On the run from radio frequencies

Some Canadians go to great lengths to escape waves of radiation from electronics that are considered harmless

by Alex Ballingall on Thursday, October 13, 2011 8:20am - 273 Comments
Refugees in their own land

Simon Hayter/Maclean's

As the mother of two young girls, Samantha Boutet does what she believes is necessary to protect her family. That’s why, with the spread of radio frequencies from increasingly common wireless technology, Boutet is a refugee in her own land. The naturopathic doctor and her two daughters are relocating more than 600 km east of their home in Maple Ridge, B.C., to a small cabin in a remote valley in B.C.’s Kootenay mountains.

The decision was spurred by a series of health problems affecting her older daughter, Amelia, which started in Grade 4. For more than a year, Amelia suffered from deep headaches, nagging nausea, inexplicable muscle soreness, tingling extremities, and insomnia, Boutet says. Eventually, after visiting a number of specialists, the family doctor diagnosed Amelia with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a medical condition that involves a range of non-specific symptoms attributed to electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs), much like those described by sufferers of multiple-chemical sensitivity, another environmental illness believed to be caused by low-level exposure to chemicals. “I felt really bad because her body was telling her there was something wrong, and I was telling her there couldn’t be, and I couldn’t understand why she was behaving the way she was,” says Boutet.

EMFs are invisible radioactive frequencies emitted from radio towers, WiFi routers, cellphones, wireless laptops, TV remotes—even the new smart meters that measure water and electricity use and beam information to the utilities. These non-ionizing radioactive waves travel through the air at much lower frequencies than ionizing radiation (which includes X-rays and gamma rays) and are widely considered harmless. And due to the proliferation of technology that releases them, others like Amelia, now 11, feel as if their health is being compromised. They can either live with their pain, or flee to backcountry refuges. “It’s not that I’m just worried,” Boutet says. “My older daughter will be deathly sick, so we have to leave.”

In the U.S., people are flocking to the tiny town of Green Bank, W.Va., part of the country’s Radio Quiet Zone. No wireless is allowed within 33,000 square kilometres so the waves don’t interfere with telescopes operated by an astronomy observatory and the U.S. military.

The World Health Organization says that “there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure,” and there are indications these symptoms “may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions,” namely stress from worries about exposure.

Health Canada, meanwhile, maintains electromagnetic frequency does not pose a threat. According to the government department, devices like cellphones and radio towers emit waves at levels “thousands of times” lower than the threshold where it would harm human health, according to spokesman Stéphane Shank. As long as exposure remains below that, Health Canada says “there is no convincing evidence that this equipment is dangerous.” They do agree that “additional research is warranted” into a possible link to cancer.

Una St. Clair, director of Citizens for Safe Technology, isn’t convinced. She has been scouring the B.C. Interior for areas “free from all this poison in the air.” St. Clair, who has also been diagnosed with EHS by a doctor, doesn’t leave her house without a special hat and an undershirt woven with silver that is meant to ward off electromagnetic waves. For her, the fact that people are willing to drop everything and move is evidence enough that electromagnetic frequencies cause harm. “Apprehension doesn’t make people leave their lives behind or quit their jobs,” she says.

Lucy Sanford, a former Toronto real estate agent, had been in a decade-long battle with anxiety, insomnia, periodic body numbness, breathing trouble and other ailments when she became depressed, even suicidal. After moving out of the city to the small Lake Erie community of Crystal Beach, Ont., Sanford feels better, and blames her past troubles on electromagnetic waves. For her, there’s no doubt technology is taking a toll. “We know it’s there. We don’t need the proof,” she says. “We are the proof.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Bf

    “homeopathic doctor”? There’s no such thing. The fact that she’s already involved with belief-based medical treatment tells me that there’s a very good chance that she is leaping to conclusions in this case as well.

    Studies are studies. They can be reviewed for statistical or scientific error, but they either show correlation or they don’t. No anecdotes like this article are allowed to influence as “proof”.

  • jc

    The connection is very clear to me. Radiation in any form is radiation. The factors are, how much, for how long and how close? All medical forms of diagnostic radiation are regulated and diagnotistic technicians use protection of metal shielding. Radiation from cell towers and other wireless devices should be used with the same precautions. We protect ourselves from the sun with sunscreen or limiting our exposure. Why then do we refuse to take precautions when using wireless technology?

    • Art Tricque

      “Radiation in any form is radiation.” Correct. However, whether radiation is good or bad (and it is sometimes both), depends on the type of radiation. X-rays and ultraviolet rays (from the sun, against which we protect ourselves with sunscreen) are both noxious and useful, depending on the dose. The same is true of microwaves, and so we do takes precautions: we limit microwaves in cell phones to power levels unlikely to cause excessive heating, but strong enough to allow communications; and we allow high-powered microwave ovens, but demand they be properly shielded.

  • Graeme

    My wife is hyper sensitive to EMF and is currently thinking that the amalgum crowns in her teeth are acting like an antenna as she is unable to ground as she collects more than she gets rid of – she wants them out – does any one have any suggestions about doing this and any safeguards to put in place.

    • http://www.photomarcus.com Marcus Schluschen

      Greame,

      You can contact the group’ Citizens for Safe Technologies’, there are people who can help with advice.  www.citizensforsafetechnology.org  

      Amalgam contains 50 to 55% mercury.  Oddly, Health Canada warns us not to eat to much fish because of the mercury, but for some miraculous reason, mercury in amalgam fillings become perfectly safe once it is in our mouth!  Sweden has outlawed amalgam in the mid 90ies.  
      Health Canada fails us once again as they have done so many times before.

    • Art Tricque

      There is no serious body of evidence suggesting that EMF affects amalgam crowns. EMF is not a reason to get rid of them.

  • Anonymous

    Telecommunications companies are the ones doing the fear-mongering scare tactics: insisting that our lives will be dangerously unsafe and inhumanely unfulfilled and that we will be friendless, stupid, and insane if we (and our loved ones) aren’t constantly clutching or accessing a wireless communication device that is networked to most people and places on the planet. Plus of course we have to pay money to someone for the privileges of using these devices that are oh so essential to our every breath, essential to our survival! I accomplish relative safety, enjoy a very humane and fulfilling live, have lots of friends, am not considered stupid nor insane by anyone (as far as I know, unless by Mr. Tricque), and am so far breathing and alive — somewhere between 99% and 100% of the time I accomplish these things without using a wireless communication device.

    Is it important to know that 10-year-old Julius is going from school to the convenience store to get a bottle of juice? Julius will gladly text you to inform you of that. Is it important to know that 14-year-old Stephanie is going from school to the park for her daily session of enjoying a few joints and pounding back a quarter of a 40-ouncer of that day’s alcoholic beverage of choice with her three closest friends? Stephanie will gladly text you to inform you, “gone 2 get some juice.”

    New Rogers’ ads are pathetically ridiculous. I don’t remember the name of the service – something about home monitoring. To paraphrase: now you can clutch your cell phone (another tactic they’re giving for you to always have it on and connected to a network, therefore emitting radiation) to know the instant your child arrives safely across your threshold at home. Hello parents: you don’t need to know when your child is safe – you need to know when your child isn’t safe.

    • Art Tricque

      Freelance_Human gives many reasons why one might choose or not choose to use a mobile phone. I agree completely that one should make that decision for oneself: if one doesn’t think it useful, productive, style-enhancing, even because of one’s reading of supposed health effects, not using a mobile phone is one’s choice. Just do not expect public policy or everyone else’s choices to be based on or limited because of one’s personal opinion of the health effects.

  • Gerry Duffett

    Synthetic Telepathy / Electromagnetic Radiation
    http://www.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/SynTelepathy.pdf

  • Gerry Duffett

    International Committee / Offensive Microwave Weapons
    http://www.icomw.org/archives/index.asp

  • Gerry Duffett

    International Committee / Offensive Microwave Weapons
    http://www.icomw.org/archives/index.asp

  • Gerry Duffett
  • Gerry Duffett

    HAARP / Electromagnetic Radiation

    http://www.freedomfchs.com/byronbweaponsofmc.pdf

  • WhyWi

    Media Report, Monday October 17, “Kids twice as sensitive to cellphone radiation: Study”

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/10/17/18834076.html

  • Anonymous

    Increasingly experts recommend precaution regarding wireless technology. Today, two new reports were in the news.

    Why not prevent what has happened to Samantha Boutet and her daughters from happening to others? What would be the harm in, at the very least, applying the Precautionary Principle?

    October 17, 2011 News Report
    Cell Phones And Your Health
    Report: Radiation Testing Flawed

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fcc-test-measure-cellphone-radiation-cancer-risk-flawed/story?id=14750275&singlePage=true

    • Art Tricque

      At the moment it is difficult to assess the study (it is the same study that is referred to by the news reports in both of WhyWi’s recent postings), as I only have access to the abstract. It makes assertions, but the complete basis of the conclusions is, of course, in the body of the article, behind a pay wall. The link to the actual journal article is http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2011.622827 .I will note that the last sentence of the abstract ends “… and standards should be set by accountable, independent groups.” This is a red herring: standards are set by accountable groups, most often in western nations by government bodies formulating standards that get turned into law by legislatures.

  • Gerry Duffett
  • Gerry Duffett
  • sabine

    Just a gentle reminder not to feed the trolls on this forum as it debases the content on an otherwise informative discussion .

  • sabine

    Thank you Macleans for this forum where the public can come and express their concerns and opinions without prior moderation which makes for a much more free flow of ideas. However, free speech does not come without a price and that is that some opinions and expressions are being attacked in an attempt to water-down and distract from the reason we are here. This is a public forum for the public, not a hard-core science forum for science freaks who live in a small box of double-blind studies. Since Art Trick has hijacked this forum with scientific babble in an attempt to distract from the issue if you want to get a better feel of the previous interesting discussion you can always click on the little minus sign (-) in the right hand corner of their post which will remove it from view. Art trick’s comments for the most part are inappropriate to this public debate. Like a 60 year old vehemently tearing apart an 8 year olds science project this is just not the appropriate forum for you Art if you feel the need to do that to others. There are plenty of science forums that will appreciate your tireless efforts to make everyone feel as if they don’t know what they are talking about. I was in science for many years when I realized that most scientists have little creative outlets eating, sleeping and breathing science reminiscent of OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and this just does not make for a well-rounded nor appropriate discussion in a public forum such as this one. Everyone must feel welcome to post here even Art trick but know that when you are being attacked for no good reason other than someone needing to stroke their ego, get their days pay as in shills or just to generally stir the pot that the minus sign (-) is there for just that reason. Happy posting everyone!

    • Anonymous

      Thank you very much. That was so well said. I was thinking it extremely odd that a person would spend such an abnormal amount of time and energy attempting to systematically discredit everyone on one side of the argument. I thought it very strange and outstanding. I have seen passionate efforts made to express beliefs but never before have I seen such aggressive, over the top arguments for the purpose of discrediting the concerns of others. I am more familiar with people stating their own beliefs and supporting those beliefs with arguments or point or facts. I would have thought people go to these sites to express beliefs rather than to counter expressed beliefs. I cannot imagine going to a site where people believe in something I do not believe in, and spending an inordinate amount of time and energy arguing with most (perhaps all) of the people who posted comments. It seems the dysfunction lies in the seemingly obsessed behaviour of unbalanced committment to proving others wrong. What the individual seems to fail to comprehend is the counterproductive effect his approach has. If the point is the fight, then he is successful, he can fight. If the point is to make a point, he has completely undermined his efforts by the manner in which he conducts himself. If he just wants to distract people away from facts by busying the comment section with meaningless circles of manipulative arguments, he has failed. Perhaps he is in fact a shill, but I can’t imagine anyone paying for that. 

      Thanks for the tip about the “-” feature. His schtick is getting so old the negative sign is perfect. Negate the fruitless bullying and return to productive, constructive contributions to either “side” of the issue.

  • Gerry Duffett

    Thank you Macleans :-) :-)

  • Gerry Duffett
  • Gerry Duffett

    Auditory Response to Pulsed Radiofrequency Energy
     
    http://www.freedomfchs.com/auditoryresponsetopulsedrf.pdf

  • Gerry Duffett

    Patents  Associated with Mind Control Technologies or Organized Stalking
     
    http://www.freedomfchs.com/patentlist2.pdf

  • Art Tricque

    It is regrettable that some commenters feel it necessary to call into question the motives of other commenters, make fun of their names (mine is Belgian), impugn their motives, suggest they belong to a certain profession and then demean that profession (I am not a scientist), call people names like “freaks” and “shills”, propose something wrong with the frequency with which some commenters are active here, and even question their mental health. The rules of civilized debate do not show these amongst the list of acceptable tactics.These same commenters complain about aggression, attack, the tearing apart of arguments and the manner of commenting. These characterizations are false. If one considers rebuttals that include carefully quoting the person being rebutted, focusing on the arguments being made instead of commenting on the person, and avoiding the use of inappropriate and abusive language as aggressive, attacking or tearing apart, then I am guilty. They attempt to set the terms of the debate as worthy of comment only from those espousing one particular viewpoint— in their case that microwaves cause health problems — and that others should stay away; after all, comments are for people to feel welcome, a way to indulge the concerns of others, and rebuttal is uncalled for. I think most observers — especially given the rough and tumble nature of many forums on the internet — will consider what has transpired here as within the bounds of civilized debate. If one does not wish to have one’s writings reviewed, commented or rebutted, do not publish them in this forum. Start your own blog and set the terms for commenting, censor comments you don’t like, and preserve an echo chamber instead of a place for debate. A large proportion of the pseudoscientific websites, covering from anti-vaccine viewpoints to evolutionary theory denial to homeopathy, adopt this approach and the tone of the complaining commenters. If you instead believe that ideas should and must be open to scrutiny, that inaccuracies should be pointed out, that poor logic should be noted, that matters of public policy dealing with health should be addressed by resorting to the scientific method, and that all this should be accomplished within polite norms, then come here to Macleans or a skeptic science web site like Skeptic North (hurray! Canadian!) or Science-Based Medicine.On the actual topic at hand, whether microwaves at levels below safety standards cause health effects, my position is that the evidence is weak. In over 60 years of research, there is still no plausible causal mechanism and results consistently get weaker as one moves of the hierarchy of evidence. Just yesterday, another large-scale long-term study (high up that hierarchy of evidence) published in a prestigious academic journal has once again shown no increased risks of cancer from mobile phones (the full article, not just the abstract/summary is open to the public: “Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study” in the British Medical Journal 2011; 343:d6387. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6387). Official panel after official panel asked to review the evidence by governments has concluded that there is no cause for concern (see this summary at RF.com, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa). These review panels include several by the Royal Society of Canada, the oldest association of scientists and scholars in Canada; and once or more times by panels in/of France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, the Nordic countries, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and the European Union Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (EU SCENIHR; the latter’s most recent report from 2009 I again recommend to readers for its balance and ease of understanding). It is true that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) earlier this year changed the status of radio frequencies (RF) to a class 2B carcinogen. However, to equate RF to other class 2b carcinogens like lead, DDT and car exhaust as a result is incorrect as they are already quite bad for health wholly unrelated to their carcinogenic status. Last, the use of loaded terms like radiation to arouse a negative connotation,* appeals to emotion centered
    on children, logically fraught comparisons to known health causes, and conspiracy theories involving big business and government is beyond the pale.Those with whom I have sparred here are clearly passionate in their views, and have taken the time and energy to comment. While we have found ourselves on opposite sides of the debate, I wish them well in their future discoveries in science and health, here at Macleans and elsewhere, and in their broader lives.*in general use, we say “radiation” to refer to ionizing radiation, nuclear radiation and ultraviolet radiation, not non-ionizing radiation like microwaves, light, radio waves or infrared. No one says “turn up the luminous radiation” to mean “turn on the lights”, refers to a “microwave radiation oven” or says “adjust the radiation detection level” to mean “change the channel on the FM radio”. Either one uses the term in the scientific sense, referring to all electromagnetic radiation and explains what that means when using it with a general audience; or one uses it in the general sense, and does not apply where it should not be applied, E.G. to microwaves.

  • Gerry Duffett

    KELB / Keep the Ethical Light Burning  / Electromagnetic Radiation
    http://keepethicallightburning.org/resources/

  • Gerry Duffett

    FFCHS / Freedom from Covert Harassment and Surveillance
     
    Electromagnetic Radiation
      
    http://freedomfchs.com/id15.html
     

  • Gerry Duffett

    Talkshoe / Miriam Snyder / Microwave Auditory Effect / 08/18/2010
    Audio……
    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=388247&cmd=apop

  • Gerry Duffett

    Dr John Hall / Electromagnetic Radiation
    Dr. John Hall – Satellite Surveillance (Project Camelot Radio) 1/11
    Video……

From Macleans