We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

MartinWeatherall • 9 years ago

If Prof Croft is unaware of all the adverse health effects that are caused by wireless radiation, he simply cannot be classed as an expert in this field!
He should be aware of several cell phone mast studies which show that the closer people live to the masts, the higher rates of cancer, sleep disruption and other serious health effects.
He should be aware of several studies which show an increase of mouth, ear and brain cancers from cell phone use.
He should be aware of the studies which show harm to male sterility resulting in lower sperm count and decrease in the quality of the sperm when exposed to cell phones.
He should be aware of the breast cancer tumours which are in the shape of cell phones which are kept in the bra of breast cancer victims.
He should be aware of the neurological effects of wireless radiation.
He should be aware that wireless radiation has been called the latest heart risk factor by Dr Steven Sinatra, a famous US heart surgeon and he should be aware of the research by Dr. Magda Havas which show that wireless radiation significantly effects the heart.
These are not insignificant health effects, they are 'major threats to human life'.
For important scientific information about the harm caused by wireless radiation, people should visit the Bio Initiative web site at www.bioinitiative.org .

Informed • 9 years ago

Mr Croft, are you aware that we have approximately 1600 base stations in Australia (& counting) but to my knowledge there has never been one Australian study conducted and published on residents health living near these masts? Mobile phones were introduced without adequate pre-market safety testing so excuse me if when I don't believe the line that mobile phones have no adverse health effects. No wonder no conclusive evidence exists when mostly thermal effects are measured/studied not biological effects. In a court of law reasonable doubt convicts. We cannot wait for conclusive 100% proof of harm regarding mobiles, masts and Wi-Fi routers etc. Wi-Fi being of great concern as a 2B possible carcinogen is being allowed into our children's classrooms. Check out ARPANSA fact sheet 14 - they cannot be completely sure there isn't some risk to children yet this 2B possible carcinogen pulses all day long penetrating our children's bodies. What about ARPANSA's clause 5.7e in the RPS3 where the avoidance of unnecessary exposure is recommended? How can an innocent child avoid a pulsing Wi-Fi router for 6 hours a school day. Given all this uncertainty surely the Precautionary Principle is warranted. Enough of the safe argument. Let's err on the side of caution and take the necessary steps to inform and protect the public.

Lana Banks • 9 years ago

Prof. Croft has missed a lot of peer-reviewed scientific literature on biological effects of mobile and wireless radiation that occur below the current public exposure standards. They should be evaluated by biological scientists who have appropriate expertise in cell biology - not by psychologists. This is an industry-funded show to assure public safety and to an attempt to label those who are suffering from this radiation as psychos. Back in 1972, the US navy medical intelligence (that looked at radar safety) referenced 2300 studies showing biological effects, the Bioinitiative report in 2012 has collated several thousands studies showing a range of bioeffects currently deemed safe. This is what happens when research and regulation are manipulated by the industry that produces this form of radiation. Obama administration appointed the former mobile and wireless industry's chief lobbyist as the chairman of the FCC (independent govt regulator) last year and Australia's is not much better. It's not just about cancer...mental disorders, developmental disorders in children, dementia in adults as well as various immune, neurological and hormonal problems as well. The public is getting increasingly aware of the cover ups, all the way to the WHO that had industry consultants running the EMF project.

Guest • 9 years ago

Thank you for your well written response to htis article.

Soapbox Jill • 9 years ago

No science showing harm? Please educate yourself, professor. The historical science is touched upon in report, Overloading Towns and Cities with Radio Transmitters. It gives the scientific findings beginning in 1932 about symptoms from what RF radiation does biologically. More historical science can be found in the U.S. military bibliography from 1971 by Zory R. Glaser, sampled at Magda Havas' website. FOR modern science, please view the MD Medical Symposium at C4ST, the site created by former president of Microsoft Canada to inform people about safe technology choices. Also read/scan the 2012 BioInitiative Report, which cites over 1800 recent studies showing biological harm and impacts from non-thermal RF exposure. And finally, read the letter written by the U.S. Department of the Interior to the FCC, in which they state, ""the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today."
One only has to look to find the evidence that proves precautionary action should immediately be instated, and wireless proliferation, halted, to prevent further degeneration of all life from the cellular to body system to navigational and behavioral functions. Thank you.

Lana Banks • 9 years ago

Oh, another thing, it's good to see Prof. Croft is keeping the cell phone away from his body following the industry warnings (sorry if you haven't seen them, they are not easy to find, but they are surely in manuals). Most people have no idea that the industry already warns people not keep them on the body...so they (including children who absorb much more radiation) keep phones right against their ears when they use them....

Wise up • 9 years ago

Is this the same Rodney Croft that did the Q-Link study some time ago? A little pendant with supposed EMR protecting qualities? Who says on the ACRBR website his research interests range from basic (e.g. methodology) to clinical research (e.g.
Radiofrequency effects on brain function? Interests? How many peer reviewed papers has he written? Why is a psychologist in charge of an EHS study?

We should leave the studies to the real experts some with decades of experience, some Nobel Prize Laureates and award winning scientists with no questionable funding sources, into the biological impact of EMR who have some solid research and experience behind them more than just an "interest" in the area.

People are waking up to unexplained illnesses and making the connection. Schools all over Australia are being challenged by parents aware of the issue of WiFi in schools and our ancient safety standards which don't relate to children and remain unchanged from the brick phone era. ARPANSA say they don't know. Too much of a gamble for most.

Dr Teo was named as one of the most trusted Australians. A celebrated neurosurgeon and another true expert who is aware.

Guest • 9 years ago

Professor Rodney Croft, director of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research doesn't deserve his position. To be the top "expert" and to simply deny the huge body of evidence that has been done over many past decades, is irresponsible. There just is no way possible to blow off all the research showing biological effects.

longevityrescuer • 9 years ago

Glad to see there is a public forum opening on the subject. It will help raise awareness. Independent scientists are describing our over exposure to electromagnetic radiation from all our devices as a looming health crisis of biblical proportions. See what the experts are saying at http://EMFsummit.com

Michael Peters • 9 years ago

Yes, it is difficult decision, in this day and age dominated as it is by cash-up telco's who are allowed by vested interest government rules to play Telco Chess over the chessboard that is Australia, to have a life after undertaking research on behalf of all of us pawns instead of playing along with the current game - I can only imaging the torment one would have to go through.

Beacon • 9 years ago

I would like anyone who stands up and suggests mobile phones or Wi-Fi technology is safe to declare any conflicts of interests. This means the declaration of any instance where that person or an associate has received funding from the technology or communications industries, either currently or in the past. This includes government departments or officers who may have had industry-sponsored programs. It would be very useful if Mr Croft could add a footnote to the article declaring any such conflicts.

Truth • 9 years ago

Mr Croft, there is way too much research based evidence available that proves the adverse "biological" health effects of wireless technology. There are hundreds and thousands of cases of people showing they have been harmed as a result.
Your research and comments reek of bias. You should be ashamed of yourself, putting people's lives at risk for your own financial gain. There. I've said what the politically correct are afraid to say.

Alan Bond • 9 years ago

There would have to be, why would people use their addictive mobiles so much?????

Kagey • 9 years ago

And you only have to listen to their vacuous conversations to realise that their brains aren't firing on all cylinders. Something must have curdled their custard.

Diane H • 9 years ago

Unnatural EMF is incompatible with all living organisms.