Are Some Electric Frequencies More Damaging to Health Than Others?

Scott: Talk about different forms of EMFs.  Um, you have wi-fi, cell phones, you mentioned cordless phones.  Are they all the same in terms of frequencies we get?  Are some more dangerous than the other?

Oram Miller: Turns out that these devices use similar frequencies.  They're all in the hundreds of megahertz or gigahertz range.  So 800, 900 megahertz are common cell phone frequencies that the FCC has allotted to that industry.  And then each of the four carriers has their own... 827 point 39, 823 point 27... so if you go to antenna search dot com, and put in your house, you'll see dozens if not hundreds of towers around.  Not all are cell towers, many of them are low wattage towers.  But you'll see, if you hit upon the icon for the cell tower, you'll see 200 frequencies there.  And your phone is constantly shifting from one to another, you don't even know this, as you're driving down the highway.  So, that's... and then you have 1800, 1900 megahertz, which is 1.8, 1.9 gigahertz, and wi-fi is 2 point 4 gigahertz and 5 point 8 gigahertz.  These are all frequencies, those frequencies are non regulated, meaning you don't need a license to buy a wi-fi enabled router and then turn it on and plug it in and begin transmitting.   Even though it's going beyond your house, but it's not regulated, it's an unregulated band.  

So the harm does not come so much from the frequency, although that has something to do with it.  The harm primarily comes from the density, the power density, or the strength of the signal.  But mostly it comes from how long you're exposed to this signal, because these effects are cumulative.

Now it turns out, there's a PhD by the name of George Carlo who also went to Columbia, or taught at Columbia, who told us the story when he was our keynote speaker in 2008, of his experience with this.  When he was at Columbia in the early '90s, he was called by his friend, who was the assistant secretary of HEW, before it split into Health and Human Services and the Department of Education.  And his friend said 'George', this is in the early years of the Clinton administration, early 90's.  His friend said 'we have been contacted, at the HEW, by the cell phone trade industry, to conduct collaborative research to prove that cell phones are safe and we want you to run the study.'  And George said, 'I know where this is going, I don't want to be a part of it.  Thanks but no thanks.'   But he said a month later is friend called back and said 'we're moving ahead with this and we don't want anyone else to run it but you.  Will you reconsider?'  So he did and funded, or headed the study.  And he told us the story that people approached him and said, 'I understand you're doing the study on cell phones, here's my CV, I want to be part of your team.  And by the way, what outcome would you like?  I can provide it for you.'  And he said, with that work ethic, we're not interested in having you on our team, so thanks but no thanks.  

So at the end of the research or towards the end of the research, the story is that he said to them, to the executives, 'you can't say that cell phones are safe.  Because our research showed that the cell membrane is affected by the low frequency information carrying radio waves.  Because it turns out that when the military developed this technology, in years past, in the 50's, 40s, no 60s, excuse me.  They, in the 60s, the defense department developed this technology.  And it was a way of communicating with the soldiers in the battle field in such a way that it couldn't' be intercepted like in the Imitation Game with Benedict Cumberbatch, and you know in the 40s with shortwave and medium wave AM.  So the problem was the frequencies that they were using, that they were transmitting on, which I believe were 219 to 230, ah hertz, 216 hertz, did not make it to the battle field because you have low energy at that end of the spectrum.  It's rich in information, like our brain waves, but it's low energy.  So they abandoned the technology, or were about to until someone said, 'what if we piggy back these slow waves onto carrier waves that are in the microwave range, where radar, close to radar, which penetrate for miles, but can't carry information to the same degree.  So they married the two.  So George used the analogy of a clothes line with wet diapers on it, flapping in the breeze, of a breezy day, windy day, at one frequency, but the whole clothes line is undulating up and down slowly at another frequency because of the weight of the wet diapers.  So the clothing, the diapers represent packets of information, but the whole clothes line is the carrier wave.  

The problem is, the carrier wave has a threshold below which you can measure the presence of that frequency or that power density for the carrier wave.  But it's below what's called the specific absorption rate, or SAR, which is one kilowatt, one watt of energy, excuse me.  One watt of energy per kilogram of body mass.  And this is the threshold that's there in law and so all cell phone manufacturers say 'well we're below that, so there's no problem with our phones.'  Well that's the thermal effect, the heating effect.  And that's based on a 200 pound dummy with gel in the head to represent a man.  And a child has a much thinner skull, and is affected, but that's another story.  Bu it turns out, that the low frequency information carrying radio wave, which is down again, as I said is down in the 200 hertz range and lower, has no threshold for safety, in terms of the health effects.  And the health effects are that it causes the membrane to shut down.  It causes these pores in the membrane of the cell to lock down, that are normally open in the parasympathetic mode.  But when the cilia, these hairlike projections in the cell, perceive the presence of these low frequency information carrying radio waves, then the cell membrane locks down and does not allow nutrients in or waste products out.  That's what his research showed.  And when that happens, and this happens with every cell phone call that you make or any time you bring one of these devices close to the body, in his research from '91 to about '97, it turns out that there's this cascade of events in the cytoplasm of the cell, called the (??) effect, which affects the messenger RNA, the mitochondria, the DNA, there are heat shock proteins that occur there, there are micronuclei, these are all markers for cancer, changes in the cell membrane, or cell nucleus and also in the cytoplasm, that doctor Martin Blank corroborated, and many other researchers around the world have corroborated in the decades since... decades since.  

So when doctor Carlo presented this to his corporate benefactors, the companies that had supported his research, he said, 'my research is not going to prove your initial premise, that cell phones are safe.  And I recommend that you put warning labels on cell phones, just like we have on cigarettes, or change the technology.'  And they did neither and the story is that he resigned, they had a falling out and basically that research never saw the light of day.  It has been corroborated overseas, not here.  And no one knows about this.  So the bottom line is that now we've gotten to the point where the research is undeniable, the links are there, but they're not being acknowledged by the US press or regulatory agencies or the cell phone industry because they have this whole package this whole construct of what the truth is about these technologies that does not allow any discussion of these other issues.  But outside the United States this is covered well.  Europeans say why do you people not know about this?  We know about it.  Now they still use these technologies, but at least... that's the risk that they're taking, but they know what the risks are.   But countries outside of the United States, are actively removing this technology where they can, from schools, libraries and hospitals.  And encouraging people to ... just like we did 30 years ago with tobacco.  

So we're in this time period, this bubble if you will, this window of time, this grace period, during which tumors are growing, the illness is increasing, autism, there's a link to autism, a link to infertility, behavior problems, studies show women who use cell phones, their offspring have behavior problems in their teen years.  Early onset Alzheimer's, leukemia, tumors, brain tumors, acoustic neuromas, parotid glad tumors in Israel, in one study.  

So in summary what we recommend is that people who are not symptomatic from exposure to wireless frequencies and the EMFs that they produce, should really be proactive and look at this research from Europe.   Go to these websites.  Createhealthyhomes dot com is my website, from there I have links to other websites outside the United States.  And do the research for yourself.  I actually tell my clients, if I've done my job right, by the end of the day, and it's a six hour consultation when I come to a home, you and your husband are going to have a serious conversation about this.  You're going to look into it and you're going to see what the Europeans and the people in Asia and India and Israel and Russia know about this.  And make a decision for yourselves to be proactive and go back to hardwired connections and just reduce your exposure to these technologies because of their cellular effects.  And then you're going to thank yourselves, 5 to 10 years from now for listening to that guy back in 2015, when your friends call you up and say my son was just diagnosed with a brain tumor.  Because it's happening, it's already happening, the clock is ticking and so you don't want to be that family.  So, you're not hearing it from the government, you're not hearing it from regulatory agencies you're not hearing it from industry or academia, so do your own research and look at what others are doing.