Random Quote

The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.

The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also in the radiofrequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard.

There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm. The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.

Abraham R. Liboff, PhD

Research Professor
Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
Co-Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine


Too Little, Too Weak, Too Late

electromagnetic radiation legislators

Read EMR Stop's position on the 2011 WHO IARC announcement that mobile phone radiation is a "2B potential Carcinogen".

follow emrstop on twitter

Are you being harmed by Electromagnetic Radiation?
An introductory page to our information section.

Information Pages on
mobile phone base stations.

Cellular/Mobile Phone
Tower/Base Station Documents

EMR Politics & Research Pages

(better view of above image here)

Electronic documents repository home page

Mobile phone danger
information pages.

Mobile phone danger Documents

Wireless LAN (wi-fi) danger pages

Wi-Fi & DECT danger documents

WiFi in Schools - The Facts
EMR Issues - Wireless LAN & DECT Dangers
A good summary of the problems with the premature widespread implementation of wi-fi in schools.

"Smart Meters" & EMR: The Health Crisis Of Our Time - Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt
EMR Issues - EMF/EMR General Information
Leszczynski: FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP should tighten safety standards
EMR Issues - EMF Politics & Research Analyses

HELSINKI, Finland, April 9, 2013 – Current safety standards for the radiation emissions from cell phones are old. FCC standard is from 1996 and ICNIRP from 1998. Since that time, a large number of research studies have been published, some of which pointed towards the possible health risk of exposures to cell phone radiation.

In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer invited 30 experts to evaluate scientific evidence concerning the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation.

As a result of nearly 2 weeks of deliberations, IARC experts voted to classify the cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen, a class 2B carcinogen. In everyday language it means that although we do not have ultimate proof that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic, we have enough scientific evidence to suspect such possibility and be cautious when using these devices.

The decision of the international experts was based mainly on the epidemiological evidence and on the evidence provided by the animal studies. The evidence provided by the laboratory studies was considered too weak to strengthen the classification of carcinogenicity and put it into class 2A carcinogen category, which is a probable carcinogen.

The classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen came as a great surprise to the scientific community and to the industry alike. Those who disagreed, called the classification flawed and a variety of second-hand “spin” stories were published in the news media denouncing the classification.

Saying that the IARC classification is flawed is incorrect for the following reasons:

Resonance - Beings of Frequency
EMR Issues - EMF/EMR General Information
Magda Havas on WiFi Dangers
EMR Issues - Wireless LAN & DECT Dangers

A 1984 study entitled "Long-term, low level microwave irradiation of rats" found that pulsed 2.4 GHz radiation (exactly that found in wi-fi) caused, to rats exposed, a

16% increase benign tumours

100% metastatic tumours

260% increase in primary tumours

This is what we are exposing our children to whenever we implement wi-fi in schools.

Of course, this is completely insane, unless you are actually wanting to make children sick...


Israeli Knesset passes bill requiring labelling on cell phones, just like cigarettes
EMR Issues - Dangers of Mobile/Cell Phones

GREAT NEWS for the health of Israelis that will hopefully have a flow on effect the world over--The Israeli Knesset has passed a bill requiring mobile phones to be labelled just like cigarettes, and particuarly emphasising the vulnerability of our youth.

From Haaretz

Knesset backs bill requiring cell phones to bear health hazard warning
The labels will read 'Warning - the Health Ministry cautions that heavy use and carrying the device next to the body may increase the risk of cancer, especially among children.'

By Ronny Linder-Ganz

A bill requiring all cellphones sold in Israel to bear a health-hazard warning label  passed its first of three readings into law on Wednesday.

The bill, sponsored by MK Dov Khenin of Hadash and Yulia Shamalov Berkovich of Kadima, won blanket approval in parliament. It also requires all advertisements of mobile phones to bear the warning.

Welcome to EMRStop.org

EMR StopPart of the EMF Stop cluster of sites including

EMR STOP.org   - tune in
EMR STOP.net   - join in
EMR STOP.com - fight the EMR

The .org site is an information site.

It is all about dissent to man-made Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) in our environment.

The principle of this site is that EMR poses to us (and other life on this planet) very grave dangers.

Our position is that:
The science is incontrovertible.
The danger is almost omnipresent.
The political and economic motivations that have given rise to the environmental situation are disgusting and unforgivable.
The need for rectification of this situation is immediate and urgent.

This website is intended as a clear answer to all of the wishy-washy uncertainty that has been cast over the supposed scientific controversy as to whether or not EMR causes harm. Enough is enough. Whilst this vagueness proceeds, people are being killed. People like you and I who are walking around right now, lacking the knowledge of what harm is being done to them, and will face the effects in maybe a decade's time--maybe sooner, maybe later--but possibly via a severe and terminal illness such as brain cancer. This is no matter for navel gazing, or for regal scientific pontification. This is a public health crisis which will in the future overwhelm all other health crises, and it will represent a cost to society well in excess of the industry and government's present day reapings that justify these technologies today.

The EMR which we are most particularly interested in stopping exposures to, lies in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum known as Microwave and Millimetre wavelengths. The devices that cause the radiation are typically "radio frequency" (RF) devices, and the parts of the spectrum are broken up as follows:

1. High Frequency (HF) 30 Megahertz (MHz, also cycles per second) through to 300 Megahertz.
2. Ultra High Frequency (UHF) 300 Megahertz to 3000 Megahertz (or 3 Gigahertz, GHz).
3. Super High Frequency (SHF) 3 Gigahertz through to 30 Gigahertz (also centimetre wave band).
4. Extremely High Frequency (EHF) 30 Gigahertz through to 300 Gigahertz (also millimetre wave band).

Many radio, TV and communication services have existed in these bands (mainly the first two) for decades. The new problem in RF communication is the widespread use of pulsed microwave and millimetre wave frequencies that pulse at biologically significant frequencies that are much lower: often within the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) bands, which reside from about 3 Hertz to 3 Kilohertz.

The secondary problem is a general refusal of the telecommunications and military establishments (and their associated parasitic growths in science, government and institution) to acknowledge that (nominally defined) "non-thermal" levels of RF can do harm to biological systems.

On this latter problem we defer to Biophysics expert Professor G.J. Hyland who has written:

What the Industry and the various regulatory bodies (such as the NRPB and ICNIRP) dispute is that the very weak, pulsed microwave radiation used in GSM and TETRA can non-thermally affect these various biological (electrical) activities in ways that can provoke adverse health reactions. Their difficulty in accepting this reality is due to an out-dated ‘linear’ mentality, within which forces the conclusion that exposure to weak radiation can entail only correspondingly weak effects, and vice versa. Whilst this is true in the case of inanimate systems and dead organisms, it is certainly not so either for energised electronic equipment, or for living organisms. For the latter, in consequence of their vitality, are themselves electromagnetic instruments of great and exquisite sensitivity, and thereby vulnerable to interference by weak external electromagnetic fields whose frequencies are close to those found in the alive organism.

Hyland here hits the nail upon the head: 'athermal' levels of radiation can easily be biologically significant for any living organism. (This point will be revisted over and over within the contents of this website.) The fact that the mechanisms of effect are poorly understood (and sometimes not linear with relation to signal characteristics) is often used by what we will call the EMR establishment as some deranged (and certainly illogical/fallacious) justification for excluding it as evidence, which only calls more attention to the bias which is being applied to the assessment of the issues.

To turn back to the former problem regarding the pulsing of microwaves, a succinct example of the potential danger that they may carry is seen in the European and British TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) System, which operates at 400 Megahertz and has a pulse which operates at 17 Hertz (Hertz=Cycles per Second). This frequency, 16 to 17 Hertz, has been demonstrated to cause a phenomenon called calcium efflux in the brain of users exposed to it, which is basically a severe external disruption to the "exquisitely sensitive" mechanisms of intercellular neuronal communication. Many British police (for example) have been reporting ill health following the use of these systems, and the TETRA is also reported to not even function well (of importance here only as the instigators of the technology cite the critical nature of communications in defence of the technology). Some other effects of pulsed microwave radiation in the literature include disruption of the blood brain barrier; of the pineal gland's production of the essential anti-cancer endocrine melatonin; of normal sleep patterns; of ion exchange reactions; of the influx and efflux mechanisms of neurones: and the manufacture of chronic levels of heat-shock proteins with repeated exposures; inflammatory responses, and so on.

We now have the situation that all manner of devices, not just cellular/mobile telephones (and their tower/mast/"base stations"), but also domestic digital cordless telephones (DECT), Wireless LAN (also commonly known as Wi-Fi), active Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) componentry, communications radios, Global Positioning System (GPS), digital broadcast and even baby monitors (to name a few) utilise this pulsed microwave technology. The technology and hence the exposure to biological life forms from these RF sources is becoming omnipresent. Was there any precaution exercised in implementation of all of these technologies?

Besides a few countries or smaller provinces that have decided to fly in the face of international pressure and instead really listen to the science, most regions safe exposure level guidelines are based upon only thermally significant harm, such as the WHO's ICNIRP standards. This is to ignore much relevant science, whilst clearly giving too much weight to often poorly designed, controlled and/or interpreted studies (and conflict-of-interest ridden industry funded studies) that show no effect of non-thermal levels of RF radiation. And this situation is to put us all in harms way--and in total ignorance of a precautionary approach to what partisans on both sides of the scientific field often refer to as an area that is very much in need of more research.

EMRStop disputes that this "need for more research" comes at the expense of critical time--time in which people and other living creatures could be moved out of harm's way. As one of the central efforts in this area--the "bioinitiative report" has clearly demonstrated, there is enough science out there to firmly cement in any reasonable and unbiased person's mind the need for much more precaution than what is currently occurring. And the burden of proof of danger should not have been shifted to the general population, who might as yet need to manifest a significant epidemic of ill health in order to finally get authorities to recognise that athermal levels of EMR cause harm to us and our environment.

In short--this madness--fuelled as it is by the revenue motivations of industry and government and the convenience of consumers, must be addressed as a priority before it ends in unmitigated public health disaster.

(This is a version 1.0 of this introduction and it will undoubtedly be continually changed as this site is developed.)
Last Updated on Saturday, 19 March 2011 17:35