• Call: (65) 6287 6268

Posts classified under: 2001

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome of Stray-Electricity

Matt Olsen

For years, Marilyn Wilson had a disease with no cure. Doctors couldn’t help her, but an electrician did.

When Marilyn Wilson turned 40, nearly seven years ago, her friends threw her a surprise party. It was the last time in a long time that she remembers feeling good. Within a few years, Wilson was forced to leave her job as a social worker after using up all the sick leave she had accumulated over 17 years. Some days, she could barely pull herself out of bed, and then, after an exhausting day, she couldn’t sleep. Negotiating the stairs became almost unbearable.

By the account, she visited more than 20 doctors, but none could explain what was wrong. Her fatigue could not be attributed to a bacterial or viral infection. Her hands were sometimes too weak to button her own clothes, but multiple sclerosis and related diseases were ruled out.

Eventually she was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). For Wilson, the low point came toward the end of last year: unable to attend holiday celebrations, she even forgot a planned vacation due to the mental “fog” she experienced.

Around this time, in a support group for women diagnosed with CFS, Wilson stumbled across what might have been the most amazing discovery of her life. A woman, also diagnosed with CFS, contacted the group with the news of her own miraculous recovery. The recovery was not due to some new medical miracle. She had simply turned off the power in her house. She felt better right away and within days, her “CFS” symptoms disappeared. Now she keeps her house as de-electrified as possible, convinced that power quality was the root of her illness – and maybe that of others like her.

After “six years of hell”, Wilson was ready to try anything. She called an industrial electrician and consultant who has a long history of working with the phenomenon of “stray electricity” on farms. He came to Wilson’s house and measured to low-voltage, high-frequency current flowing on her wires and throughout her house. He rigged Wilson up with a meter connected to a small audio amplifier. When she touched her sink, her dimmer switches on the doorknob – anything conductive, the amplifier screamed.

Her house was full of high frequency electricity, and she was completing the circuit.

Later measurements confirmed the problem. She put a meter on her kitchen counter and charted how she felt. Peaks in the measured current matched her lowest points in the day. For the first time, Wilson could explain why she felt worse in the early mornings, when people were getting up and turning on appliances and, in the summer, and winter, when electricity usage for air conditioning and heat is at its peak. It was a revelation: “When I began to overlay my life experience with my electrical experience, it all made sense,” CFS was not to blame at all.

“It didn’t get better overnight”. She says, “but it was almost that fast.” Now Wilson, 46, says her symptoms have receded. A disease that her doctors could not cure has undergone a remission that they cannot explain. This has made her a true believer in an issue some dismiss as kooky while others say may be the greatest hidden public health issue of our time.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that there is a problem here,” say Wilson. “And I would like the government and the utilities to acknowledge the problem, identify a solution, and put it into place. People shouldn’t have to worry about whether their power is safe.”

Wilson and her consultant believe the cause of her illness stems from a phenomenon known to electricians and engineers as harmonics.

Electricity normally flows at 50 or 60 cycles per second (Hz) in an alternating current (AC). But computers, TVs, fax machines, fluorescent lighting and various others electronic devices incorporate circuitry that injects high frequency harmonics back into the electric lines. The cumulative effect of everyone turning their appliances on and off throughout the day is to overload the power grid with harmonic frequencies – popularly referred to as “dirty power”.

The standard response from utilities and the state Public Service Commission (PSC) is that electromagnetic fields pose no substantial health risk. But a study published in January 2000 by EPRI, the utility industry research center, found evidence that “may explain the reported associations of residential magnetic fields with childhood leukemia.” This study drew the first link between EMFs and contact currents, popularly known as “stray voltage”.

It’s an interesting coincidence that the classic symptoms of CFS – fatigue, insomnia, muscle and joint pain, headaches and tender or swollen lymph nodes – are almost exactly the same as the symptoms listed by people who are exposed to radio or microwave frequency radiation in a controlled setting.

Last year, The La Crosse Tribune published an award-winning series by reporter Chris Hardie documenting the effects of stray voltage on cows. Farmers have seen the productivity of their herds plummet. Their cattle twitch, moan, pick their feet up constantly and fail to produce milk. Some die.

The literature on the health effects of electromagnetic fields is in fact extensive. Even a causal survey turns up more than 1,000 journal articles. But that literature doesn’t show a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and disease, just a correlational one. The kind of double-blind, peer-reviewed human clinical studies needed to establish mainstream credibility simple have not been done.

While most of the attention garnered by dirty power and harmonics has focused on farms, the problem is not limited to the countryside. This is an issue that crosses town and city boundaries, and we all should be aware of it and want it resolved.

Some feel that in the city the problem is worse because of the number of houses using the electrical grid. The density of houses, each with their own array of gadgetry being turned on and off, overloads the grid with harmonics much faster than in the country. It may be that cows are simply more susceptible to health effects.

For more information about electromagnetic fields, visit www.lessemf.com or contact the EMF Safety SuperStore in New York at: 1-518-392-1946.

Quick Tips for Detoxifying Field Pollution From Cellular Phones, Computer, And Other Electrical Equipment

With cellular phones, computer and other electrical devices have provided much convenience to modern day living, more and more people have also suffered from severe side-effects and illnesses due to over-exposure to radiation, microwave, and electric-magnetic fields (EMF) emitted from this equipment. What can we do to protect ourselves?

This issue was specially addressed in Dr. Lai’s May 2001 workshop in Santa Barbara, CA, USA. Some of the suggested methods in detoxifying and minimizing field disturbances are as follows:

  • Shower or bath with kelp (fresh/dried/powder)

Shower: 1-2 teaspoon(s) on hair

                Larger amount, according to individual need, spread over body

Bath: Approximately ¼ cup, soak for 20-45 minutes

          (Also, bath with sea salt and baking soda helps detoxify radiation).

  • Sun bath (to avoid excessive radiation from sun, do only before 10 am or after 4pm.)
  • In a relatively clean environment, wear as little as possible (e.g., swim wear or naked), stand facing the sun for 5 minutes, then back facing the sun for another 5 minutes.
  • For 1-2 minutes, face the sun, close your eyes and relax! Feel the energy of the sun going through your eyes, into your head, arms, body and legs, visualize negative energy or toxic flowing out of your feet, down the ground and turning into compost for the earth.
  • Spend time with nature, at least once a week, preferably daily.
  • Step on grass (preferably not sprayed with chemicals), bare-footed, for at least 10 minutes per day.
  • Use electric-magnetic fields (EMF) shields
  • Place natural EMF shields (e.g., organic peat moss covered with organic cotton, which may also be worn) on your electrical devices.
  • Wear natural EMF shield that suits you

[For a variety of products and usage, refer to websites: www.lessemf.com, www.TESLAR.com]

  • Eat and drink organic food and juices to help the body detoxify. Whenever possible, has your food prepared in a healthy way with no MSG or any artificial ingredients; avoid using microwave oven for it may destroy the quality of your food. Naturally fermented foods such as rejuvelac, sauerkraut is especially good.

In buying organic produce, we are not only being kind to our own bodies, we are also protecting our living environment. As more and more of us demand organic produce, farmers will respond by supplying more organic plantation. In effect, fewer chemicals will be spraying into the air and soil and prices for organic produce will drop. This benefit will come fast if each one of us participate.

  • Avoid using cellular phones and cut down your time with computer. In buying a new computer, look for those that at least meet the TCO standard (liquid crystal monitors emit no microwave, nor X-ray, but still emit EMF.)

Interesting website:

Microwave & Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure

Cindy Sage, MA

Can radiofrequency radiation (RFR) adversely affect vital processes in the human body? The answer is clearly yes. Can this occur at environmental levels of exposure? The answer is clearly yes. Which processes? What levels? This short paper is an introduction to what we know (and do not know) about RFR.

Bioeffects that are reported to result from RF exposure include changes in cell membrane function, major changes in calcium metabolism and cellular signal communication, cell proliferation, activation of proto-oncogenes, activation of HSP heat shock proteins as if heating has occurred when it has not and cell death. Resulting effects reported in the scientific literature include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, increased free radical production, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function including memory loss, learning impairment, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, reduction in melatonin secretion and cancer. The virtual revolution in science taking place now is based on a growing recognition that non-thermal or low intensity RF exposure can be detected in living tissues and results in well-defined bioeffects.

The most rapidly growing environmental pollutant in today’s environment is probably electromagnetic fields (EMF) including radiofrequency radiation. Public exposure to electromagnetic radiation (radiofrequency and microwave) is growing exponentially worldwide with the introduction and use of cordless phones, cellular phones, pagers and antennas in communities designed to transmit their RF signals. Cell phone exposure can be intense enough to cause DNA damage and/or failure to repair DNA damage in the brain. It’s not necessarily the heating that causes damage. It appears to be exposure to non-thermal levels of RFR that interferes with normal body processes in the brain, skull, ear and nerves of the head, neck and face.

Casual use (a few hours per month) has not yet been linked to increased brain tumors, but heavy users like some business travelers, realtors and physicians have not yet been studied as a group so any reassurance given to cell phones users in recent media coverage of the Muscat study, for example, is false reassurance. The Muscat (JAMA 2001) study compared infrequent users (less than one hour per month) to frequent users (greater than 10 hours per month) effectively blurring any effect for users who may bill 1000 or 2000 or even 2500 minutes per month. However, even this study did report a doubling of risk for neuropithelial tumors. And a tripling of eye cancer (uveal melanoma) was recently reported in cell phone users. The first cancer related to cordless phone use was reported in Sweden where such use was linked to development of angiosarcoma. Some oncologists and brain cancer surgeons report they have excised brain tumors positioned along the antenna alignment and on the side of the head as the cell phone has been used in heavy cell phone users. Although the U.S. media has been relatively silent on reporting studies linking RFR to health effects, this is not true of western European countries, Australian, Israel, the former USSR and China.

Chronic long-term exposure to lower-level RFR from wireless antennas is also linked to some of these effects, particularly on the immune system, mental function, sleep interference and on DNA. These exposures are reported in the range of 0.1 to 10 or 20 microwatts per centimeter squared exposure (a measure of power density in the air). An alternate measure is SAR or specific absorption rate which tells how much energy deposition occurs inside the body (how much RFR is absorbed by different tissues). SARs as low as 0.0024 watts/kilogram whole body exposure at cell phone frequencies are reported to cause serious interference with body processes (in this case DNA damage and/or DNA repair processes).

Long-term and cumulative exposure to such massively increased RF has no precedent in history. These exposures simply did not exist 150 years ago. Life on earth evolved with vanishing small RF exposures, most of that from natural lightning. We have increased the background nonionizing radiation by 1012. There is no conclusive scientific evidence on the safety or risk of such exposures, but a growing body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable. The weight of the evidence that bioeffects occur with RFR exposure is beyond argument and some of the evidence suggests that serious health effects may result, particularly from cumulative or chronic exposure. Scientific study on cumulative effects is very incomplete, and some studies report that low-intensity chronic exposure may produce permanent adverse health consequences.


Public policies to address the issue of decision making in the face of this scientific uncertainty are evolving but are far behind the growth curve of wireless communications. The global infrastructure will be in place before we know what the health risks will be. The precautionary principle (erring on the side of conservatism) is frequently promoted by public health advocates given the massive public health risk that is possible if such exposure is carcinogenic or has other adverse bioeffects. Even if the risk to an individual is slight (which is at present suspected but not conclusively proven), the sheer number of people around the globe who may be at risk makes this policy choice of utmost importance. At present, no U.S. agency systematically monitors health effects from radiofrequency/ microwave radiation. The wireless industry was recently required to provide mobile phone buyers with the SAR (specific absorption rate or a measure of energy absorbed into the brain from mobile phones). The industry has stated it will not post SARs on the box, but place it hidden inside to prevent comparison shopping. The FDA is allowing this as compliance with its recommendation to provide meaningful information to the public.

The United State has a de facto policy of “post-sales surveillance” with respect to mobile phones. This means mobile phones can be sold to the public and only after years of use might there be studies to characterize what health consequences, if any, have arisen as a result. In shorter terms, “we are the experiment” for health effects. “Post-sales surveillance” is inadequate to protect existing users. And given that the U.S. has no research funding for RF exposure, there will be no systematic look at what mobile phone use does to people.


While the scientific community continues to study and understand the physical (and quantum mechanic) basis for electromagnetic effects on living systems, there is little to protector inform the public about consequences of unlimited reliance on these new technologies. For all the potential good that such inventions bring to the U.S., including the immeasurable benefit of the telecommunications/internet revolution, we must be vigilant about what consequences may come uninvited. The evidence for an association between RFR and bioeffects in living systems spans the entire range from effects on individual atoms (calcium) and molecules (DNA or the genetic code in each living cell) to humans and other mammalian species. In the past 50 years, experimentation across the electromagnetic spectrum of frequencies has found replicable bioeffects on everything from mice to humans. The cascade of biological, chemical and physical events that occur in living systems in response to RFR is better understood as the multi-disciplinary scientific community and its science matures. Disease is not the only endpoint of this research. The potential medicinal applications of RFR treatment may also offer unparalleled opportunities for healing and wellness as we gain understanding of how the body receives, processes and responds to the subtle information contained in radiofrequency/microwave energy.


The environmental illness is sometimes termed electro stress or technostress, electro sensitivity or electric allergy. Patients may comment on minor, annoying symptoms or they may be severely debilitated. EMF/RFR exposure can interfere with sleep, work and normal life. What kinds of symptoms might a physician hear from a patient? The most common complaints are; headaches, dizziness and nausea; failing memory, confusion and spatial disorientation; pain and burning feeling in the eyes; parched, thirsty or dry feeling that is not quenched with drinking; ringing in the ears (tinnitus or similar chronic ear-noises); irregular heartbeat and palpitations (shaky stressed feelings); fatigue or exhaustion; insomnia and sleep difficulties; skin rashes and sunburn-like redness and swelling of face and neck; burning or tingling of face and extremities and light sensitivity.

Symptoms quickly improve when away from EMF/RFR sources, particularly when the patient moves away from computers, interior fluorescent lighting, transformers, wireless antenna exposures, cell phones and cordless phones, appliances and out of proximity to freeways, electrical substations and power lines, airports, military bases and doppler or other radar installations. All these are potential sources of higher-than-normal EMF/RFR exposure. Symptoms return very quickly on returning to the original environment. Over time, it appears that sensitivity is increased to smaller and smaller EMF/RFR exposures.

Treatment is not well established, since there is little to no agreement about whether this is a true medical syndrome. Patients report that eliminating exposures to EMF/RFR is the primary way they deal with their symptoms. Occupational exposures that result in chronic symptoms generally cannot be treated without a change in work environment. Some researchers find that the antioxidants can retard or eliminate RFR effects in cellular studies (probably by reducing free-radical damage or cellular stress known to occur with RFR exposure).


What about Cordless Phones in Your Home (As Opposed to Mobile or Mobile Phones)?

Cordless phones that you use around the house have far lower levels of RFR, but they still produce RFR that a land line does not. In preference, use a land line, then a cordless, then a mobile phone for continual use, particularly for children.

What About Driving and Using a Cell Phone at the Same Time?

Cell phone use by a driver of a car increase the risk of accident by 4 X (a four hundred percent risk) which is equivalent to driving under the influence of alcohol. This may be due both to the distraction and to physical effects of cell phone RFR on the brain, eye and body of the cell phone user.

Are Children at Any Greater Risk?

Probably, since children are growing, and their cells are turning over faster than adults. Many of the studies linking power lines and cancer show that children are particularly sensitive to low EMF levels from chronic exposure and develop leukemias in response. The use of “kiddy mobile phones” with a button for mom and a button for dad are terrible ideas at this point.


If you are sitting or standing near a person using a mobile phone, be aware that you are within their radiation pattern for a few feet in all directions. If you are using a mobile phone in the ear, your passenger and very possibly your kids in the back seat are within the radiation pattern of the mobile phone. Involuntary exposure to RFR may ultimately be viewed as unacceptable as to “second-hand smoke”, in other counties like Japan, there are mobile phone jammers that can be used to kill mobile phone transmissions. They are popular in restaurants, theatres and on the subway. They cover a large room area.

What About the Cell Towers in Neighborhoods?

It is worrisome that the installation of antennas go up in neighborhood locations, near schools, churches and homes. These wireless antennas expose people to involuntary, chronic RFR. Low levels of RFR, which have been shown to be bioactive, are associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Unfortunately, local agencies are prevented from considering RFR health and safety issues in siting/zoning. The FCC is in charge of RFR; the current FCC standard is 1000 W/cm2. But some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the 0.01 to 100 W/cm2 range (far lower). Other countries limit public exposure to 0.1 W/cm2 in recognition of bioeffects and potential adverse health effects of nonthermal RFR exposure (Salzburg).

What Are Scientists and Public Policy Researchers Saying About RFR?

The Vienna Resolution (October 1998) provided a consensus statement signed by 16 of the world’s leading bioelectromagnetic researchers. It says there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposures are established. It also says that existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. That means, no safe exposure is established. It also urges that there be public participation in making decisions about setting limits and advises that technical information be made available for comparison of EMF exposure in communication devices so that users can make informed decisions for prudent avoidance of EMF.

The Salzburg Resolution (June 2000) was adopted at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting and would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than 0.1 microwatt/centimeter squared. This would reduce public exposure below 0.1 W/cm2 in all places. It is a limit that takes into account nonthermal RF bioeffects and reported health effects.

At What Point Do We Adopt Strategies that Are Protective of Public Health?

The basis for decision-making about a relationship between electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency and microwave radiation and adverse health effects at low intensity exposure rests on two key areas. The first is the “weight of the scientific evidence” pointing to a relationship between RF/MW and illness. The scientific evidence needs to be reported to decision-makers in a format that is concise, understandable and accurate.

The second definition of the basis on which the evidence is judged to be sufficient to take interim or permanent public health steps to reduce risk. Conclusive scientific evidence should not be implicitly or explicitly set as the goal required before any action can be taken to limit public exposure to RF/MW from wireless communication. Given the potential for a very large world-wide public health impact if even a small health risk is present, interim public health actions should be proportionately triggered to the weight of scientific evidence as it grows in support of adverse health effects at low-intensity exposure levels.

For further information contact Sage Associates at [email protected] and visit www.sageassociates.net on the web. A technical manuscript on Radiofrequency Radiation Health Studies is available at a nominal charge for copy and shipping. Ask for Testimony to the UK and Scottish Parliaments by Sage Associates.

Cindy Sage is the owner of Sage Associates, an environmental consulting firm located in Montecito, California. She has been involved in EMF issues as a land use consultant and public policy researcher since 1982. Her firm specializes in land use planning where EMF computer modelling is performed to predict setbacks for magnetic fields.

Wireless means Radiation

Arthur Firstenberg

From Japan, friends write me saying people suddenly stopped being social about five years ago. They stay home and don’t want to be physically active. In Sweden, prescriptions for sleeping pills for young women doubled between 1994 and 1996, and prescriptions for anti-depressants increased 40%. In these and other countries, something happened in the mid to late 1990s that disrupted the social fabric and had a large impact on public health. What was it?

Here in the United States the wireless revolution arrived with major fanfare in the fall of 1996. The Federal Communications Commission had auctioned off huge amounts of radio spectrum, and large corporations invested billions of dollars in equipment and infrastructure in time for the gift-giving season in two dozen major cities. The result today is similar to what is occurring almost everywhere in the world: towers and antennas sprouting like wildflowers from fields, forests, and electronics rooftop gardens; and mobile phones glued to ears of some one billion people worldwide. And not just mobile phones: radio waves, supposedly as safe as water, are being used to transmit data, connect computers, connect cordless home phones, collect tolls, monitor traffic, track railway cars, open garage doors, lock and unlock cars, turn on and off television sets, transmit to hearing aids in theatres, power new kinds of light bulbs, monitor environmental conditions, forecast the weather, etc., etc., etc. Thousands of satellites broadcasting from space make this type of pollution impossible to escape.

Like fish in the sea, most people do not notice the radio waves we are swimming in because we never leave them. And yet, one scientist recently remarked that if Neil Armstrong had tokened a mobile phone to the moon in 1968, it would have been the single most powerful source of microwave radiation impacting the earth at that time from space, next to the Sun. The amount of microwaves our planet swims in today far surpasses the output of the sun. Clearly, we have completely altered our electromagnetic environment in an incredibly short amount of time, without regard to consequences. This pollution takes the form of radio waves of a great range of frequencies and wavelengths, from extra low frequency (ELF) waves to high frequency waves to microwaves all the way up to infrared radiation and coherent visible light (lasers).

The consequences are noticeable in a number of ways.

First, human sensitivity to electricity and radiation is not uniform. Despite widespread denial that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) cause disease, large numbers of people in dozens of countries are suffering so terribly that they are no longer keeping silent about it. At 1998 statewide survey by the California Department of Health Services found that 3.3% of the population surveyed said they were “allergic or very sensitive to getting near electrical appliances, computers or power lines”. Extrapolating to the entire United States, this means that about 9 million people react so severely to EMR that they cannot be convinced otherwise by experts, doctors, and friends.

The social stigma that always comes when one admits to being electrically sensitive is so great that the true extent of this health problem is likely to be much larger. Among the thousands of electrically sensitive people, I have heard from during the past five years, the experience of rejection is always the same. Friends and family members abandon them, their spouses often leave them, and their doctors advise psychiatric help. In the 1998 California survey, 53% of these people were unemployed or unable to work, and 38% had income below $15,000. The authors found, however, that these people were not much more likely than average to believe that electromagnetic fields (EMF) are a health risk. Perception of risk did not, therefore, explain the prevalence of this problem. Some organizations and support groups for electrically sensitive people are the Cellular Phone Taskforce (USA); Föreningen för El- och Bildskärmsskadade (FEB) (Sweden); El-og Billedskaermsskaded I Danmark (EBD) (Denmark); Association Europeenne d’ Aide aux Victimes des Champs Electromagnetiques (AVICEM) (France); Teslabel Coordination (Belgium); Suomen Sahl Koyliherkkien Tuki Ry (SSYHTRY)(Finland); Arbeitskreis fur Elektrosensible e.V. (Germany); Circuit (England); Irish Electromagnetic Radiation Victims Network (Ireland); Gauss Network (Japan); and the Electromagnetic Radiation Awareness Network (Australia).

Symptoms of exposure commonly include insomnia, headaches, dizziness, nausea, memory problems, difficulty concentrating, irritability, flu-like illness, fatigue, weakness, pressure or pain in the chest, pressure behind the eyes, swollen throat, thirst, dry lips or mouth, sweating, fever, muscle spasms, tremors, pain in the legs or the soles of the feet, testicular or pelvic pain, joint pains, nosebleeds, digestive problems, skin rash, ringing in the ears and impaired sense of smell.

A second indication what is occurring comes from mortality statistics. The proponents of wireless technology claim there is no problem because life expectancy is still rising. Nevertheless, it can be shown that new sources of EMR are already having temporary effects on mortality that mimic disease epidemics. For example, in 1999 I published my analysis of statistics which were provided me by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. It showed that the beginning of digital cellular phone service in dozens of cities during 1996 or 1997 was accompanied by a 10-25% rise in total mortality lasting approximately 2-3 months. The increase in mortality began, in each case, within a day or two of the beginning of cell phone service.

A third indication of a problem is the recent rise in the incidence of certain diseases that are predicted, from the medical literature, to occur as a result of exposure to EMR. The greatest store of information about radio waves sickness was accumulated beginning in the 1950s in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by studying workers exposed to radio waves on the job. Excellent research on the health effects of radio waves was also done in the U.S. during the same period of time by a number of scientists, notable Dr. Milton Zaret, an ophthalmologist, and Dr. Allan Frey, a biologist. Dr. Frey was the first to discover a phenomenon, now well recognized, called microwave hearing – the sensation of sound caused directly by low energy microwave radiation.

In the 1990s several well publicised epidemiological studies showed similar health effects caused to the population living near: a short-wave radio tower at Schwarzenburg, Switzerland; a long wave radio at Konstantynow, Poland and an early warning radar station at Skrunda, Latvia. There have also been an increasing number of medical reports of similar health problems among users of mobile phones.

The diseases that are now rising, worldwide, that are to be expected from the exposure to radio waves, include asthma; hypertension; “tinnitus” (which is often not tinnitus but the hearing of electricity or radio waves); sleep disorders; depression; memory loss; chronic fatigue; and multiple sclerosis. Flu-like symptoms are also increasing and too readily being attributed to new viruses without looking for the likely environmental causes. There is also some indication that the incidence of cerebral hemorrhage, especially in young people, is beginning to increase again in many parts of the world. This may be related to the leakage of the small capillaries in the brain (a breakdown of the so-called “blood-brain barrier”) that many researchers have found occurs upon exposure to even extremely low levels of radio frequency radiation.

A fourth indication of a problem comes from observations of animals by farmers, veterinarians, wildlife biologists, and birdwatchers. It has been known since the 1920s that homing pigeons become disorientated by novel radio frequency fields, and those who are still racing pigeons today will tell you that it is becoming more difficult to keep their birds healthy. They also lose more birds during races than they used to. Disorientated pigeons are found thousands of miles from home or become lost and are never found.

The same disorientation is probably responsible for an increasing number of wild birds killed by radio towers. Some, no doubt, are attracted to the lights on top, or crash inadvertently into the nearly-invisible guy wires. But there have also been incidents of thousands of birds at once flying full force into the ground near a radio tower, and other reports, as yet unexplained, of massive numbers of birds simply falling out of the sky, in several cases carpeting a major highway. Attempts to explain the special sensitivity of birds to microwave radiation led one Canadian research team led by Dr. J. Bigu Del Blanco, in 1973, to postulate that feathers function as radio antennas and amplify the incoming signals. In careful experiments they found that bird feathers do indeed make fine microwave receiving aerials.

Dairy farmers have also been yelling about the effects of radio and mobile phone towers on their animals. This has been well documented both in Europe and the USA. The most obvious, and expensive, effect is a decline in milk production – the same effect that alerted so many farmers the older, but similar, stray voltage problem from electric power distribution systems. Cows are also experiencing still births, spontaneous abortions, birth deformities, behavior problems, and sudden declines in health without other explanation. In some cases, the whole herd or individual animals have regained their health immediately upon removal to a remote location away from the radio tower.

According to Dr. Robert O. Becker, author of The Body Electric (Morrow, 1985) and a pioneer in the field of bioelectromagnetic, electromagnetic pollution is the greatest threat to our environment, greater even than global warming.

The complete failure of society to deal with, or even recognize, this threat, has a long history – going back at least two centuries to the debate between Volta and Galvani about the existence of what the latter called “animal electricity”. It was not until the early 1900s, however, that it was firmly established among mainstream scientists that electricity and the life force must be two separate things, and that the one cannot have any effect upon the other. It has, in fact, been necessary to deny any effect in order to build up the modern technological web which is so intimately dependent on an ever-growing supply of artificially produced electricity. This has not been without consequences to health from the very beginning, but until five or six years ago we have (for the most part) being getting away with it. Now a threshold has been crossed.

The goal of wireless technology is that people never be out of touch with one another, no matter where they go. But this means the irradiation of every square inch of the earth’s surface, both sea and land, which is absolutely unprecedented.

For the survival of life on our planet, this must stop.

There are various measures one may take, at home, to minimize one’s personal exposure to EMFs, and to protect oneself against their effects. For example, fermented live foods such as yogurt, sauerkraut, and miso, are said to be protective against all forms of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Dissolving natural clay in one’s bath water seems to help. Some say this increases the conductivity of the water and helps to discharge the body. A variety of ways to try to shield one’s home or one’s body – special paint, clothing, pendants, etc. – are on the market, but none are completely effective, and some do more harm than good. A simple hygienic measure which should be taught in all schools is to unplug appliances, especially televisions and computers, when they are not in use.

But the most important thing to do is to never use any wireless devices in one’s home or at work, and – for our common benefit and future – to educate others to do the same.

Biographical information

Arthur Firstenberg is the founder and president of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, the editor of its publication “No Place to Hide” and the author of “Microwaving our Planet: the Environment Impact of the Wireless Revolution” (Cellular Phone Taskforce, 1997). He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University in 1971 with a B.A. in Mathematics and Physics and went to medical school at the University of California, Irvine from 1978 to 1982. Injury by X-ray overdose cut short medical career. It also led him to study the health effects of electromagnetic radiation for the past 20 years.

He is also a certified practitioner of the Feldenkrais and Rubenfeld Synergy Methods of Healing.

Aug 2001

Perhaps you may wish to know about: The Correlation between Women Wellness and Progesterone; Estrogen.

Mandy Hsian

John R. Lee, M.D. is a retired specialist in internal medicine. During his thirty years of professional practice, he noticed a steady increase in osteoporosis and a decline in women’s health. These worrying trends prompt him to investigate the root of the problem instead of merely administering the treatment. He also found that it was possible to treat these ailments with long-existing natural products. This is well documented in his book, “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause”. The following is extracted from his speech when he addressed 500 women in Atlanta.

After a few years of professional practice, I realized that doctors normally wait until the patients are ill before treatment is considered. This is because medical schools only teach them to diagnose and then treat accordingly. They are not taught how an illness started. I have come to the understanding that if the root of the illness is identified, the correct approach is to take precautions so as to avoid its occurrence by adjusting one’s lifestyle and eating habit. For this reason, I have focused on the prevention rather than the cure.

After practicing medicine for many years, my patients have also become older. Many of my female patients have approached menopause. They complain of irregular menstruation, breast tenderness, depression, water retention, thyroid dysfunction mimicking hypothyroidism, decreased libido (sex drive). There is an increase in the number of osteoporosis sufferers. The normal medical practice is to treat with a female hormone known as Estrogen. Estrogen treatment, however, has been proven to increase cancer risks. Thus, Estrogen treatment cannot be used for patients suffering from breast cancer, diabetes and obesity. I want my patients to change their eating habits, take calcium tablets and vitamin D. However, this is not enough to increase the density of the bone. I do not believe that Mother Nature is so cruel; there must be a better treatment.

During a seminar in 1976, a speaker pointed out that doctors should prescribe another female hormone progesterone when they treat patients with Estrogen. This is because progesterone can help prevent cancer in women. I think it is reasonable, because the ovary makes these two hormones at the same time. I attended another seminar in 1978 where a speaker queried the logic of administering only Estrogen and omitting the naturally available progesterone in the treatment of women wellness. Natural progesterone is occurring in wild yams, soybean and some 5000 different plants. As it is classified as a cosmetic, safe and without side effects, a doctor’s prescription is not necessary when purchasing progesterone. Upon hearing this, I was very interested and collected some more information from him so as to do some further investigation myself. I told my patients first to determine their bone density, then to buy progesterone cream to apply; and to test their bone density again after one year to determine if there has been any improvement. My patients came back to inform me that there was a general improvement in their health. There was no more water retention; even the skin and hair texture has improved; and more importantly their bone has improved.

Bone tissues renew themselves voluntarily. When old bone tissues resorb (osteoclasts), new ones are formed (osteoblasts). Estrogen slows down the reabsorption process but does not increase the bone mass and density. On the other hand, progesterone stimulates the formation of new bone and thus improving the bone mass and density. The ovary produces 20mg of progesterone daily from the day it ovulates to the day before menstruation. Progesterone is also produced by the placenta during pregnancy up to 400mg daily during the last 3 months of gestation. Thus, a daily dosage between 20 to 400mg is considered safe.

After the egg is fertilized, the ovary would produce more progesterone, which plays an important role in engorging blood to endometrium (uterine lining) in preparation for the embedding of the fertilized egg. If progesterone is insufficient, the fertilized egg would not be embedded, and this would result in voluntary abortion. After the fertilized egg is embedded, the ovary will continue to produce progesterone until the placenta is formed to take over its production. Towards the last 3 months of pregnancy, the placenta is able to produce 400mg of progesterone daily as the expectant mother reaches the peak of her physical condition. Thus, from the day she conceives to the day she delivers, progesterone is an indispensable hormone to the expectant mother. The majority of people think that this is the only function of progesterone. In reality, progesterone plays an important role throughout the body; from the nervous system, thyroid gland, brain cells, rebuilding muscles to the general well-being of the person. For instance, progesterone is an important element in building the membrane that protects the brain. Thus, there is 20 times more progesterone in the brain cells than in the blood cells. This explains why dementia old ladies regain their mental abilities after applying progesterone cream. Furthermore, progesterone can also convert fat into the body into energy. Thus, progesterone promotes health.

In 1938, a South American doctor devised a method to convert progesterone-like substance in plants exactly the same molecule as human progesterone. It was used to manufacture progesterone cream that can be completely utilized by the human body without any side effects. However, since this progesterone molecule is completely identical to that found in the human body, the pharmaceutical manufacturers are not able to patent it. Thus, they modified the structure of these molecules which were derived from wild yams, to preserve only some of the special properties of progesterone. Then they use these modified molecules to manufacture drugs such as contraceptives; and at the same time have their modified progesterone (progestin) patented. However, this man-made progesterone has lost most of its good qualities and at the same time picked up several undesirable side effects. Pharmaceutical manufacturers use this synthetic progesterone to produce hormone-related drugs. One example is “Provera”, a widely prescribed drug that has many side effects.

I have found that natural progesterone is most effective when applied on skin; 40 to 70 times as effective as taken orally. Its molecule size is smaller than that of a cholesterol molecule and can be totally absorbed through skin into the underlying fat layers, then into muscle tissues and to blood, attach itself to the red blood cells but cannot be detected during blood serum tests. After applying the cream, doctors were not able to detect progesterone in the blood serum test and dismissed the treatment as being ineffective. However, the patients’ condition did improve; so doctors attributed the improvement to psychological aspects. Little did they know that they were looking at the wrong places for answers and had come to a wrong conclusion. Fortunately, present day sophisticated technology made it possible to detect the amount of progesterone and Estrogen in saliva.

In my circle of female friends and relatives, those who are above 40 years of age have either removed their uterus or are taking Estrogen. The story goes like this: when she reaches her forties and is approaching menopause, her menstruation becomes irregular and she does not feel well; being plagued by headache, interrupted sleep, breast tenderness, etc. She would be told by her doctor that she is approaching menopause and is advised to take Estrogen. In fact, it’s the lack of progesterone that is responsible for her sufferings. After taking Estrogen, her condition worsened, and the doctor prescribes a higher dosage resulting in blood clotting discharge. This happens because Estrogen increases the metabolism rate of the uterus cells. Then the doctor announces that this is a pre-cancer phenomenon and advises the patient to have her uterus removed surgically. In this way, one error leads to another, resulting in a large number of post-menopause women losing their wombs.

Another point to note is that there are too many brands of progesterone cream available in the market presently, which does not contain progesterone or have less of it in its content. I feel that a reasonable content should be 400 to 480mg of progesterone to every ounce of the product. An ounce of the stuff is just nice for a month’s supply of 24 days of usage. It averages out to a daily usage of 20mg, which is the quantity that the ovary would produce daily.

Recently, some French doctors together with their Taiwanese counterparts conducted “Double Blind Test” on some 40 women patients who were scheduled for surgery to remove the breasts in 10 days’ time. One group of 10 women was given progesterone (20mg daily) to apply; another group of 10 was given Estrogen; a third group of 10 was given both progesterone as well as Estrogen; and the last group of 10 was given a ‘placebo’ cream. Ten days later, all 40 women went for surgery as scheduled and specimens from their breasts were collected at the same time for biopsy. Using results from the last test group as standard, it was found that the ‘progesterone group’ had progesterone levels 100 times higher than the standard – the same level as that of a normal healthy menstruating female. The ‘Estrogen group’ had Estrogen level 100 times higher than the standard; providing evidence that both hormones can easily be absorbed into the body through the skin. Furthermore, two methods were used to gauge the rate of growth of the cancerous breast cells; the so-called cancerous cells are actually normal cells that were growing too fast, resulting in tumor formation. The result shows that the ‘progesterone group’ has a growth rate of 15% lower than that of the ‘placebo’ control group, the Estrogen group has a growth rate of 250% higher than the standard. The group that used both progesterone and estrogen did not have a significantly higher growth rate – indicating progesterone being the ‘winner’.

In America, 50% of women above the age of 35 suffer serious deficiencies in progesterone. After menopause when the ovary stopped producing progesterone, progesterone level in the body dropped to zero. However, Estrogen level merely declined to 40 – 60% of the previous level because fat cells in the body continued to produce it. The situation is similar to those women who have their uterus removed surgically. This is what I call ‘Estrogen dominance’. The cause may be due to excessive calories in the body, ovary produces insufficient progesterone, man-made hormones from meat in the diet, or high dosage of Estrogen that should not be prescribed by the doctor. The remedy to this situation is to avoid overeating, to adopt a meatless eating habit, etc. As to insufficient progesterone being produced by the ovary, this is due to environmental circumstances that have damaged the normal function of the ovary.

If you are above 35 and have health symptoms described above, there is a strong likelihood that you are suffering from a deficiency in progesterone. This can easily be confirmed by a saliva test to determine your progesterone level. Allow your doctor to know that there is a lack of progesterone and excess of Estrogen in your condition.

My talk ends here and we shall spend the rest of our time answering some questions.

Please explain the relationship between Fibroid Tumor and progesterone

My personal opinion is that all Fibroid Tumor is caused by excessive Estrogen. If it is possible to return the level of progesterone back to normal and maintain it right up till and past menopause; that is when less Estrogen is produced and a lower level of progesterone is permissible, the tumor will shrink gradually. However, if the fibroid tumor is massive (larger than a bunch of grapes), then it will have to be surgically removed. Otherwise, it is possible to control the condition with progesterone. The method is start counting the day when menstruation starts as day 1, apply progesterone externally from day 12 to day 26; repeat the treatment the following month for the new menstruation cycle. Generally, there will be about 30% reduction in the fibroids, which will eventually shrink after menopause.

Is progesterone helpful to those women who have undergone chemotherapy as a treatment for breast cancer?

In recent years, doctors need to review the definition of breast cancer. In some cases, doctors declare breast cancer as soon as they see tiny growths dispersed over the chest area and immediately recommend chemotherapy or radiation treatment. The results were good, as there was no case to begin with. If the patient had changed her eating habit and stopped consuming Estrogen then, there would be no need for treatment at all. However, if it were a genuine case, my recommendation is to avoid Estrogen completely and eat a meatless diet (to eliminate taking man-made hormones in the meat) and at the same time start using progesterone.

Is applying progesterone effective for cyst found on the breast?

If it were really cyst, three months of application of progesterone would significantly improve the condition. There was a case where this lady had fast growing cyst and needed surgery to remove both breasts the following week. I recommended her to use progesterone from the 12th to the 26th day of her menstruation cycle (counting as 1st day when menstruation begins). Two months later, her cyst disappeared and there was no need for surgery.

My daughter has painful menstruation that requires emergency treatment at times. Doctors prescribed contraceptives but it was not much help. Further, she becomes depressed and temperamental. Would progesterone be helpful?

Contraceptives are harmful to the body. Estrogen in the contraceptives takes the copper out from the cells to the blood stream and restrains the absorption of zinc. Copper and zinc are important elements in the brain cells; if their levels were not in balance, it would lead to depression and mental problems. These are the consequences of taking contraceptives and should be avoided. Using progesterone definitely helps, but more importantly is to change her eating habit.

Have you let the health maintenance organizations (HMOs) understand this information? They should be very interested.

Many research and health maintenance organizations depended on funds donated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Someone has already sent my book to them. After reading, they did not know whom I was and what to do. Some pharmaceutical manufacturers spread the rumor that I was a Chinese doctor (note: Dr. Lee is not a Chinese) who owned 50% of progesterone manufacturing facilities. These are lies. I am merely a medical doctor who has written a book to share my 15-year experience using progesterone. Non-believers can test it out personally. A lady followed my recommendations to apply progesterone and had her osteoporosis condition vastly improved. Her doctor, who did not believe it the virtues of progesterone, recommended her a new man-made progesterone product. She wrote a letter to him saying, “Why do you keep on advertising for the manufacturer? You have forgotten that I use only natural progesterone. My bone density has increased by 35% within 2 ½ years whereas the new product cannot even stimulate a 5% improvement. Why then are you so persistent in promoting this product?” In my opinion, these organizations will take note and carry out their own tests only when everyone continuously makes known her observations. In this way, it may be more effective in raising their awareness. It gives me great satisfaction to be able to clarify these facts.

Recently, the medical authority announced that Estrogen is beneficial to women suffering from heart related ailments. What do you think?

In America, Estrogen is the most popular drug prescribed by doctors, but many smart women refused to use them presently. In order to promote their products, manufacturers announced that they are good for the heart and osteoporosis. Among the related medical reports that I have read, 16 said that Estrogen did not do heart cases any good, 2 claimed that it actually caused a stroke, only 1 research report from Harvard claimed that it was helpful for heart problems. However, in this research project, the control group of women who were not taking Estrogen was in the high-risk category; participants being obese addicted to drugs or diabetic. In fact, this group of people cannot use Estrogen anymore. The other research group of women who used Estrogen were slim, clear of drugs and women who regularly exercised. Under such unfair comparison parameters, more non-Estrogen users died of heart attacks; this report however, failed to explain to doctors the increase the 48% of stroke cases in the Estrogen consuming group. In my opinion, the manufacturers were obviously trying to mislead doctors in order to boost their sales.

Is progesterone helpful to men suffering from prostate cancer?

I believe that the lack of progesterone does damage to the prostate gland. I have heard many cases of varying degrees of recovery after applying progesterone. One male patient’s condition was so bad that he was advised by his doctor to go for surgery. He asked for some time to consider. At the same time, his wife was using progesterone for treating her osteoporosis and he tried some on himself too. He found it quite good. Six months later, his medical report showed that there were no more cancerous cells. According to feedback from patients, I strongly believe that there is indeed some connection between progesterone and prostate cancer. Unfortunately, there is no research being conducted in this area presently. Personally, I would recommend progesterone for men suffering from prostate cancer.

Recommended reading:

  • Natural Progesterone by Anna Rushton & Dr. Shirley A Bond. Thorsons Publishing
  • Breast Cancer: What You Should Know (But May Not Be Told) About Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment by Austin, Steve, N.D., and Cathy Hitchcock, M.S.W. Prima Publishing
  • Eat Right, Live Longer by Bernard, Neal, M.D. New York: Harmony Books
  • The Menopause Industry: How the Medical Establishment Exploits Women. By Coney, Sandra, Hunter House