1. The presentation took place in the Attlee Suite of Portcullis House, a relatively new annexe to the Houses of Parliament. The Suite seats some 150 people and was pretty well full with standing room only by the start time of 3.00 pm. Although notice of the event had been widely circulated to Members of Parliament, only 3-4 bothered to grace the occasion with their presence - a very poor show. Apart from the presentation’s sponsors, the Radiation Research Trust, like groups including Mast Sanity, HESE-UK, Powerwatch, ElectroSensitivity-UK were well represented together with many individuals concerned about the effect of EMFs on health. Also in attendance was Professor Lawrie Challis, Head of the Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme (and former vice-chairman of Professor Sir William Stewart’s IEGMP) together with representatives from the Health Protection Agency. Finally, Mike Dolan of the Mobile Phone Operators’ Association and several employees of the mobile phone companies were espied at the back of the room. The media appeared to have taken a keen interest with 4 video cameras constantly recording and an undefined number of the press seated in the audience.
2. Dr Carlo delivered a very impressive presentation (30 minutes without pause and without a note in sight). He began by describing the Wireless Technology Research programme and the subsequent foundation of the Safe Wireless Initiative (SWI), the principal mission of which, he emphasised, is not to engage in scientific debate per se but rather to offer immediate practical solutions to the problem of electro-hypersensitivity. He went on to cover a range of conclusions emanating from the Initiative:
a. After listing and describing the disease mechanisms in the three effect windows of the electro-magnetic spectrum he focused on the mid-range radiation where waves are modulated to carry information. It is this area which presents by far the greatest risk to health – particularly so given the proliferation of telecommunications installations.
b. In explanation of the mechanism that ensues, information-carrying waves trigger the protein receptors on the cell membrane. The receptors identify such radiation as foreign invasion and a series of biochemical reactions takes place (within 30 seconds). The cell membrane becomes less permeable which leads to a loss of communication between cells. Nutrients cannot get in, waste cannot get out. Free radical levels within the cell rise. This increase in free radicals creates disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and mitochondrial dysfunction – and thus cell malfunction. The next time the cell undergoes division (mitosis), the compromised DNA is replicated and the new cells act as if under stress even if the original stressor is no longer present (which could well be a basis for electro-hypersensitivity). When affected cells undergo apoptosis (programmed cell death), which is nature’s way of eliminating damaged cells, the micronuclei formed from the disrupted DNA repair are released into nutrient-rich intracellular fluid and are free to clone and proliferate. This is the most likely cancer mechanism. The loss of communication between cells cause by compromised cell membrane in turn damages tissue, organ and organism function; this is the basis for the acute and chronic symptoms associated with electro-sensitive patients. There is no threshold below which these mechanisms do not occur.
3. The solution to the above is three-fold intervention:
- Primary. The reduction/elimination of exposure, e.g. by shielding, and the employment of measures that prevent the inappropriate triggering of the cell receptors, thus acting on the cause of the problem (headsets and active/passive noise field technologies).
- Secondary. The support of the extant biological system through the use of measures that maintain/restore intercellular communication. These measures are most effective in conjunction with primary interventions and include: subtle energy technologies, diodes, and some pendants.
- Tertiary. The use of measures designed to reverse ill effects and to repair cell damage, e.g. by using technologies that act to rehabilitate and correct cell damage. These work only in conjunction with primary and secondary intervention technologies and include: nutritionals, anti-oxidants and repair supplements
The need for safe deployment technologies based on the use of fibre optic spines with an associated reduction in wireless signalling was also emphasised..
4. The SWI has established a register of many thousands of cases of electro-hypersensitivity together with a programme to communicate associated clinical data to the medical profession.
5. Research with autistic children indicated that their condition improved significantly when purged of mercury via chelationin an EMF-free environment. It was discovered that genetic susceptibility and heavy metals (mercury) in brain cells combined with exposure to electro-magnetic radiation, especially from mobile phones and masts, can lead to autistic spectrum disorders. The mechanism is linked to the cell damage explained earlier (the disruption of cell communication with high levels of heavy metals trapped in the nutrient deficient cell). Dr Carlo announced that a study is to be published inside the next two months outlining the link between EMFs, mercury poisoning and autism. He raised the issue of Wifi, particularly its use in schools, and was at pains to express his disgust that children should be the subject of, what he called, a 'mass experiment'.
6. There was no shortage of questions during the ensuing question and answer period. Unfortunately, several individuals in the audience used the invitation to make a statement or, on a couple of occasion, ‘make a speech’ – thus, Dr Carlo’s valuable time was not optimised to the benefit of the majority. Moreover, others fell into the trap of berating a perceived lack of causal research study in the UK (or the unwillingness of the HPA and researchers such as Professor Challis to recognise a link between ill-health/health risks and mobile phone technology) rather than focusing on Dr Carlo’s words and his call for a programme of clinical intervention research.
7. In his summary, Dr Carlo stressed that whilst he respected the 'research studies' being undertaken in the UK into EMFs, and in particular mobile phone technology, and health risks, there is an essential need for a clinical intervention research programme involving the medical profession to be conducted in parallel with causal research. The medical profession needs to be alerted to electro-magnetic sensitivity and trained to recognise its symptoms. And this is the point that many of us would wish to emphasise. People with electro-sensitivity in this country are suffering debilitating ill effects, the symptoms often extreme, with the Government, Health Protection Agency and both primary and secondary medical care practitioners turning a blind eye.
Please see http://www.safewireless.org/.