Saturday, September 07, 2013

Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study.

 2006 Oct;37(7):840-3.

Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study.


Biomedical and Clinical Engineering Centre, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Etlik, Ankara, Turkey.



There has been growing public concern on the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cellular phones on human health. Many studies have recently been published on this topic. However, possible consequences of the cellular phone usage on human sperm parameters have not been investigated adequately.


A total number of 27 males were enrolled in the study. The semen sample obtained from each participant was divided equally into two parts. One of the specimens was exposed to EMR emitted by an activated 900 MHz cellular phone, whereas the other was not. The concentration and motility of the specimens were compared to analyze the effects of EMR. Assessment of sperm movement in all specimens was performed using four criteria: (A) rapid progressive, (B) slow progressive, (C) nonprogressive, (D) no motility.


Statistically significant changes were observed in the rapid progressive, slow progressive and no-motility categories of sperm movement. EMR exposure caused a subtle decrease in the rapid progressive and slow progressive sperm movement. It also caused an increase in the no-motility category of sperm movement. There was no statistically significant difference in the sperm concentration between two groups.


These data suggest that EMR emitted by cellular phone influences human sperm motility. In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell. These effects may be observed later in life, and they are to be investigated more seriously.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Email from Dr. Magda Havas: EHS Children Forced from School

Saturday, 7 September 2013

Email from Dr. Magda Havas: EHS Children Forced from School

An attachment is mentioned below. I will paste its contents at the bottom here.
------ Forwarded Message
From: Magda Havas
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 15:05:24 -0400
To: Protecting People
Subject: Fwd: EHS Children Forced from School

for distribution:

Normally I don't forward emails that request financial support but I believe this situation is precedent setting and very important to those who want to protect children against microwave radiation in Canada and in other countries.

School is a very important part of a child's education, but more and more schools are installing Wi-Fi for the convenience of wireless internet access.  Parents who know their children are sensitive and those who do not want this additional daily 6-hour exposure to microwave radiation have had limited success convincing schools boards, superintendents and principals that this technology may be unsafe for students and their teachers.

Since Health Canada is ignoring the science documenting adverse effects at levels well below their guidelines and since they are reluctant to change their guidelines it is time to take steps that do not include Health Canada.  This involves educating the public, medical professionals, school boards, lawyers, policy makers, the media and this is being done by groups around the world.

At some stage, when rights are ignored by those in authority,  it becomes necessary to take legal action.  This is a situation where legal action is required.

Schools need to use wired access to the internet for the health of their population and for safety, security, and speed of delivery.  The cost is minimal and many schools have wired ethernet access but prefer to use wireless access because they were told by Health Canada that it is safe.  Even the manufactures don't make this claim.  Their claim is that exposures are within Health Canada's guidelines and based on measurements–in at least one school–this is inaccurate information.

While C4ST (Canadians for Safe Technology) is making a concerted effort trying to improve HC's guidelines this will take time and students don't have the luxury of time.  They need an education now and home schooling, which may be excellent, is not the only answer.

We need schools without Wi-Fi radiation and we need them now.  We need to protect students.  They should not have to experience heart palpitations, headaches, nausea, difficulty concentrating because of Wi-Fi (microwave) exposure at school.

Years from now, Health Canada will recognize that this radiation is much more dangerous than asbestos ever was in the school setting.  But students and their teachers should not have to pay the price for Health Canada's willful ignorance. They have been wrong before and they are wrong now.

Please support parents trying to protect their children.

Please consider distributing this email to your friends and colleagues and to those who truly care about the health of children and their teachers.  Any size contribution will help pay the financial bills associated with this legal action and a small victory can help the rest of those who are fighting similar battles in their own communities.

If you are unable to contribute, at this time, consider other ways you may be able to help.

Please share this email with others.

Thank you,
-magda havas

A society that doesn't protect its children won't last more than one generation.
 Begin forwarded message:

 From: "Dennis and Sharon Noble"
Subject: EHS Children Forced from School
Date: September 6, 2013 8:25:10 PM EDT
To: "'Magda Havas'"
Dear Magda,

I am going to ask you for a favour -- would you please circulate the attached letter to your contacts?

You most likely have heard that these 2 families are fighting for the right of their children to attend schools without being exposed to wifi. Both families have children who are sensitive, suffering severe headaches, rashes, and sleep disturbances. When away from wireless devices, both children are fine and able to function well.

It is a sad state when parents must take legal action to protect their families, but that is where they are. I believe it is only a matter of being unaware of the cause of health problems that explains why more people are not participating with the Hoffmanns and Jeskes in this action. With C4ST's efforts in raising awareness of symptoms, and if we are able to get more doctors educated on the topic, more families will be making the same plea. If this law suit can set a precedent, every family with sensitive children and even families who want to prevent their children from becoming sensitive or harmed, will benefit, even those in the US.

They desperately need financial help to continue with their legal actions. Both Tammy Jeske and Janis Hoffmann are dedicated members of the Coalition and have been fighting the proliferation of wireless devices for years. Now they are fighting for their families. They have spent much of their savings to pay the legal bills so far and cannot carry on without help. It would be tragic if they could not proceed with this ground-breaking lawsuit for lack of funding.
>>> That attachment says the following. And if the links in it aren't clickable, please do copy-paste. Thanks.
Parents for Safe Schools:
Request for Donations Please

Our two families continue to fight the unjust dismissal of our children’s appeal for a ‘Wi‐Fi free’ learning environment that would prevent the ill symptoms they experience with the mandatory exposure to microwave radiation emitted by the commercial Wi‐Fi routers installed in our schools. Our request is simple: one school in the district free of wireless technologies, with hardwired communications only.

These purposeful actions are not only for our children but also on behalf of all students and parents across Canada who simply ask for a safer mode to connect with the Internet that doesn’t pose a serious risk to health. Our experienced lawyer, David Aaron, is recommending a judicial review, citing many errors in the arbitrator’s reasoning and application of the law. He believes we have a very strong case.

We are now asking for your financial support to help us continue this vitally important fight for accommodation in schools; to set a precedent whereby all EHS students across Canada can have access to public education without fear of ill symptoms.

So far our legal expenses have totaled $17,500 and we will need approximately another $20,000 to have our case judicially reviewed by the BC Courts and, if need be, by the Human Rights Tribunal. A successful appeal will open the door to more far‐reaching changes at an occupational health and safety level, benefiting all workers with a safer environment.

We must pull together and act for the protection of all our children. Now is the time please.

Thanks so much for your support!
Janis Hoffmann & Tammy Jeske

Donation site for EHS Children Forced from School

Cheque donations can also be made c/o:

‘Parents for Safe Schools’
Add to memo line: ‘EHS Kids- legal fund’

Videos: Jeske/McGinnis interview – Citizen’s Forum,19,3349

Hoffmann/McGinnis interview – Citizen’s Forum,19,3350

EHS Stories by Kim Goldberg

Background Information:,19,3202

Smart meter sparks fire?

Smart meter sparks fire?

Did an electricity smart meter start a fire that destroyed two Vernon homes? The device is being laboratory tested to try to find out. Robert Buffam reports.

The Effect of Electrosmog on Your Vibration

The Effect of Electrosmog on Your Vibration

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World
We’re often speaking about the negative affects of electrosmog on our vibration. How it contracts us down and then disrupts higher consciousness connection. When I started to walk the path, benevolence guided me to investigate the relative affects of, for example, electricity in our homes, WiFi, mobile phones, TV and computers. Of course if we’re to still engage with society (in order to change it), we most probably still have to use various electro gadgets, but being aware of their affects, consciously balancing the degree of exposure, dissipating negative frequencies and connecting to the natural vibration of Gaia are all things that will generally reduce the negative impact…

Unplugging and Earthing

For me, there came a point when literally walking into a usual matrix house was like walking through a thick veil of smog. I could literally feel the residual electric currents in the walls. I was guided not only to switch appliances off, but disconnect them from their sockets too when not in use. And I was guided to purposefully switch off WiFi and instead use the standard ether net cable. These alone have quite a dramatic calming affect on the general ambient vibration.
Here’s a really interesting video clip from the famous nutritionist David Wolf, who demonstrates in an amusing and informative way the affects of electrosmog on our field. Let it inspire a closer look at the electropolution in your living environment and a contemplation of how you might reduce the negative affects…

Tips on raising my vibration

Reducing electrosmog in our lives goes hand in hand with raising our vibration. Here are other considerations from the Openhand community…Tips on raising my vibration
Previous articles by Chris Bourne
About the Author
At the age of 40 Chris was involved in a life threatening car crash in which he thought he would certainly die. This precipitated total inner surrender and a rapid reconnection with the conscious life force through all things.
He found himself suddenly able to experience and contemplate through multiple dimensions of reality to see the deeper purpose of life itself. He began to remember his true reason for being here.
He explains…
“During the crash, time seemed to slow right down and I was guided back through key moments of my life. I was realising that every moment in our lives has but one underlying purpose – to reveal an aspect of truth about ourselves to ourselves. I was beginning to dissolve every belief and value our society had conditioned within me.”
“This was my initial awakening to the magical unifying consciousness of the soul. Over the eight years that followed, I was guided through four other inner ‘Gateways’ of consciousness. I have since come to know the process as the five key expansions on our journey of Enlightenment and ultimate Ascension into multi dimensional living – our divine birthright”.
Prior to the crash, Chris had a rich an varied professional career in industry, in teaching, as an Officer in the Army and finally as a web development entrepreneur before being initiated on his spiritual path. With a Masters Degree in Natural Sciences from Oxford University, participants in the work are finding his integration of grounded scientific understanding and profound spiritual realisation deeply engaging and transformative.
Openhand Foundation
Catalysing our Spiritual Evolution

Complementary Medicine – A Form Of EMF Protection?

Complementary Medicine – A Form Of EMF Protection?

Posted by Lloyd Burrell on July 25, 2011 under Healthy Living Solutions |
How can complementary or alternative medicine possibly be considered a form of EMF protection?
Let me ask you a question. If I say to you ‘EMF protection’, what’s the first thing that comes into your mind?
Do you think of EMF meters, shielding materials and so on?
If you do then congratulations, you’re already way ahead most people on this.
Most people are completely clueless about EMFs, they don’t even know what the initials ‘EMF’ mean.
But there’s a lot, lot more to EMF protection than just EMF meters and shielding.
If you’re interested in EMFs just because you’re health conscious then this narrow definition may suffice.
But if you’ve already got symptoms when you’re around EMFs, if you’re electrically sensitive or hypersensitive, then you have to look through a broader lens. You need to look at the bigger picture.
Complementary (or alternative) medicine has been hugely important to me in overcoming my electrical sensitivity and looking at the bigger picture. Here I give an overview of these medicines.
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) classifies complementary medicine into five broad categories, these are:

Body Based Alternative Medicine

emf protection and complementary medicineThese medicines focus essentially on the structures and systems of the body, joints, bones, soft tissue and lymphatic and circulatory systems. Examples are massage, physical therapists, kinesiologists, osteopaths, chiropractors, reflexology, acupressure, acupuncture, CranioSacral Therapists (CST), the Alexander technique and therapeutic touch. My own preferences are for kinesiologists, CSTs, osteopaths and massage therapists.

Natural Products

These are essentially herbal medicines, or botanicals. They also includes live microorganisms, called probiotics. I take probiotics in the form of natural yoghurts and find them to be beneficial. I don’t advocate taking dietary supplements on a long term basis, its much better to concentrate on improving your diet. But I’ve used Chlorellaand Spirulina in the past with some success.

Alternative Medical Systems

These alternative medicine types are mostly non-western in origin and they’re built upon the combination of theory and practice, for instance: Chinese medicine, Tibetan medicine, ayurveda, acupuncture, homoeopathic, Native American healing and naturopathic medicine. I’ve had good results with both acupuncture and homoeopathy which I continue to use occasionally.

Energy Therapies

These comprise a variety of complementary and alternative treatments based on the use and modification of energy fields. The techniques used here include: touch for healing, Qi Gong, Reiki, magnet therapy, light therapy etc. Qi Gong is the basis for all the Chinese martial arts. Qi Gong does take time to learn. A few years ago I attended weekly classes of Qi Gong which I felt did benefit me. I still incorporate some Qi Gong movements in my daily energy exercises.

Mind Body Methods

Here the idea is to use the mind to affect physical functioning and promote health. The basic premise is that the mind has a direct influence on body healing. Types of mind body intervention are medication, yoga, hypnotherapy, prayer, human therapy, dance therapy and biofeedback.
Below is an introductory video on complimentary medicine with transcript underneath.

Understanding Complementary Medicine

This program is designed to help those who are interested in complementary medicine to achieve a clearer understanding of the different types of treatment available today.

Case histories and Contra-indications

Before a practitioner starts a treatment, or gives a diagnosis, they will take a case history. The case history is very important to a practitioner as it indicates the type of lifestyle the patient has and will alert the practitioner to any contra-indications associated with the treatment. Contra-indications are reasons why the treatment may not be right for the patient. For instance, homeopaths and herbalists are weary of giving ingestive treatment to pregnant women.

Finding the cause

Complementary medicine focus on the cause of the condition and not just the symptoms. Practitioners will consider all the information available and then form an opinion of whole condition and its possible cause. The cause may not be apparent to the patient, as sometimes the symptoms may seem to have no bearing on the cause of the condition. As the basis of complementary medicine is to find the cause of the symptoms, a patient may find that the first treatment is often the longest and could cost more due to the extra time that must be spent in order to come to an accurate conclusion. Further questions will be asked during future visits and the patients records are update accordingly.

Establishing a balance

Complementary medicine works by triggering responses from the body to establish a natural balance. Occasionally the patient may find that the treatment creates certain reactions, these reactions are not necessarily a bad sign and can indicate that the treatment is working. However if the patient finds the symptoms uncomfortable or they are not happy with the treatment they should contact the practitioner to discuss the problem. The practitioner may be qualified in other therapies and could recommend another treatment or may refer the patient to another practitioner or doctor if necessary. Practitioners will also give advice that can be used to assist the patient at home.
It is worth noting that in complementary medicine, practices have evolved and changed over time so two complimentary practitioners may not use exactly the same methods. Disciplines can change depending on the school where the practitioner has trained and whether they involve other subjects within their treatment. The practitioner will have learned from his or her own experiences too, their treatment will evolve over time, and this knowledge will be passed on to the patient.


If you look at the etymology of the word massage, it means to knead, the kneading process, rather like as you knead bread and the process of doing it. So from that kneading process a massage is actually the manipulation the soft tissue of the body to relieve tension that actually exist physiologically in the structure of the body so as to allow the free flow of the system of the body which is being clogged up, often termed as knotting. A masseur tries to understand what is causing the problem that is being presented and can work on an area that is actually distant to what is initially presented. Evidently, if someone is presenting a problem with their calf muscle often this relates to the calf muscle but it may have strong indications to the way that we are joined together with pelvic muscles and also with tendons that we have in the ankles and the lower part of the feet. Therefore, it is about solving the problem and taking into consideration an anatomical knowledge of the body in order to provide that massage.
There are many different forms and techniques of holistic massage used in complimentary medicine. Some methods will concentrate on a specific area while others will address the wider problem, take into consideration the body as a whole, and therefore work accordingly. For instance, stress related conditions might require a gentle flowing approach while an injury related problem might require a deeper massage. We are unique and individual and an experience such as a massage can bring up certain effects for certain people at different times. People often feel very relaxed, almost expanded, they can feel tired, sore and stiff, it is a process of change that they are bringing about by having a massage and that illustration of change is a good thing. Some people can actually receive headaches because of the toxins that are released before they are taken out of the system. But these changes are of benefit, if we could consider healing as a process.

Is Complementary Medicine The Best Way To Deal With EMFs?

Whether you are electrically sensitive or not, complementary medicine has a lot to offer and the downside is minimal. But complementary medicine should only ever be complementary.
It should compliment the more classic form of direct EMF protection (EMF meters and shielding etc.) and indirect EMF protection.
You might feel hesitant at first in trying these techniques. The best way of finding a practitioner is through word of mouth, ask friends and work colleagues.
Occasionally you’ll come across a very talented practitioner and you’ll learn much. But what I came to learn over the years of seeing different practitioners is that ultimately your own body is the greatest healer.
You can go a long way with a talented practitioner but eventually it will be time to move on. Dependance is never a good thing. Ultimately you know whats best for you, someone else doesn’t.
For more information on complementary medicines see the NCCAM website.
If you’re a complementary medicine practitioner and you’d like to share your story on how you treat patients suffering from EMF sensitivity, let me know, I’d be glad to publish your story on ElectricSense.

    Understanding The Health Risk of Google Glass EMF Emissions

    Understanding The Health Risk of Google Glass EMF Emissions

    July 22, 2013 in Technology
    As I promised when I entered the #IfIHadGlass competition to become a Glass Explorer, I have been testing my Google Glass Explorer Edition for emissions of electromagnetic radiation (EMR, also known as electromagnetic fields, or EMF).
    My #IfIHadGlass Entry Tweet
    My #IfIHadGlass Entry Tweet
    I’ve been posting some of the measurements. I plan to continue doing so. (Follow me on Twitter or Google+for continued updates on measurements.)
    What does a reading like 386.2 milliwatts per meter-square actually mean about my health risk?
    What does a reading like 386.2 milliwatts per meter-square, a very high spike in radiation that I measured while streaming CNN video, actually mean about my risk?
    But, predictably, the question I get a lot in response is: well, what do those measurements mean?
    And that’s entirely natural, because most of us have never heard of a power density meter, don’t understand what SAR is, and really have no idea what electromagnetic radiation is, or what science can tell us about the results of exposure to EMR.
    So answering that question is a longer-term discussion. With this post, I’m going to try to provide a way of framing and considering the risk presented by the measurements I am posting, as clearly and concisely as I can.
    To do so, I will respond to four questions:
    1. How are cell phone radiation exposures measured?
    2. What are the risks of cell phones?
    3. How do EMF emissions from Glass compare to cell phones?
    4. What is the relative risk of using technology like Google Glass compared to an iPhone?

    How are Cell Phone Radiation Exposures Measured?

    People are increasingly familiar with the scientific measurement called SAR, though few understand what it is, or how it is used in regulations.
    Apple's iPhone 5 SAR Data
    Apple’s iPhone 5 SAR Data
    SAR (which stands for Specific Absorption Rate) is a measurement of the rate at which electromagnetic radiation energy is absorbed by something (generally, human tissue). So, when you hear that an iPhone 5 has a SAR of 1.18 watts per kilogram of tissue (W/kg), that is a measurement of how much radiation is absorbed by the human head — which correlates to, but is not, the actual EMF emitted by the iPhone itself. So, to be clear, SAR is a measurement of rate of absorption, not emission. (Whereas the power density measurements I am posting are gauges of field strength, not absorption.)
    Now, when you hear that an iPhone has a SAR of 1.18 W/kg, it is tempting to think of the EMF emissions from an iPhone as being steady. However, this is not how wireless technology works, and it is not how SAR is utilized by regulators. If you measure EMF emissions from a device like an iPhone or Glass, you will note that the actual radiation levels vary widely, depending on the specific usage context (how, where, when & for what purposes the device is being used). However, while actual emissions vary widely and unpredictably, regulators have established a regimen by which a single SAR value is established for these devices.
    (Since so many of you reading this will likely have an iPhone, it is worth noting that the iPhone 5’s official SAR value is premised on holding the iPhone 1/8” away from your body. In fact, Apple’s documentation reads: “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.”)
    A SAR Testing Dummy
    A SAR Testing Dummy Used by the Swiss Office of Public Health
    Official SAR values for devices like cell phones are determined in a lab, by holding a cell phone up to a dummy head, in several predetermined locations. The lab measures the various levels of radiation absorption in the dummy head. At the end of the experiment, the peak level of radiation absorption is determined, and that becomes the official SAR value for the device.
    In other words, the official SAR value of an iPhone 5 tells you what the peak level of radiation absorption was, in the lab dummy, under the precise conditions on the day, time and location that the phone was tested. If you hold the phone in any different manner than it was held against the dummy, the exposure will be different. If you are further from the cell tower than the phone in the lab test, the radiation emitted by the phone will likely be higher than in the test, as more power is used to communicate over longer distances. If you are using your phone in your car or on a train, the emissions will likely be higher, as more power is used as your phone continually seeks new cell towers to relay your call.
    I guess the simplest way of stating it is this: The official SAR value of a cell phone is the peak level of radiation absorption measured under arbitrary circumstances that will almost certainly NOT match real life usage conditions.
    So, official SAR values may present some sort of useful benchmark for the radiation emissions of different cell phone models, but do not fool yourself into thinking that official SAR values are “accurate”, that your digital devices emit consistent levels of EMF, or that your exposure is actually knowable, unless you take measurements yourself.

    What are the Risks of Cell Phones?

    Well, first, it is important to reiterate that, because of varying levels of radiation and exposure, there is no way to know what your exposures are (and thus, what your actual risk might be), just from saying “I use my iPhone to make calls for an hour a day.”
    Reynard X-Rays
    X-rays submitted by David Reynard in his 1992 lawsuit against Motorola. Reynard claimed that these x-rays demonstrate that his wife’s fatal tumor matched the size & location of her cell phone. Within eight days of Mr. Reynard showing these x-rays on ‘Larry King Live’, shares of Motorola had plunged by over 20%. Mr. Reynard’s lawsuit was dismissed in 1995 for insufficient evidence.
    As well, individuals respond individually to doses of EMF radiation. Some individuals are known as electrohypersensitive (EHS), and are particularly responsive to even extremely low doses. Other individuals have very healthy systems capable of repairing the damage that results from EMF exposures. And there is a wide spectrum in between. So outcomes will vary not only based on varying exposures, but also the health and well being of the individuals exposed.
    It is also important to note that some of the most concerning health outcomes that are linked to cell phone radiation exposure (such as brain tumors) can take decades to form. Just because you’ve used a cell phone for 10 years now without developing a tumor, doesn’t mean you won’t in another 10 years, even if you never touch another cell phone. Neither does it mean you will. It’s just how disease works. While doses of some forms of electromagnetic energy (such as gamma rays) can kill you almost instantly, the types of health effects linked to cell phone radiation generally take much longer to manifest.
    Still, the known science can help inform your understanding of the risks associated with cell phone usage. (And there is a lot of it. It is not the purpose of this post to review the vast body of science in this arena. If you are interested in learning more, I would encourage you to download and read the BioInitiative Report. It is a peer-reviewed publication from an international group of scientists that surveys thousands of scientific studies on the bioeffects of EMF exposure.)
    Dr. Lennart Hardell is professor in oncology and cancer epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden.
    Dr. Lennart Hardell is professor in oncology and cancer epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden.
    For the purposes of this post, let’s look at a single study, published in 2007 by a group including Dr. Lennart Hardell that examined the incidence of malignant brain tumors among thousands of individuals. This study is among the first epidemiological studies on this question, following such a large number of subjects over an extended evaluation period.
    Hardell and the researchers found that, not only does cell phone use increase the risk of forming malignant brain tumors, but that the risk increased with latency time (i.e., how much time had passed since the cell phone exposure) and cumulative use.
    The published results include a fair bit of data. I have extracted this portion (from Table 4 in the published results) to demonstrate the dose-response relationship between cell phone exposures and the risk of forming malignant brain tumors, over different time frames.
    Risk (OR) of Forming Malignant Brain Tumor Compared to “Unexposed” Population (Who Do Not Use Cell or Cordless Phones)
    Cumulative Hours on Digital Cell Phone1-5 Yrs Later5-10 Yrs Later10+ Yrs Later
    1,001 – 2,000160%150%200%
    2,000 +80%160%640%
    It’s worth noting this is time spent speaking on the phone, not browsing the web or sending text messages. So this refers to doses of radio frequency and microwave radiation from cell phones to the brain. And the data reveals increased risk from supposedly “safe” doses, but that the risk increases both with the dose, and the amount of time that passes.
    So, while I can not actually answer the question “what are the risks of cell phone use” (brain tumors are but one class of the bioeffects that are documented to result from exposures to cell phone radiation), I have included this one study to note that high-quality peer-reviewed science has identified such risks, and that such risks are demonstrated to increase in a dose-response relationship. The known body of science on the subject of human exposure to cell phone radiation has reached the point where the World Health Organization has identified radio frequency EMF as a Class 2B Carcinogen. Another indicator that this risk is real: a leading Lloyd’s of London underwriter has, since 1999, refused to issue policies to cover cell phone manufacturer’sagainst claims of harm of their consumers’ health.
    The more you use the tech, the greater your cumulative exposure; the greater your cumulative exposure, the greater the risk of forming malignant brain tumors. And the risk continues to increase with time, even if your cumulative use remains unchanged!
    Before moving on, you may ask, “Those are some terrifying numbers! Why don’t I see more of my friends with brain tumors?” To that, I would remind you these types of bioeffects take many years or decades to form, and we have only recently reached the point where large numbers of people have been using cell phones for over a decade (I got my first Nokia in 1999). As well, we are discussing small affected populations to begin with. Doubling, tripling or even sextupling the number of individuals who develop malignant brain tumors, will still result in a relatively small number of people.

    How do EMF Emissions from Glass Compare to Cell Phones?

    Now that we have at least some sort of crude gauge for the risk of cell phone use, the obvious next question is, how does the EMF from Glass compare to that from a cell phone?
    There are different ways of answering that question.
    SAR Measurements from the Leaked FCC Filing for Google Glass
    SAR Measurements from the Leaked FCC Filing for Google Glass
    Let’s start with SAR. According to Google, Glass has an official SAR value of 1.11 W/kg. That places it at the higher end of EMF emissions, compared to cell phones on the market today, but still within FCC limits of 1.6 W/kg. So, per their official SAR values, Glass emits roughly equivalent (though slightly less) EMF radiation than an iPhone 5.
    Using SAR as the only metric, however, obscures a key distinction between technology like Glass and cell phones: they utilize different technologies for communication. Cell phones use cell phone frequencies (3G, 4G, etc.). Glass uses WiFi and Bluetooth. Both WiFi and Bluetooth contain more energy (i.e., operate at higher frequencies) than cell phone data.
    (Yes, it is true that today many cell phones also have WiFi and Bluetooth. But, when the cell phone is held directly against the head, generally the dominant data connection is the cell phone data connection, because the user is on a phone call. Generally, WiFi and Bluetooth are utilized more actively on phones, when the phone is not being held against the head.)
    So, on the one hand, theoretically (according to lab data and FCC filings for Google and Apple), using Glass leads to similar exposures as using an iPhone. On the other hand, these are exposures in a different set of frequencies, that are higher energy than those from an iPhone. What difference that makes is not known, but I will say that the currently known science demonstrates different sets of bioeffects resulting from exposures to different technologies that radiate different frequencies of EMF (e.g., power lines, FM radio, radar, television, microwave ovens, cell phones, etc).

    What is the Relative Risk of Using Technology like Google Glass compared to an iPhone?

    So, let’s assume that Google’s SAR value is accurate as an indicator of risk relative to other phones, and, for the purposes of this discussion, WiFi and Bluetooth radiation present no different risks than those from cell phone radiation.
    There are still some fundamental and inescapable differences between Glass and an iPhone.
    In terms of consumer experience, Google Glass is a fundamentally different piece of technology than an iPhone. As a result, exposures will be much higher than from an iPhone.
    In terms of consumer experience, Google Glass is a fundamentally different piece of technology than an iPhone. As a result, exposures will be much higher than from an iPhone.
    First, you can use tethered headsets with cell phones, to keep the cell phone (and thus the source of the radiation) much further away from the head. With Glass, no such mitigating step is possible, because the device is strapped to your head. There is no way to use Glass without strapping it to your head.
    Second, not only is Glass attached to your head, the computer itself is very close to your temple and eye. These are two of the spots on the head most vulnerable to damage from EMF, because there is no bone to shield from the exposure. The eye, itself, is unshielded by anything. I never see anyone holding their iPhone up to their temple or eyeball. Glass enables a more direct exposure to the more vulnerable parts of the head.
    And third, not only is the EMF exposure from Glass in a more vulnerable location, but Glass is there a lot. The form factor and supported use-cases of Glass encourage you to keep the darn thing on for hours at a time. Since there is no airplane mode (or other means to disable wireless communication) that means users are receiving continuously variable doses of microwave radiation, to their brains and eyes, for hours at a time. (In my tests, even when Glass is “idle” from the user’s perspective, there are frequent periods of significant EMF emissions, as the device syncs data wirelessly.) This means that the average duration of individual doses from Glass will be longer than for cell phones, and the cumulative exposures will accumulate more rapidly (i.e., you will reach 2,000 hours on Glass more rapidly than 2,000 hours on a cell phone).
    Finally, it is important to note that EMF exposures from Glass are generally additive to those from cell phones. Virtually everyone who uses Glass has and uses a cell phone. In fact, much of Glass’ functionality only works when paired with a nearby cell phone. And so, Glass exposures are in addition to what wearers are already receiving from their phones. (As the Hardell data indicates, EMF exposures are cumulative.)
    Having These Technologies, in Such Close Proximity To Brains & Eyes, Is Untested for Medium- and Long-Term Health Effects and Represents Use-Cases Not Considered by Existing FCC Regulations on Wireless Devices
    Having These Technologies, in Such Close Proximity To Brains & Eyes, Is Untested for Medium- and Long-Term Health Effects and Represents Use-Cases Not Considered by Existing FCC Regulations on Wireless Devices
    For these reasons, I believe that Glass represents a tangible risk to the health of those who wear it — a risk quite likely greater than (and in addition to) that represented by those individuals’ existing cell phone usage.
    But, to be clear, the actual risks of technology like Glass can not today be accurately known. To my knowledge, there have been no long-term studies on the different bioeffects that may result from holding a WiFi transmitter against your brain and eyeball, for hours at a time, on an almost daily basis.
    And that’s precisely the point: Glass represents a completely different set of exposures than what’s been studied thus far. As you see from the Hardell study, you need many years of data for the results to be meaningful. So it’ll be awhile before anyone can tell you what the risks are that can result from using Glass, and other similar wearable technologies. All you can do is make best guesses based on the available data.
    Google is selling a product that is untested as to the long-term human health effects.
    Caveat emptor.