In 2014 a former Nokia technology chief blew the whistle about harms caused by mobile phone use

In 2014, the Finnish newspaper Satakunnan Kansa posted an article about a former Nokia technology chief who said that mobile phones had wrecked his health. He went on to express his concerns about children using mobile phones and the culture of fear and silence within the company that prohibited staff openly speaking about the health risks.

The Satakunnan Kansa article is no longer available online; you can find a copy archived here and here is another one, in English.

Nokia’s former Technology Chief for ten years, Matti Niemelä, was involved in the development the world’s first mobile phones, memory sticks and WLAN [Wi-Fi] connections.

In 2007, Niemelä’s career hit a brick wall as his health finally failed. Today, he is only able to move using a walker. Niemelä refuses to use a wheelchair. He is one of the unfortunate ones who have experienced severe symptoms of radiation, the Finnish newspaper said at the time.

“Traveling around the world with a communicator, an early model smartphone, in hand, exposure to radiation was very strong from morning to night, and even at night. Few people have had such an overload of radiation than me”, said Niemelä.

The first symptoms appeared already within a year of his employment at Nokia. At first Niemelä didn’t dare go to the doctor, mainly because of the fear of brain cancer. The symptoms got worse year by year.

In 2001, MRI images, and cerebrospinal fluid samples revealed the brutal truth: multiple sclerosis (“MS”).

According to Niemelä, medical representatives weren’t willing to take a position on whether mobile phone radiation caused his MS. Preliminary results, however, showed that radiation increases the risk of MS.

“I am a layman, not a doctor. MS is certainly caused by a number of factors, not just mobile-phone radiation. The radiation does, however, increase my MS symptoms,” he said.

Also, symptoms of the disease may easily be confused with the mobile-phone radiation symptoms, Niemelä explained.

Although Niemelä had lost his health, career and more recently his marriage, he did not blame anyone. “I’m not bitter, it was my own choice to work for Nokia,” he said.

He also didn’t want to scare too many about cell phone dangers. “A healthy person can use a mobile phone responsibly,” he said.

Niemelä, admitted that going public with his story carried a big risk. “I’m scared to talk about this in public because I do not want to be labelled as crazy.”

Niemelä explains that the subject of mobile phone radiation has always been kept silent at Nokia. “You couldn’t talk about it within the company. Yet, among the staff, it was speculated whether the radiation could cause damage. However, no one dared to bring it up, because it could get them fired.”

Niemelä says he brought up the matter with the doctor for the first time in 2006. “The doctor told me about a number of patients who are suffering from the same symptoms as me,” Niemelä revealed.

Niemelä is particularly concerned about the children and their mobile phone use, because the continuous exposure to the ear and head does not do any good. “These aspects have been kept silent for too long. I hope it will become possible to discuss the symptoms openly, and without fear.”

Mobile phone manufacturer Nokia and Microsoft’s current Senior Vice President Tom Kuuppelomäki assured that all products meet the requirements set by international health bodies and standards. “Product safety is of paramount importance both for Nokia and Microsoft,” he said. “The World Health Organisation has looked at a number of studies, from the last two decades, with the aim to determine whether mobile-phones pose a potential health risk.”

Kuuppelomäki insisted that to date (18 October 2014), studies have not demonstrated adverse health effects from mobile phone use.

How will the health effects be studied in the future? WHO has made recommendations for further research on electromagnetic fields to enable a thorough risk assessment, the Finnish newspaper said.

Two days later, on 20 October 2014, Between a Rock and a Hard Place posted a second blog. “The jury is still out on whether cell phone radiation might contribute to the development of multiple sclerosis. Too few studies have been done to confirm or to dismiss the claim of causal link. However, I found an interesting twist to the story of Matti Niemelä, Nokia and multiple sclerosis,” the blog author said.

The blog quoted from an article published by RCR Wireless on 4 June 2001 which described patents owned by Nokia that tie the invention being patented to mobile phone health-related risks.

In one case, Nokia, the No. 1 mobile-phone supplier, ties a patented invention directly to suspected health risks from cell-phone radiation. On July 28, 1998, Nokia received a patent for a shield layer between the antenna and the user to reduce the electromagnetic irradiation of the user.

The Nokia patent application states the mobile-phone antenna is a “few centimeters from the brain, the hearing organs, the organ of equilibrium. Although a direct heating effect could be left without further consideration, it has been suggested that modulated radio-frequency radiation induces changes in the electrical status, i.e., in the ion balance of nerves. A continuous localized exposure to radio-frequency irradiation has been suggested to weaken myelin sheets of cells and to eventually lead to an impairment of hearing capability, vertigo, etc. It has been suggested that radio-frequency irradiation may stimulate extra growth among supportive cells in the nerve system, which in the worst case it has been suggested could [lead]to a development of malignant tumors, e.g., glioma.” [Mentioned here weakening of myelin sheet around nerves is associated with the multiple sclerosis]

Nokia received another patent on Dec. 29, 1998, for an accessory radio-frequency unit that “decreases radiation towards the user’s head.”

On Jan, 25, 2000, Nokia received a patent for a cell phone alarm system that would allow the user to “reduce to a minimum the SAR [specific absorption rate] value and the quantity of radiation directed at his head or body by employing the correct appliance position and situations and by adjusting the transmission time.”

The mentioned blog commented on the extracts above: “All the patents were taken by Nokia and other manufacturers at the same time when, and still, manufacturers continue to assure users that there are only thermal effects of radiation are non-thermal effects do not exist. Based on these claims, manufacturers, in concert with ICNIRP, ICES and WHO, claim that cell phone users, no matter how old or young, no matter of how healthy or sick, are all perfectly protected from any health effects of cell phone radiation. Just as a reminder, cell phone safety standards used by manufacturers and developed by ICNIRP are from year 1998!”

Have the standards recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) been updated since 2014? Not according to a paper published on 18 October 2022. The abstract stated:

“In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioural studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg.

In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm.

Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk.

Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s.

…….urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.” – International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. in Environ Health 21, 92 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

Shockingly, Radio Waves, an online publication for telecommunications and digital service provider Orange, states on its website:

“The limit values of human exposure to electromagnetic fields for all the devices and services that emit radio waves were proposed by the ICNIRP in 1998. These values were established on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of available scientific knowledge.

In this respect, the only known biological effect is heat transfer.

The recommendations of the ICNIRP, which are the basis in particular of European regulations, are reviewed regularly. The current exposure limit values have not been challenged by recent reports of the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR – independent committee placed …….)

The ICNIRP recommendations have been widely adopted in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Similar exposure standards (IEEE C.95.1) are used in North America.” – International Standards For Maximum Values, Radio Waves

Orange also states that “to reflect any uncertainties and to have a safety margin, a safety factor of 50 is applied [to 4 W/kg for the entire body and 100 W/kg for the head and torso], so as to define the limit values of public exposure, namely 0.08 W/kg for whole body, and 2 W/kg for head and chest.”

Comparing the standards that Orange states it adheres to with the paper published in 2022 we can assume:

• The “comprehensive analysis of available scientific knowledge” Orange refers to is limited behavioural studies conducted in 5 monkeys and 8 rats.
• “The only known biological effect is heat transfer” is a bald-faced lie.
• “The recommendations of the ICNIRP ……. are reviewed regularly” is another bald-faced lie – unless being “reviewed” once in the last 25 years is considered regular.

 

yogaesoteric
July 11, 2024