applicable to iPhone set by the FCC is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), 1.6 W/kg by Industry Canada, and 2.0 W/kg by the Council of the European Union. Tests for SAR are conducted using standard operating positions (i.e., at the ear and worn on the body) specified by these agencies, with iPhone transmitting at its highest certified power level in all tested frequency bands. Although SAR is determined at the highest certified power level in each frequency band, the actual SAR level of iPhone while in operation can be well below the maximum value because iPhone adjusts its cellular transmitting power based in part on proximity to the wireless network. In general, the closer you are to a cellular base station, the lower the cellular transmitting power level."

"iPhone’s SAR measurement may exceed the FCC exposure guidelines for body-worn operation if positioned less than 15 mm (5/8 inch) from the body (e.g., when carrying iPhone in your pocket)."

User's Guide for BlackBerry Tour

"When you wear the BlackBerry device close to your body, use a RIM approved holster with an integrated belt clip or maintain a distance of 0.98 in. (25 mm) between your BlackBerry device and your body while the BlackBerry device is transmitting. Use of body worn accessories, other than RIM approved holsters with an integrated belt clip, might cause your BlackBerry device to exceed radio frequency (RF) exposure standards if the accessories are worn on your body while the BlackBerry device is transmitting. The long term effects of exceeding RF exposure standards might present a risk of serious harm. For more information about the compliance of this BlackBerry device with the FCC RF emission guidelines, visit www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid and search for the FCC ID for your device as listed below: BlackBerry® Tour™ 9630 smartphone: FCC ID L6ARCF70CW"

Return to top

One of the problems with RF EMR Sensitivity is that the damage it causes is cumulative. In other words, the damage can increase over time. If I had known of the dangers above I definitely would not have carried my cell phones around in my shirt pockets for 17 years. Following are the symptoms I've suffered since 2000, about ten years after I started using cell phones from Telus Mobility:

1. Debilitating chronic fatigue 24/7.
2. Bone marrow analysis showing probable Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.)
3. Chronically itchy skin (a symptom of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.)
4. Sleep disorders. Cannot sleep longer than a couple hours at a time.
5. Prostate cancer.
6. Pain in left ear and jaw area.
7. Tinnitus 24/7.
8. Epiretinal membrane in right eye requiring an operation.
9. Early stages of macular degeneration in both eyes.
10. Cataract in right eye requiring an operation.
• Excessive swelling and bruising in right eye.
• Considerable loss of acuity in right eye (reduced from 20/20 to 20/100).
11. Cataract in left eye requiring an operation.
• Considerable light reflection in left eye at night from all around the edge of the new lens (causes a sense of disorientation).
12. Sense of vertigo, dizziness, loss of balance and nausea most of the time. I now walk with a cane.
13. Constant eye strain and headaches 24/7.
14. Considerable loss of depth of field.
15. Unable to drive at night for very long without getting a headache.
16. Chronic pain and swelling in both breasts.
17. Serious short term memory loss, getting worse.
18. Serious macular degeneration has just developed in right eye.
19. I have given up driving. I can no longer see well enough to feel secure doing so.

In attempting to find a cure for the above symptoms, I have been under the care of an Esthetician, an Endocrinologist, a Hematologist and two Ophthalmologists. I have had full body bone scans, several x-rays, CT scans of head, chest and abdomen, nuclear medicine, bone marrow analysis, several ultrasounds and many, many blood tests. No medical reasons for any of my symptoms were found.

The results of the Wireless Industry's own research and others like the BioInitiative Report brings attention to the fact that: “Plausible biological mechanisms are already identified that can reasonably account for most biological effects reported for exposure to RF and ELF at low-intensity levels”.

Return to top

First request to Telus Mobility

On February 9, 2010, I made a simple one line request via an online form on the Telus Mobility Website: "Is cell phone radiation safe?"

Telus Mobility's reply

Dated February 10, 2010

John's comment: Telus Mobility is carefully choosing words here. If there is "no link between wireless radio emissions and adverse health effects" then why are cell phone manufacturers including printed warnings in their manuals? The second sentence is simply wrong. I'm being very charitable here. Saying it was a lie would be closer to the truth.

Second request to Telus Mobility

On June 4, 2011, I made a second one line request via an online form on the Telus Mobility Website: "Is cell phone radiation safe?"

Telus Mobility's second reply

Dated June 7, 2011

John's comment: This reply is simply not acceptable. Telus Mobility is not only not answering my question, they are ignoring the latest WHO warning that cell phone radiation is a possible carcinogen.

My reply

With respect... Unfortunately, you did not answer my question. I asked if cell phone radiation was safe. After the World Health Organization recently found that radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer I want to know what Telus Mobility's position on this is before I buy another cell phone and three year contract.

Telus Mobility's third reply

My reply

Telus Mobility's fourth reply

John's Comment: In this last reply dated June 29, 2011, Telus Mobility does not address my comments pertaining to the five research projects that were financed by the Wireless Industry during the period 1990 to 2002. Nor do they take issue with the findings. This tells me that they did in fact know of this research and just don't want to address it.

The normal procedure in any communication of this kind is to address immediately any claims made by the other party that you disagree with. You must "set the record straight" so to speak. A failure to do so is usually clear indication that you do not dispute the assertion.

###

Note: Anyone who would like copies of the complete Telus Mobility email replies that these quotes are from are welcome to them. Ask for them and I'll forward them on to you.

Return to top

We need to identify what is going on here. If a normal person was offering a service or product that they knew might damage their customer's health or even kill them, would they still offer it without at least a warning? I don't think they would. The fact that Telus Mobility did demonstrates that their customer's safety and health is of less importance to them than making the sale.

A long list of ugly words comes to mind when one thinks of any person, organization or institution that would act in such a manner.

Open invitation to Telus Mobility to reply With respect, I hereby offer Telus Mobility an opportunity to reply to the accusations above. In fact, I challenge you to. What I am accusing you of is serious in my opinion and I want to be fair. If you should choose to do so, your reply will be included here, along with my response. To get you started, let me suggest one simple question. Did Telus Mobility, or BC Tel Mobility, at any time come into possession of information listed above on the issue of cell phone radiation safety research which were financed by the Wireless Industry or related companies or organizations?

IMPORTANT

Please note: The main objective of this page is to get an answer from Telus Mobility for why they did not warn me of the dangers of their wireless radiation when they knew from the Wireless Industry's own research that it was so dangerous.

Return to top

Additional research which no-one seems to want to talk about

"Non-ionizing radiation is low-frequency radiation that does not have enough energy to remove electrons or directly damage DNA." Umm, okay. So they "indirectly" damage DNA then? Apparently the American Cancer Society thinks they do.

The American Cancer Society and the whole cancer industry should be ashamed of this. Blatant proof that they place profits above people's health. Shame!

European Union-funded REFLEX study: December 2004 - PDF

"[Below] is the crux of studies completed by 12 groups of researchers from seven European countries who collaborated in the REFLEX study project to gauge the effects of wireless radiation on human health. The truth of what they found is shown below: Cell Phone Radiation News

"Microwave radiation used for wireless communications and surveillance is extremely injurious to human DNA. It is therefore also destructive to both the human genome and the epigenetic chemical switches which control expression of genes. Below is visual proof, as determined by this EU-funded research... It’s sobering that microwave radiation, blasting from an entire generation’s wireless phones, inflicts the same kind of DNA damage as ionizing radiation on IARC’s carcinogen List One. What REFLEX studies prove is how quickly that devastating damage takes place."

"Slide one (top left) shows a normal healthy cell under magnification. This cell is a bright energetic little orb with its DNA and other genetic materials safely inside the cell membrane. It represents the cells of healthy, non-irradiated children of generations past.

"Slide two (top right) shows a living cell exposed to 1600 chest X-rays. This cell is shrunken and has lost its energetic brightness. Trailing behind it are its genetic guts, spilling through the cell membrane as little particles that look like a comet trail against the dark background. These DNA fragments are called micronuclei, typical mutations from excessive X-rays, or from gamma waves of nuclear detonation.

"Slide three (bottom) shows a cell exposed to 24 hours of cell phone radiation. This cell's comet tail of micronuclei splat is identical to that of ionizing X-ray damage. The microwave frequency used by REFLEX scientists to micronucleate this cell was 1.8 gigahertz (1800 megahertz), comparable to 1.9 gigahertz frequency blasting from both personal wireless communications devices and the base stations which service them.

"The frequency used was 1.8 gigahertz (1800 megahertz), typical cell phone frequencies are around 1.9 gigahertz (and also from many household cordless phones)... The power level used to micronucleate this photograph was 1.3 W/k Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). SAR is the calculated amount of energy absorbed by the human body from microwave phones. Many cell phones produce MORE power than that."

Additional links to news coverage

BBC News: Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
The Telegraph: Mobile phones 'can damage human cells'
OpEdNews: Microwave Technology: An End to the Human Race

Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA)

IDEA Position on Electro-Magnetic Radiation

These pictures below show visual evidence of double strand DNA breakage from Cell Phone level microwave radiation and so-called safe SAR levels.

Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA), made up of 30 leading Irish doctors, affiliated with the World Health Organisation, part of a group awarded the Nobel prize (physics 1985). Members include Dr Patrick Hillery, the ex-President of Ireland and an EU commissioner.

"This is causing disabilities in a large section of the population. We are working on funding for a far larger study which will use blind testing to prove beyond doubt that mobile phones are responsible, but we believe the evidence is now overwhelming." IDEA chairman Dr Philip Michael

Return to top

This is from the Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters: Appendix C" (Note: Smart Meters broadcast the same radiofrequency microwave radiation that cell phones use.) Sage Reports

Eyeballs are commonly regarded as the critical organ

ANSI/IEEE standards adopted in 1992 (C95.1-1992) and 1999 revisions June 2001 SC-4 Committee Minutes These committee discussions are informative on the issue of particular organ sensitivity to RF, and unanswered questions and differences of opinion on the subject among members. They discussed vulnerable organs (eyes, testes) and metallic implants that can intensify localized RF exposures within the body and its tissues (see also discussion on metallic implants). Question 20: Are there specific tissues or points within the body that have particularly high susceptibilities to local heating due to thermal properties in the immediate vicinity of the tissue? Committee minutes include the following discussion on the particular sensitivities of ‘ball shaped’ organs including the eyes and testes.

“In the range of a few GHz (gigahertz), reasonances may occur in ball shaped eyes and testes. They are also electrically and thermally partly insulated from other tissues. Additionally these organs or some of their parts (lens) are thermally a little bit more vulnerable than other tissues.”

“(m)odeling has noted that rapid changes in dialectrics such as cerebral spinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain and surrounding brain tissue lead to high calculated SARs. Secondly, exposure of the eye to microwave radiation can lead to increased temperature that is sufficient to damage tissues. The temperature rise will, of course, depend on the intensity of the irradiation, how well the energy is coupled into tissues, and how well the deposited energy is removed by normal mechanisms such as conduction and blood flow. Microwaves at the lower frequencies will be deposited deeper in the eye, while at higher frequencies they will be absorbed near the front surface of the eye. The eye does not efficiently remove heat deposited internally by microwave exposure. The main avenue of heat removal is conduction and blood flow through the retina and choroid. The lens has been thought to be the most vulnerable tissue since it has no blood flow. Other than conduction through the sclera and convection from the surface of the cornea, heat removal is poor compared to other body tissues. Because the lens is avasular it has been thought to be particularly sensitive to thermal effects of microwave exposure. These facts have led many investigators to postulate that the poor heat dissipation from within the eye of humans and other animals may lead to heat buildup and subsequent thermal damage.”

“Eyes do not have good blood circulation and testes have lower than body temperature.”

John's Comment: I was first told by my optometrist about the problems in my right eye ten years after using cell phones. After being referred to Dr Ma, opthamologist, I was told I had an epiretinal membrane. He said they don't know what causes them.

Return to top

In my opinion and the opinion of many others, the Wireless Industry knows what part of wireless radiation is causing harm to living tissue. In my opinion they know it is the information carrying wave. Let's take a quick look at how this happens.

To paraphrase the extensive research that is available, it has been found that these information carrying RF waves trigger the protein vibrational receptors on the cell membrane. This happens very quickly and these receptors recognize the information as an enemy of the cell (a foreign invader), which almost immediately leads to a series of biochemical reactions. These chemical reactions lead to damaged DNA and, eventually, cell apoptosis (cell death). This happens because the release of damaged micronuclei into nutrient rich interstitial (intracellular) fluid are then free to clone and proliferate. It is suggested that this is the most likely cancer mechanism. I am not a scientist so I will rely on the findings of scientists and researchers in a future update.

This section to be updated...

Return to top

In this section I will explain the difference between far-field and near-field cell phone radiation. I will show why it is so dangerous to put them up to your ear or carry them around in a shirt pocket when turned on. Major cell phone manufacturers know this and are now recommending, as shown above, that cell phones be kept approximately 1 inch away from the body, especially the head, when turned on or being used. In other words, they are saying that their cell phones should not be held up to the ear when talking on them. What's with this? Their own advertising shows people using their cell phones when held against their ear. Last time I looked my ear was pretty close to my head.

This section to be updated...

Return to top