From the Chicago Tribune: For years, mobile phone customers have been frustrated with the strange economics of the wireless industry: Consumers could choose the phone they want, or the carrier, but often not both.

But the balance of power now may be shifting,…

On Tuesday, Verizon Wireless, the nation’s second-largest carrier, said it planned to open its network to any device or application that meets certain standards. The result means that subscribers will be able to choose from a far broader array of handsets and software for downloading music, watching videos or browsing the Internet by the end of 2008.

Further ahead, assuming software developers and other technology providers accept Verizon’s offer, many more kinds of gadgets will be hooked into the wireless network, ranging from digital cameras to portable gaming systems to home appliances…

As people transfer more of their lives to the Internet… they are clamoring for that same Web experience on their phones. Wireless carriers face a choice of either adapting to a future generation of phone users, or stagnating as the provider of just one feature — the ability to make and receive calls — that may no longer be the dominant purpose of a device…

‘The Verizon announcement is really about setting up the kind of marketplace we’re going to have in five years,’ said Sascha Segan, lead analyst for mobile phones at PC Magazine. ‘They want to be part of the ‘post-cell phone world,’ and they know they can’t control the post-cell phone world the way they’ve been able to control the voice phone world.’

Verizon Chief Executive Lowell McAdam acknowledged the shift in a conference call. ‘We’re at a critical juncture, as broadband mobility and the Internet itself — two powerful forces — are now emerging as a mainstream part of the fabric of our everyday lives,’ McAdam said…

The bottom line for consumers is greater choice. Analysts say users are becoming disenchanted with what the cell phone industry calls the “walled garden,” in which they can access content only through their mobile phone carriers…

If future mobile phone use starts to mirror Web surfing more closely, social networking applications could have tremendous potential. A Web-based service called iLike that allows users to share music recommendations and receive concert alerts could be a good fit for phones, said Ali Partovi, iLike’s CEO. ‘If you’re walking in a park, and you get that [concert] alert, you might want to make that purchase right there from your phone,’ he said. ‘It really takes advantage of the ubiquity of phones.’”

Read the entire article at the Chicago Tribune.

Comment

1. http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=1

   The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog      

   Andrew Goldsworthy, August 2007

   Weak non-ionising electromagnetic radiation in the environment can be linked to more modern illnesses than even the pessimists thought possible. Modern science can now begin to explain how.

   Abstract

   Weak electromagnetic radiation removes structurally important calcium (and possibly
   magnesium) ions from cell membranes, making them weaker and more prone to transient
   pore formation. This makes them leaky to even large molecules. Prolonged exposure to
   mobile phone radiation causes serious damage to the DNA in living cells, probably
   because of digestive enzymes leaking from lysosomes. This may be responsible for the
   reduction in sperm quantity and quality found in recent studies of people using mobile
   phones for more than a few hours a day. We might also expect it lead to an increase in the
   incidence of cancer, but this may not become apparent for many years. Electromagnetic
   exposure also increases the permeability of the blood?brain barrier to large molecules and
   allows potentially damaging substances to enter the brain from the bloodstream. The
   blood?brain barrier is characterised by having cells joined by ‘tight junctions’, where the
   gaps between the cells are sealed by impermeable materials. Equivalent layers of cells
   with tight junctions cover all of our body surfaces and a similar increase in their
   permeability could allow the entry of a wide range of potential toxins, allergens and
   carcinogens from the environment. There is evidence that this increase in permeability is
   mediated by the loss of calcium from cell membranes and should also be enhanced by
   electromagnetic exposure. This effect can link the current rise in the incidence of multiple
   chemical sensitivities, various allergy?related diseases and skin cancer to the
   electromagnetic environment. Electrosensitive individuals can be thought of as people
   who have abnormally weak permeability barriers that are more easily compromised by
   electromagnetically?induced calcium or magnesium loss. In general, the symptoms
   resemble those of hypocalcaemia and hypomagnesaemia, which suggests a common
   aetiology based on a reduction in membrane stability. Low concentrations of either
   calcium or magnesium ions in the blood may be predisposing factors, but once the
   condition is established, it can be progressive with increasing exposure to radiation. It
   then appears to be irreversible.

   Introduction

   Nearly all of us are exposed to weak non?ionising electromagnetic radiation from all sorts
   of electrical appliances and even the wiring in our own homes. If we could see it, it would
   look like a fog over almost everything, with particularly dense patches around people
   using mobile phones and DECT cordless phones. There would be other dense patches
   hovering permanently over their base stations and Wi?Fi routers. People have dubbed this
   ‘electromagnetic smog’ and, like real smog, it can have serious effects on our health.
   Electrosensitive people have known this for a long time because they experience pain and
   other symptoms when they are exposed to the denser patches. However, the dangers go
   well beyond that. Many people have attributed the recent rise in the incidence of a large
   number of medical conditions such as asthma, other allergies, various cancers, diabetes
   and multiple sclerosis to electromagnetic exposure. However, until very recently no one
   has been able explain just how this could happen, but we are now learning about the
   likely mechanisms and just how serious the situation is.

   Calcium loss makes cell membranes porous

   The most important factor giving adverse health effects from electromagnetic exposure
   seems to be the electromagnetically?induced loss of calcium ions (electrically charged
   calcium atoms) from cell membranes. We have known for over thirty years that weak
   electromagnetic fields remove calcium ions from the surfaces of cell membranes (Bawin et
   al. 1975.; Blackman et al. 1982; Blackman 1990). In theory, magnesium ions can be
   removed by a similar mechanism (See Goldsworthy 2006). However, divalent ions (ions
   with a double charge) such as calcium are important in maintaining membrane stability
   (Steck et al. 1970; Lew et al. 1988; Ha 2001) and their loss would make the membranes
   more prone to the formation of transient pores and increase their general permeability to a
   wide range of materials.

   Pore formation can have many biological effects

   Spontaneous pore formation has already been reported in stationary artificial
   phospholipid membranes exposed to DC fields (Melikov et al. 2001) and we would expect
   an even greater effect on the membranes of living cells, which are routinely subjected to
   stresses and strains from being adjacent to moving cytoplasm. If these membranes were in
   addition suffering from electromagnetically?induced calcium depletion, we would expect
   pore formation to be more frequent and give rise to larger pores that are slower to heal. In
   this way, exposure to weak non?ionising radiation would give a non?specific increase in
   membrane permeability. Such an increase can explain a large number of non?thermal
   biological effects of electromagnetic fields, ranging from changes in the growth rate of
   plants to accelerated rates of healing and changes in gene expression in animals (See
   Goldsworthy 2006; 2007). However, it can also cause serious damage.

   Mobile phone radiation can damage DNA

   Low?level, non?thermal (i.e. not strong enough to generate significant heat) microwave
   radiation similar to that from mobile phones has been shown to do serious damage to the
   DNA in cultures of living cells. Lai and Singh (1995) were the first to show this in rat brain
   cells, but many other workers have since confirmed it. The most comprehensive study on
   this was the Reflex Project sponsored by the European Commission and replicated in
   laboratories in several European countries. They found that radiation from GSM mobile
   phone handsets caused both single and double stranded breaks in the DNA of cultured
   human and animal cells. Not all cell types were equally affected and some seemed not to
   be affected at all (Reflex Report 2004). The degree of damage depended on the duration of
   the exposure. With human fibroblasts, it reached a maximum at around 16 hours.
   Intermittent exposure (5 minutes on, ten minutes off) was considerably more damaging
   than continuous exposure, thus emphasising its non?thermal nature. (Diem et al. 2005).
   Because of the high stability of DNA molecules, the only plausible mechanism for this so
   far is the release of DNAase and possibly other digestive through the membranes of
   lysosomes (organelles that digest waste) that had been perforated or ruptured by the
   radiation. If this is correct, there is likely to be considerable collateral damage to other
   cellular systems.

   If similar DNA fragmentation were to occur in the whole organism, we would expect a
   more or less immediate reduction in male fertility as developing sperm become damaged,
   an increased risk of cancer, which (by analogy with tobacco and asbestos) may take
   several years to appear, and genetic mutations that will appear in future generations. It
   would be unwise to assume that exposures of less than 16 hours are necessarily safe, since
   covert DNA damage to give aberrant cells could occur long before it becomes obvious
   under the microscope. Claims made by the mobile phone industry that their devices are
   safe because not all cells are affected are rather like clutching at straws, since very few
   genetically aberrant cells are needed to initiate a tumour.

   Mobile phones can reduce fertility

   We might expect DNA damage to result in a loss of fertility. Recent studies have shown
   significant reductions in sperm motility, viability and quantity in men using mobile
   phones for more than a few hours a day (Fejes et al. 2005; Agarwal et al. 2006; Agarwal et
   al. 2007) so it is advisable to keep your mobile calls to a minimum. Since similar
   experiments have not yet been performed with mobile phone base stations, it would be
   premature to assume that they are necessarily safe, particularly since living near one will
   involve a considerably longer exposure.

   Electromagnetic exposure disrupts tight junction barriers

   We might expect radiation that is strong enough to disrupt lysosomes also to be strong
   enough to disrupt the outer membranes of cells so that these too are made more
   permeable to large molecules. The effects of this would be most serious in the cells of the
   various barriers within our bodies that prevent the passage of unwanted substances.
   These are characterised by cells joined by ‘tight junctions’, in which the gaps between the
   cells are sealed with impermeable materials to prevent leakage around their sides. One
   such barrier is the blood?brain barrier, which normally prevents unwanted substances in
   the bloodstream from entering the brain. We know that the radiation from mobile phones
   can increase the permeability of this barrier even to protein molecules as large as albumin
   (Persson et al. 1997) and this increase in permeability can damage the neurones beneath
   (Salford et al. 2003).

   Calcium ions control barrier tightness

   The loss in tightness of the blood?brain barrier could be due to an increase in membrane
   leakiness as proposed by Goldsworthy (2006; 2007) and/or to a disruption of the tight
   junctions themselves, either of which could be triggered by an electromagneticallyinduced
   loss of calcium from their membranes. The central role of membrane?bound
   calcium in controlling the ‘tightness’ of these layers is supported by an observation by
   Chu et al. (2001). They found that either low levels of external calcium or the addition of
   EGTA (a substance that removes calcium ions from surfaces) caused massive increases in
   the electrical conductance and permeability to virus particles of respiratory epithelia,
   which also has tight junctions.

   We have many other tight junction barriers

   There is a protective layer in the skin in the stratum granulosum, which is the outermost
   layer of living skin cells, in which the cells are connected by tight junctions (Borgens et al.
   1989; Furuse et al. 2002). In addition to this, virtually all of our other body surfaces are
   protected by cells with tight junctions, including the nasal mucosa (Hussar et al. 2002), the
   lungs (Weiss et al. 2003) and the lining of the gut (Arrieta et al. 2006). A similar
   electromagnetically?induced increase in the permeability of any of these would allow the
   more rapid entry into the body of a whole range of foreign materials, including allergens,
   toxins and carcinogens.

   Loss of tightness can exacerbate many illnesses

   Electromagnetically induced losses of barrier tightness at our body surfaces can explain
   how the general increase in public exposure to electromagnetic fields may be responsible
   for our ever?increasing susceptibility to various allergies, multiple chemical sensitivities,
   asthma, skin rashes and bowel cancer to name just a few. In addition, a non?specific
   increase in the permeability of the gut has been linked to type?1 diabetes, Crohns disease,
   celiac disease, multiple sclerosis, irritable bowel syndrome and a range of others (Arrieta
   et al. 2006). The list is truly horrendous and points to a very real need to reduce our
   exposure to non?ionising radiation.

   Electrosensitivity

   Electrosensitivity (sometimes called electromagnetic hypersensitivity) is a condition in
   which some people experience a wide range of unpleasant symptoms when exposed to
   weak non?ionising radiation. Only a small proportion of the population is electrosensitive
   (currently estimated at around three percent) and an even smaller proportion is so badly
   affected that they can instantly tell whether a device is switched on or off. At the other
   end of the scale, there are people who may be electrosensitive but do not know it because
   they are chronically exposed to electromagnetic fields and accept their symptoms
   (headaches, pins and needles, numbness, fatigue, irritability and many others.) as being
   perfectly normal. Electrosensitivity is in effect a continuum and there is no clear cut?off
   point.

   Causes and symptoms of electrosensitivity

   The cause of the condition is uncertain and not everyone shows the same symptoms, but
   they seem to be characterised by having skins that have an unusually high electrical
   conductance (Eltiti et al. 2007). This is consistent with them having a stratum granulosum
   which is abnormally leaky, and may account for the high incidence of allergies and
   chemical sensitivities commonly found in this group. One explanation for this is that they
   normally have asymptomatic low levels of calcium and/or magnesium in their blood,
   which gives low concentrations of these ions on their cell membranes. This means that less
   has to be removed by electromagnetic exposure to produce biological effects; hence their
   greater sensitivity.

   The range of electromagnetically?induced symptoms reported by electrosensitives, which
   includes skin disorders, various paresthesias (pins and needles, numbness, burning
   sensations) fatigue, muscle cramps, cardiac arrhythmia, and gastro?intestinal problems are
   remarkably similar to those from hypocalcaemia (low blood calcium)
   (http://tinyurl.com/2dwwps ) and hypomagnesaemia (low blood magnesium)
   (http://tinyurl.com/3ceevs ). This suggests that they share a common aetiology, that being
   that there are inadequate concentrations of these divalent ions on the cell membranes to
   maintain stability, which promotes poration and gives rise to an unregulated flow of
   materials across them. If a patient reporting symptoms of electrosensitivity is diagnosed
   as having sub?clinical low levels of either of these ions in the blood, and if caught at an
   early stage, it may be possible to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic exposure by
   conventional treatment for hypocalcaemia and/or hypomagnesaemia.

   Unfortunately, it does not end there. When electrosensitive people to are subjected to
   further exposure to electromagnetic fields, it seems to do permanent damage. This could
   be due to DNA or other cellular damage from ruptured lysosomes. The affected cells may
   then not function properly and become incapable of protecting themselves fully from
   further damage. This could include an ever?increasing loss of their ability to form
   adequate tight junction barriers, so making the victim progressively more sensitive to the
   radiation. It is important, therefore, to protect electrosensitive people from further
   electromagnetic exposure, but sadly, there is no Government provision for this in the UK
   because the condition is not officially recognised.

   Postscript

   Virtually all of the observations cited above came originally from peer?reviewed journals.
   I obtained them in my retirement by piecing together the findings from many scientific
   papers, often on unrelated topics, for which I thank the Library at Imperial College.
   However, there has been very little research specifically directed at discovering, either the
   full range of the adverse health effects of electromagnetic exposure or of the mechanisms
   by which they occur. I hope that the time for this will soon come. In the meantime, if you
   would like to learn more about electromagnetic fields and how to avoid them, visit
   www.powerwatch.org.uk . If you want to know more about electrosensitivity, visit
   www.electrosensitivity.org.uk .

   References

   Agarwal A, Prabakaran SA, Ranga G, Sundaram AT, Shama RK, Sikka SC (2006),
   ‘Relationship between cell phone use and human fertility: an observational study’.
   The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog 6
   Fertility and Sterility 86 (3) Supplement 1 S283. Data also available at
   http://tinyurl.com/28rm6n
   Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Rakesh K, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J (2007), ‘Effect of cell phone
   usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study’.
   Fertility and Sterility. In press (available online ? doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.166)
   Arrieta MC, Bistritz L, Meddings JB (2006), ‘Alterations in intestinal permeability’. Gut 55:
   1512?1520
   Bawin SM, Kaczmarek KL, Adey WR (1975), ‘Effects of modulated VHF fields on the
   central nervous system’. Ann NY Acad Sci 247: 74?81
   Blackman CF (1990), ‘ELF effects on calcium homeostasis’. In: Wilson BW, Stevens RG,
   Anderson LE (eds) Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: the Question of
   Cancer. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, pp 189?208
   Blackman CF, Benane SG, Kinney LS, House DE, Joines WT (1982), ‘Effects of ELF fields
   on calcium?ion efflux from brain tissue in vitro’. Radiation Research 92: 510?520
   Borgens RB, Robinson, KR, Vanable JW, McGinnis ME (1989), Electric Fields in Vertebrate
   Repair. Liss, New York
   Chu Q, George ST, Lukason M, Cheng SH, Scheule RK, Eastman SJ (2001), ‘EGTA
   enhancement of adenovirus?mediated gene transfer to mouse tracheal epithelium
   in vivo’. Human Gene Therapy 12: 455?467
   Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H (2005), ‘Non?thermal DNA breakage
   by mobile phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed
   GFSH?R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro’. Mutation Research / Genetic Toxicology and
   Environmental Mutagenesis 583: 178?183
   Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, Mirshekar?Syahkal D,
   Rasor P, Deeble R, Fox E (2007), ‘Does short?term exposure to mobile phone base
   station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to
   electromagnetic fields? A double blind provocation study’. Environmental Health
   Perspectives http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10286/10286.pdf
   Fejes I, Zavaczki Z, Szollosi J, Koloszar S, Daru J, Kovaks L, Pal A (2005), ‘Is there a
   relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?’ Arch Andrology 51: 385?
   393
   Furuse M, Hata M, Furuse K, Yoshida Y, Haratake A, Sugitani Y, Noda T, Kubo A,
   Tsukita S (2002), ‘Claudin?based tight junctions are crucial for the mammalian
   epidermal barrier: a lesson from claudin?1? deficient mice’. J Cell Biol 156; 1099?
   1111
   Goldsworthy A (2006), ‘Effects of electrical and electromagnetic fields on plants and
   related topics’. In: Volkov AG (ed) Plant Electrophysiology – Theory and Methods.
   Springer?Verlag, Berlin
   The Dangers of Electromagnetic Smog 7
   Goldsworthy A (2007), ‘The biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields’.
   http://tinyurl.com/2nfujj
   Ha B?Y (2001), ‘Stabilization and destabilization of cell membranes by multivalent ions’.
   Phys Rev E 64: 051902 (5 pages)
   Hussar P, Tserentsoodol N, Koyama H, Yokoo?Sugawara M, Matsuzaki T, Takami S,
   Takata K (2002), ‘The glucose transporter GLUT1 and the tight junction protein
   occludin in nasal olfactory mucosa’. Chem Senses 27: 2?11
   Lew VL, Hockaday A, Freeman CJ, Bookchin RM (1988), ‘Mechanism of spontaneous
   inside?out vesiculation of red cell membranes’. J Cell Biol 106: 1893?1901
   Lai H, Singh NP (1995), Acute low?intensity microwave exposure increases DNA singlestrand
   breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 16: 207?210
   Melikov KC, Frolov VA, Shcherbakov A, Samsonov AV, Chizmadzhev YA,
   Chernomordik LV (2001), ‘Voltage?induced nonconductive pre?pores and
   metastable single pores in unmodified planar lipid bilayer’. Biophys J 80: 1829?1836
   Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A (1997), ‘Blood?brain barrier permeability in rats exposed
   to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication’. Wireless Networks 3:
   455–461
   Reflex Report (2004), http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/reports/20041222_reflex.pdf
   Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren K, Persson BRR (2003), ‘Nerve cell damage
   in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones’.
   Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 881?883
   Steck TL, Weinstein RS, Straus, JH, Wallach DFH (1970), ‘Inside?out red cell membrane
   vesicles: preparation and purification’. Science 168: 255?257
   Weiss DJ, Beckett T, Bonneau L, Young J, Kolls JK, Wang G (2003), ‘Transient increase in
   lung epithelial tight junction permeability: an additional mechanism for of
   enhancement of lung transgene expression by perfluorochemical liquids’.
   Molecular Therapy 8: 927?935

   Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD is an Honorary Lecturer in Biology at Imperial College
   London

   (Produced with permission – original article here )  

   < Prev   Next >

   [ Back ]

   Latest Research

   Mast Sanity (Research Information) Research Information
   EMF-Omega-News 10. November 2007

   http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4431821/

   EMF-Omega-News 3. November 2007

   http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4408268/

   SWI Health Study: Prevalence of Electro-Sensitivity Conditions

   http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4400009/

   Dr. Carlo on WIFI in SCHOOLS: Effects on Teachers and Students

   http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4388705/

   EMF-Omega-News 27. October 2007

   http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4387042/

   Login / Join Mast Sanity

   Username
    
   Password
    
     Remember me
    
   Lost Password?
   No account yet? Register

   Help Us Do More! Donate via:

    

   Enter Amount:

   £     

   Or Send Donations by post to:

   Mast Sanity

   c/o Highfields
   Brantham Hill,
   Manningtree, Essex

   CO11 1SD

   — Bill Gallagher · Dec 1, 10:50 AM · #

Other stories
RAIN 09/05: DiMA's Potter disputes SoundEx's "lack of webcaster monetization" argument
RAIN 09/04: "Mission accomplished" for HD Radio Alliance
RAIN 09/03: Brian Parsons joins Triton Media
RAIN 9/2: Broadcasters should be on "as many wireless devices as possible," says Greater Media VP
RAIN 08/29: BBC PLANS MASSIVE MUSIC STREAMING SERVICE
RAIN 8/28: RIAA lobbying for radio royalties at political conventions
RAIN 8/27: Analyst warns investors away from "long-term loser" music industry
RAIN 8/26: In heavyweight online radio battle, CC readies "I Heart Music" to take on CBS
RAIN 8/25: Chrysler's in-car Internet launches
RAIN 8/22: Pandora's fight is radio's fight, says industry research expert