Industry Whistle-Blower, Retired Microsoft Canada President Frank Clegg
T-Mobile Report in 2000 Shows Biological Effects
  • The Mobile Communications and Health study commissioned in 2000 by T-Mobil, the German parent company of T-Mobile, concluded there are many non-thermal biological effects well below public radiation exposure limit levels. They recommended specific precautionary measures should have been taken, but they were not and the industry continued to market hazardous products:

2018 Investigation by The Nation
The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

Harvard's Captured Agency Report
ALEC Legislative Influence

World Health Organization
  • In collaboration with industry, many of our federal agencies appear to be following what the World Health Organization calls the Tobacco Control Playbook to suppress evidence of harm in mainstream media, design studies of their own under conditions that deliberately show no harm, create doubt among the public, and continue to promote their toxic products. 

  • See especially, Do tobacco companies take a responsible approach to education and information? It contains a list of common tactics used.

  • After the U.S. National Toxicology Program and Italy's Ramazzini Institute both published large studies concluding "clear evidence" of tumors (cancer) and DNA damage, the WHO initiated an ongoing project to assess potential health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the general and working population:

The Fine Print That Few Have Read
  • Did you know the little product information pamphlets that come with wireless devices contain a passage about Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy?  Some of the manufacturers have taken the passage out of the hard-copy materials, and imbedded it deeply within the device settings, usually under the Legal heading, where consumers are unlikely to see it. has compiled these passages so you can easily see what your device warns.

  • Attached at the bottom of this page are the guides for the iPad and the iPhone 4.   
  • If you own an iPhone, go to Settings, General, About, Legal, RF Exposure to see their warnings to keep the device away from your body else possibly exceed public radiation exposure limits.
  • Basically, the manufacturers say they comply with FCC regulations.  Science, however, has proven the current FCC regulations are 100s to 1,000s times too high to prevent the damage being done at the non-thermal level by mobile devices.  

  • In the fine print you will discover:

    There are multiple antennas in each device, aiming radiation from different angles at your head and body.  The brochures state:
    • The iPhone cellular antennas are located at the top and bottom edges of iPhone. The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth® antenna is located near the top of iPhone.
    • iPad contains radio transmitters and receivers. When on, iPad sends and receives radio frequency (RF) energy through its antenna. The Wi-Fi and Bluetooth® antennas are located behind the screen to the left of the Home button, and behind the Apple logo.

    The attached documents also tell us we shouldn't keep these devices near our bodies, or near other objects where the radiation bounces back into our bodies:

    • When carrying iPhone, keep it 1.5 cm (5/8 inch) or more away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the maximum levels. Avoid cases with metal parts.

    • The iPad brochure states: For optimal mobile device performance and to be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC, and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: Orient the device in portrait mode with the Home button at the bottom of the display, or in landscape mode with the cellular antenna (located under the black edge at the top of the device) away from your body or other objects.

    In other words, if you keep these devices on your body, the radiation you receive will exceed even the FCC's guidelines which we now know are already 100s to 1,000s of times too high. The manufacturers are only required to adhere to current government guidelines, so they continue to introduce more devices to earn more revenue.  
  • The last line in this 2012 abstract from the NIH's PubMed database, on harm from laptops, is, "Laptop is paradoxically an improper site for the use of a LTC (laptop computer), which consequently should be renamed to not induce customers towards an improper use." So, that is what industry subsequently did. They renamed "laptops" to "tablets" but didn't inform the public that they are unsafe to use in the lap, and should be used on a table instead (and, might I add, best used in airplane mode and/or hard-wired).

  • In 2020, the IEEE reports a radiofrequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit: the test, conducted by Penumbra, also highlights problems with the U.S. FCC’s wireless safety regulations, and other phones that have failed the test:

Congressional Hearing
  • This was addressed in a 2008 congressional hearing where scientists presented findings of increased penetration of cell phone radiation in the brains of children:
  • Here is the FCC's response to the scientist's claims:

FCC Fails to Respond to Public Health Issues
  • In 2012 the Government Accountability Office instructed the FCC to "formally reassess the current RF energy exposure limit, including its effects on human health" and as of this writing in 2017, it has not been done. Our FCC chairman is from the telecom industry so we may not see changes at the national level in the near-term.  
  • On June 20, 2016 FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler indicated the priority with 5G is to be first to market, regardless of public health or safety.  He states, "Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years studying what 5G should be, how it should operate, and how to allocate spectrum, based on those assumptions. Like the examples I gave earlier, the future has a way of inventing itself. Turning innovators loose is far preferable to expecting committees and regulators to define the future. We won’t wait for the standards to be first developed in the sometimes arduous standards-setting process or in a government-led activity." See his six-page speech below:
  • This 2017 FCC press release indicates the goal is to remove 5G infrastructure barriers, despite public health hazards:
  • Israeli and New York lawyer Dafna Tachover has developed electrohypersensitivity from wireless technology and in September 2016 testified before the FCC's Disability Advisory Committee. See her five-minute testimony here:
Public Hotspots
  • In 2013, Comcast/Xfinity began installing public hotspots on private residential routers which broadcast the wi-fi signal from your home out to the street, further blanketing your home and neighbors in electromagenetic radiation.  As the article indicates below, you can opt to shut off this signal by accessing your account on-line and turning off your wireless settings, or you can call Comcast and they'll do it for you. Note: Comcast may have up to five RF antennas in their home routers: 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 2.4 GHz hotspot, 5 GHz hotspot, plus a wireless home security antenna. Customer service representatives are not typically trained on this, so consumers may need to ask for a tier-two tech support person to disable the latter antennas:

Cell Tower Regulation Compliance
  • For those who live near cell towers or need rooftop access in their lines of work, the following whistle-blower article will be disconcerting:

The link to the abstract is here:

Patent for Safer Technology

  • Retired Microsoft President and Founder of Canadians for Safe Technology Frank Clegg indicates the industry can absolutely make safer technology, they just need an incentive to do so. In 2004, Swisscom filed a patent titled, "REDUCTION OF ELECTROSMOG IN WIRELESS LOCAL NETWORKS". The patent acknowledges the biological effects of today's routers on DNA and other systems, and would create new technology where wireless networks would be in sleep mode as the default until a connection is sought from a mobile device. Currently, most of today's routers emit a biologically hazardous microwave pulse many times per second, 24/7/365 if not turned off. It's time to use our voices and wallets, and refrain from purchasing wireless devices until they can be made safely. See the patent below.

History of Prior Public Health Concerns
  • As we aim to understand how the EMF issues are likely to play out with regard to government regulations, it is important to consider precedents set with other public health toxins. It has taken 117 years for our government to regulate lead emissions, 42 years to regulate smoking and the U.S. still has not ratified the World Health Organization’s anti-smoking measures. It took 65 years to ban asbestos.  Granted, some health conditions take time to surface and to draw the direct connection to the cause.  However, history shows the manufacturers knew but chose profit over public safety.
  • Lead: Our government took action to protect the public from lead exposure after nearly 10,000 studies were done. We already have more than 20,000 studies on electromagnetic radiation:
  • Smoking:
  • Asbestos:

Lobbying Influence on Government Regulations
  • If you look at today’s most influential lobbyists, you’ll see AT&T, Verizon and Comcast in the list of Top All-Time Donors
  • This helps to explain why the United States has kept wi-fi users in the dark and has not adopted the Precautionary Principle as other countries have done to protect their citizens.  The Precautionary Principle states:
1. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, uncertainty should not be a reason for postponing action to prevent that damage.

2. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, precautionary measures should be taken even if cause-and-effect relationships are not clearly established.

3. Whenever an action or substance could cause irreparable/irreversible harm, even if that harm is not certain to occur, the action should be prevented and eliminated.

Even though the FCC has its 1996 public radiation exposure regulations under formal review, and we would like to believe our government will protect us, history dictates otherwise and we have to allow that the lobbyists may influence an outcome that does not serve public health.
Advertising Influence on Public Media Content
  • A common thought for many citizens and scientists, when they first learn about potential harm from wireless technology radiation, is: 
"If this were true, surely we would have heard of it!"  
  • Unfortunately, the largest advertising dollars in mainstream media throughout the world come from the telecom, technology and energy sectors.  Given everyone needs to make a living, mainstream media is reluctant to run content that would adversely impact their advertising dollars.  According to Advertising Age in their most recent data from 2014, Microsoft was the number one advertiser, followed by AT&T and Verizon. Rounding out the top ten are other technology, energy and telecom companies: Apple, Samsung Electronics Co., IBM Corp., General Electric Co., Intel Corp., Staples and Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile):
  • Using the tobacco industry playbook, these conglomerates have become experts at suppressing evidence of harm and creating doubt when folks start asking questions, all the while putting out advertisements that entice the public to buy their latest-and-greatest products.  In so doing, they bank on the fact that the public will not take the initiative to look into any controversy themselves, and continue to purchase their potentially harmful products.
  • When media outlets do run a story on potential harm from wireless technology, they introduce the issue, then usually stop short of telling the public what the world scientists have stated in their International Appeal to the World Health Organization and the United Nations, which is to use hard-wired technology, update our radiation standards, and protect the public from wireless radiation.  Instead, the media outlets say more research needs to be done.  

    They will usually cite some industry-funded science instead of credible, peer-reviewed non-industry funded research.  The media could cite the thousands of world-wide studies covered in the
    BioInitiative Report that prove the science has already been done and concludes this radiation is harmful.  But they don't, and this leaves the public puzzled, but not to the degree that they will consider changing their usage or buying patterns. Note, the industry has been known to discredit the BioInitiative Report saying it was never published, but it was. The original report was published in a 2009 special issue of Pathophysiology.
  • The following is another example of media choosing not to cover this issue with true investigative journalistic integrity.  There was a lawsuit announced against the prestigious private boarding school, Fay School in Southborough, MA, USA.  A child has a diagnosis of electrohypersensitivity and the wi-fi system at school makes him ill.  The school administration has refused to grant him accommodations to access to his education, even after the family offered to pay to hard-wire the ten classrooms in which the student would need to be for the school year.  So, they have filed a federal lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • When news broke about the lawsuit, Fox25 in Boston found me through Senate Bill 1222 and asked if they could come to my home for an interview.  I taught the journalist and cameraman about EMFs and used an Acoustimeter to demonstrate how much radiation comes out of our everyday devices and routers.  I walked them through the BioInitiative Report.  I showed them Harvard's Captured Agency report that details how the FCC is protecting corporate profits over public health.  
They said that evening's story would just be a two-minute piece on the Fay School, but the journalist wanted to talk to her network about doing a bigger story on wireless radiation.  Below is the Fay School story that ran (note, when I have looked at this clip, I have to sit through advertisements first.  Often they are from telecom companies, or others pitching wireless services.  I also have to adjust the mute/volume buttons to hear the clip):

I noticed right away they did not reference credible science. Instead, they used a 2014 draft document of 16 inconclusive studies instead of the BioInitiative Report. They also reported the school has "safe levels" of radiation exposure, yet there have never been safe levels set by the FCC, just levels indicating at what exposure tissue heating occurs.  That thermal-effect is obsolete since science has proven biological harm at the non-thermal level but the FCC has not updated its standards to mirror the science.  

I have since looped back in with the journalist to see if she pitched the EMF story to her network, and she said she had, a couple of times, but there didn't seem to be any interest.  I let her know the influence of advertising dollars was the likely reason why.  

So, since we may not fully be informed by mainstream media of potential harm from wireless technology, it is up to each of us to educate ourselves on what the non-industry funded scientists are telling us, and take action accordingly in our own homes and communities.

Note: The information provided here is publicly available on the Internet.  
It is intended to provide a starting point to inform you of EMF dangers.  
Please do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and act accordingly to protect those you love.

Cecelia Doucette,
Nov 10, 2013, 5:14 AM
Cecelia Doucette,
Nov 10, 2013, 5:14 AM