Cellphone radiation and cancer, a Q&A with Elana Freeland

Wiley Book: What’s your background? What sparked your interest in cellphones and microwave tech?

Elana Freeland: One of my double majors in college long ago was biology. More importantly, I spent 10 years researching a myriad of topics having to do with what Peter Dale Scott, retired Canadian UC professor, calls “deep politics,” namely shadowy figures, foundations, and brain banks who have gutted this democratic nation and brought us to our knees. One of the most nefarious topics I discovered was electromagnetic weapons. So when the military allowed the public to have “mobile” cellphones they’d had since World War II, I asked myself, “What’s up?” given that, last time I checked, the military is not in the comfort and convenience business.

WB: Recently several studies have caused the World Health Organization (WHO) to classify microwave radiation from cellphones as potentially cancerous. What are your thoughts on this? Is WHO going too far or not far enough?

EF: I was amazed to see such honesty in WHO; their history is less so, particularly regarding AIDS. Perhaps it is pressure from the European Union’s grasp of the danger this technology poses, or perhaps it is the sheer weight of argument in the many studies we never hear about in the United States because of the press blackout our illusions of “being informed” labor under. Our government is owned and run by huge corporations, with capitalism running rampant. But don’t forget: WHO is still being ingenuous regarding the effects of non-thermal radiation on biological life. I am afraid it will take a debacle for such global organizations to get more honest.

WB: There seems to be a good deal more discussion given to the controversies surrounding microwave tech in other countries such as Sweden, Australia, and Germany. Do you yourself find this to be the case? If so, why do you think that is?

EF: Yes, many countries are up to speed on this issue. As I said above, our press blackout, thanks to corporations profiting from our maladies and demise as a nation, has prevented us from learning what Europe well knows. Could it be that the European Union cares more about their citizens than our government cares about ours? I think so.

WB: The main link between radiation and cancer is ionizing radiation, which can lead to DNA damage which in turn can cause cancer. Radio waves and microwaves, however, are non-ionizing. How could they cause cancer or genetic aberrations?

EF: The answer to your question is manifold, meaning it can be examined from many angles, all the way from biological to political. I quote from my webinar lecture “This Covert Electromagnetic Era”: It would be comforting to believe that ignorance of the impact on human health here and now and in future generations lies behind the present proliferation of cell towers and Wi-Fi technology. But the dangers inherent in non-ionized, non-thermal electromagnetic technology have been well known since Project Pandora in the mid-1960s. Read about it in Robert O. Becker’s 1985 book “The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life”. In the early era of radar, it did not take long for physicians and scientists to grasp what radar operators’ symptoms of sterility, baldness, cataracts behind the lens, white blood cell proliferation, and chromosome changes meant, including their proclivity for having children with Down’s syndrome. The military’s response was to create yet more secret classifications and to make sure that thermal power density norms ignored non-thermal effects. The Cold War and EM open-field research was to be protected at all costs, human health be damned.

WB: In the late 1970s, concerns were raised over the possibility of whether or not power lines were causing an increase in childhood leukemia rates. Further studies found little correlation. Some have compared recent growing unease regarding cellphone use to this scare. Do you think there are parallels between the two cases?

EF: Yes, I think there are parallels, particularly in telecom industry-sponsored studies that skew data and major media that bury honest studies.

WB: While some studies have indicated a correlation between cellphone radiation and cancer, the majority of studies have not. Why do you think this is?

EF: As I’ve indicated above, “research” is often purchased by telecom corporations, foxes in the henhouse, whereas authentic studies that indisputably prove a relationship between cellphones and cancer are simply not allowed to see the light of day in the United States.