June 11, 2011.   Below are some of the key resolutions/appeals released by expert scientific groups around the world since 1998, regarding the biological and health effects of both low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with electricity and radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) generated by wireless devices.

Anyone who reads these cannot be left with the illusion (or delusion) that this form of energy is without adverse biological and health consequences at levels well below existing guidelines.  Children are particularly vulnerable.   It is irresponsible of governments to maintain the status quo in light of thousands of studies that have been published and statements by these experts.

Here are the resolutions/appeals/reports  in reverse chronological order:

18.  May 31, 2011: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) reclassified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogen to humans).  This applies to all forms of radio frequency radiation (and not just cell phones as some inaccurately claim).  Click here for press release.  Final report will be published in the July 1^st issue of The Lancet Oncology.

17.  May 2011: The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) released Resolution 1815 on the Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and their effect on the Environment. This document has some excellent recommendations regarding cell phones, cordless phones, wireless baby monitors, WiFi, WLAN, WiMax, power lines, relay antenna base stations; with special concerns expressed for the protection of children and those who are electrosensitive.  Click here for document.

16.  May 2011: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and Electrohypersensitivity (EHS),  Summary of meeting at the WHO headquarters Geneva, May 13, 2011. Click here for report.  Some statements from this meeting are quoted below:

We need to include these illnesses [MCS and EHS] in the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD), because what makes it more difficult for legal recognition is precisely the lack of code for these diseases in the ICD.

The adverse reactions to chemicals or electromagnetic radiation vary in duration according to each patient, and the manifestations differ too. When the patient is again exposed, symptoms usually worsen or result in the appearance of new symptoms.

The process of these diseases (MCS and EHS) is chronic and the patient’s situation is exacerbated if he/she lives in a toxic environment, such as near Tarragona petrochemical industry or subjected to electromagnetic radiation: emissions in the neighborhood, mobile phone antennas , etc. The patient has to avoid re-exposure.

We are facing very high numbers of people already diagnosed . . . between 12% and 15% of the population has some kind of disturbance in the presence of a chemical substance.  In the EHS, figures of affected people are between 3 and 6% of the population, but these numbers are growing continuously.

Each country can recognize these diseases and include them in their ICE, independently of WHO, since according to the WHO countries have sovereignty on this issue.

15.  April 2011: The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) released their Resolution entitled “Electromagnetic fields from Mobile Phones:  Health Effect on Children and Teenagers”.  Click here for report.

The Committee presents some startling statistics [references provided in original document].

In April 2008, the RNCNIRP reviewed the short-term and long-term effects of mobile phone use for children. In particular, it reviewed possible decrease of intellectual abilities and cognition together with possible increases in susceptibility to epileptic fits, “acquired dementia” and degeneration of cerebral nervous structures. The results of clinical studies have shown that chronic exposure to RF EMF may lead to borderline psychosomatic disorders. In 2010, a number of papers published in Russian and foreign peer-reviewed journals showed a response to RF EMF exposure from the immune system.

. . .  since 2000 there has been a steady growth in the incidence of childhood diseases identified by RNCNIRP as “possible diseases” from mobile phone use.  Of particular concern is the morbidity increase among young people aged 15 to 19 years (it is very likely that most of them are mobile phone users for a long period of time). Compared to 2009, the number of CNS [central nervous system] disorders among 15 to 17 year-old has grown by 85%, the number of individuals with epilepsy or epileptic syndrome has grown by 36%, the number of “mental retardation” cases has grown by 11%, and the number of blood disorders and immune status disorders has grown by 82%.  In group of children aged less than 14 years there was a 64% growth in the number of blood disorders and immune status disorders, and 58% growth in nervous disorders. The number of patients aged 15 to 17 years old having consultations and treatment due to CNS disorders has grown by 72%.

Because of this the RNCNIRP considers it important to conduct a scientific study to determine whether the growth in morbidity resulted from EMF exposure from mobile phone use or whether it was caused by other factors.

14.  2010: Seletun Statement, Norway:  The International Electromagnetic Field Alliance (IEMFA) released their report entitled Scientific Panel on Electromagnetic Field Health Risks: Consensus Points, Recommendations, and Rationales following a scientific meeting at Seletun Norway November 2009.  The summary/abstract is provided below. Click here for publication.  Click here for report and short video of Dr. Olle Johansson.

Summary: In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF). EMF exposures (static to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric power and from wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use in weather and transportation. The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide.

Conclusions in this report build upon prior scientific and public health reports and resolutions documenting the following consensus points:

a) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.

b) ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.

13.  2009: EU Parliament Electromagnetic Report and Resolution entitled: European Parliament Resolution on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields, was adopted February 17, 2009 with 29 recommendations. Click here for report.

12.  2009: Porto Alegre Resolution, Brazil.  Scientists and doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity and are concerned that exposure to electromagnetic fields may increase the risk of cancer and chronic diseases; that exposure levels established by international agencies (IEEE, ICNIRP, ICES) are obsolete; and that wireless technology places at risk the health of children, teens, pregnant women and others who are vulnerable.  Click here for document.

11.  2008: Venice Resolution, Italy.  International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) Scientists recognize biological effects at non-thermal levels, that standards are inadequate, that electro-sensitivity exists and that there is a need to research mechanisms.  Click here for Venice Resolution.

Three key statements are provided below:

We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.

We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and, that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition.

We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against, not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms.

10.  2007: BioInitiative Report, USA.  In response to statements that there are no scientific studies showing adverse biological effects of low level electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation, a group of researchers produced the BioInitiative Report that documents 2000 studies showing biological effects of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields and radio frequency (RF) radiation and calling for biologically based exposure guidelines. This document was criticized for not having been peer-reviewed even though most of the studies cited in this document were peer-reviewed. Click here for pdf.

Since then some of the BioInitiative papers as well as ones by other authors have appeared in a special issue of the peer-reviewd journal Pathophysiology (Volume 16 Issues 2-3, 2009). The papers in this journal document EMF effects on DNA,  EMF effects on the brain, EMF in the environment, and science as a guide to public policy.  Click here for abstracts.

9.  2006: Benevento Resolution, Italy.  The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) organized a conference entitled:  The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation. Scientists at this conference signed the Benevento Resolution (click here for pdf)  that consists of 7 major statements. Among those statements are the following:

1.  . . . there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.

4.  Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.

6.  We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle– as some nations have already done.

8.  2005: Helsinki Appeal, Finland. Physicians and researchers presented the Helsinki Appeal to the European Parliament.  Click here for document. They state that:

The present safety standards of ICNIRP (International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) do not recognize the biological effects caused by non-ionizing radiation except those induced by the thermal effect. In the light of recent scientific information, the standards recommended by ICNIRP have become obsolete and should be rejected. Especially children and other persons at risk should be taken into account when re-evaluating the limits regarding the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields and radiation.  Call for new safety standards, reject International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines.

7. 2005: Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA), Ireland. Members of IDEA wrote a position paper on electromagnetic radiation. Doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is increasing and request advice from government on how to treat EHS.  Click here for document. Below is a quote from this document.

The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association believes that the Irish Government should urgently review the information currently available internationally on the topic of the thermal and non-thermal effects of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation with a view to immediately initiating appropriate research into the adverse health effects of exposure to all forms of non-ionising radiation in this country, and into the forms of treatment available elsewhere. Before the results of this research are available, an epidemiological database should be initiated of individuals suffering from symptoms thought to be related to exposure to non-ionising radiation. Those claiming to be suffering from the effects of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation should have their claims investigated in a sensitive and thorough way, and appropriate treatment provided by the State.

The strictest possible safety regulations should be established for the installation of masts and transmitters, and for the acceptable levels of potential exposure of individuals to electro-magnetic radiation.

6.  2002. Catania Resolution, Italy.  This resolution was signed by scientists at the international conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields-Scientific and Legal Issues”.  Click here for resolution. Three of their statements are provided below:

1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.

4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.

5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.

5.  2002 : Freiburg Appeal, Germany. Physicians request tougher guidelines for radio frequency exposure.  This document was endorsed by thousands of healthcare practitioners.  Click here for pdf.  Below is a quote from this report.

We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:

· Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
· Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications
· Heart rhythm disorders
· Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
· Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer–s) and epilepsy
· Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors

Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:

· Headaches, migraines
· Chronic exhaustion
· Inner agitation
· Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
· Tinnitus
· Susceptibility to infection
· Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms

Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see especially after carefully-directed inquiry a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high -frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as:

· Installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity
· Intensive mobile telephone use
· Installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the neighbourhood

We can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, for:

· Too often do we observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted areas or apartments;
· Too often does a long-term disease or affliction improve or disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination of HFMR pollution in the patient’s environment;
· Too often are our observations confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity.

4.  2002: Salzburg Resolution, Austria. The Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations makes four recommendations including preliminary guidelines 0f 0.1 microW/cm2 for sum of all emissions from mobile phone stations.  This is well below the current ICNIRP guidelines and those in Canada and the US (1000 microW/cm2) and is slightly lower than guidelines in Switzerland, Italy, Russia, China (10 mciroW/cm2).   Click here for document.

3.  2000: Stewart Report, UK. The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) produced a report, Mobile Phones and Health, that is commonly referred to as the Stewart Report, named after its Chairman Sir William Stewart.  Click here for pdf.   A quote from the foreward shows how much our understanding of this issue has changed since 2000.

The report points out that the balance of evidence does not suggest mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk. There is some preliminary evidence that outputs from mobile phone technologies may cause, in some cases, subtle biological effects, although, importantly, these do not necessarily mean that health is affected. There is also evidence that in some cases people’s well-being may be adversely affected by the insensitive siting of base stations. New mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent that happening.

The report goes on to state that:

1.17.  The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.

1.18  There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines . . .

1.19  . . . We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.

1.20 In the light of the above considerations we recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available.

2.  1998: Vienna EMF Resolution, Austria. At a Workshop on Possible Biological and Health Effects of RF Electromagnetic Fields, the scientists agreed on the following:

The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exposures are scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is inadequate to derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in the research efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose asses.

Base stations: How could satisfactory Public Participation be ensured?

The public should be given timely participation in the process. This should include information on technical and exposure data as well as information on the status of the health debate. Public participation in the decision (limits, siting, etc.) should be enabled.

Cellular phones: How could the situation of the users be improved?

Technical data should be made available to the users to allow comparison with respect to EMF-exposure. In order to promote prudent usage, sufficient information on the health debate should be provided. This procedure should offer opportunities for the users to manage reduction in EMF-exposure. In addition, this process could stimulate further developmentlow-intensity emission devices

Regarding legal aspects . . .

there is protection deficit in the public and private laws which is unsatisfactory. The legislator is requested to solve the conflict of interests between the industries commission on one side and the neighbours involvement and their interests on protection of life and health on the other side. Because of the constitutionally determined objectives of the state to comprehensively protect the environment, there is a demand of acting precautionary on the polititcal and legal level.

The Vienna declaration on electromagnetic fields recommended 13 detailed action items for parliament to consider.  Click here to read those items and to download pdf.

1.  1997:  Boston Physicians’ and Scientists’ Petition.  We the undersigned physicians and scientists call upon public health officials to intervene to halt the initiation of communication transmissions employing ground level, horizontally transmitted, pulsed microwaves in Boston.  This form of transmission is scheduled to begin June, 1997, by the Sprint Corporation for personal communications systems (PCS). Given the biological plausibility of negative health impacts, particularly to the human nervous system, as well as anecdotal evidence of illness and death from such exposures in cities where transmission has already been implemented, and voluminous medical studies indicating human and ecological harm from microwaves, we urge the suspension of that implementation pending full public notification of its potential hazards and the full review and determination of its safety by the scientific community.

With 97 signatures sent to ENHALE (Environmental Health Advocacy League], Box 425 Concord MA, 01742.

*****

Based on these resolutions and appeals from international groups of physicians and scientists immediate action is required to protect public health from continued increasing exposure to radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic fields.

I call on . . .

1. regulators around the world to reexamine existing guidelines for both EMF and EMR and to reduce them to the lowest possible levels to protect the public and workers.  Values above 4 milliGauss (low frequency magnetic fields); above 0.1 microW/cm2 (power density for radio frequency radiation) and above 40 GS units (dirty electricity) have been associated with adverse health effects in peer reviewed scientific publications!
2. government agencies responsibility for the location of both base stations and power lines to keep distances at least 400 meters (base stations) and 100 meters (transmission lines) from residential properties as well as school and health care facilities.
3. utilities (water, gas, electricity) to reconsider the use of wireless smart meters and provide wired options for those who are sensitive, for those who do not want to be exposed, and for those in densely populated settings.
4. manufacturers who are providing technology that uses electricity and/or emits radio frequency radiation to re-engineer their products to provide the minimum radiation possible.  This includes light bulbs, computers, wireless home devices like baby monitors and cordless phones, cell phones, smart meters, plasma TVs, among others.
5. architects, builders, electricians, and plumbers to design and construct buildings that are based on principles of good electromagnetic hygiene.  This includes using materials that absorb or shield building interiors from microwave radiation especially near external sources of this radiation and in multi-unit buildings; to provide wired alternatives to wireless devices; to properly wire and ground buildings to minimize low frequency electromagnetic fields and to eliminate ground current problems; and to install filters on electrical panels and/or throughout the building to ensure good power quality.
6. local, state, federal health authorities to educate medical professions about the potential biological effects of both low frequency and radio frequency electromagnetic energy; about the growing number of people who have electrosensitivity (ES) or electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and to alert them on how they can help their patients in terms of minimizing their exposure and promoting their recovery.
7. hospitals and
   
8. school boards should choose wired internet access over WiFi (wireless technology) and not allow towers/antennas within 400 meters of their school property.
9. parents to practice good electromagnetic hygiene especially in the bedroom and especially for their children.  This involves using wired rather than wireless devices in the home, keeping electric appliances away from the bed, turning off/unplugging devices when not in use.
10. the media to provide information to the public about the health and safety of using this technology; to rely on “independent experts” who do not receive funding or other benefits based on the outcome of research studies; and to identify experts funded by the industry as “industry representatives”.   The integrity of many of these scientists leaves much to be desired.

May 2011.  A Month in Review.  A lot has happened during the month of May in the EMR arena. 

1. Scientists with strong Industry ties no longer tolerated as “experts” on International Panel.

It is well know that too many “experts”, who advise international agencies such as IARC  (International Agency for Research on Cancer) and ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), have strong industry connections.  These agencies are the ones that set standards and establish what is and what isn’t harmful based on the “best available” research.  That dominance by “industry experts” is beginning to crumble ever so slowly.

A TV documentary on French television took a jab at the shenanigans that go on behind the scene.  An excellent summary is available at Microwave News.

IARC, an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), responds to criticism that too many of its expert panel have strong industry ties.  One member, Anders Ahlbom, was removed from the RF Cancer Panel that met in Lyon France during the week of May 23, 2011.  For a list of participants click here.

Other “scientists with industry ties” have been identified as John Weigel documents in this report.  They include:

René de Seze of the Fondation Santé et Radiofréquences which is half state funded and half supported by industry.

Luc Verschaeve received a small research grant from the GSM Operators Forum on environmental effects of mobile phone base stations.

Niels Kuster is President of the Board and shareholder of Near-Field Technology AG, a holding controlling the two companies SPEAG and ZMT that are active in development of near-field measurement instruments, simulation software and medical test equipment.

Joe Elder is self-employed as a RF Bioeffects Consultant. He was employed by Motorola (until 2009) and his wife holds stocks from Motorola.

Jack Rowley is employed by the GSM Association whose member companies use RF to deliver communication services.

Mays Swicord worked as a consultant for Motorola. His participation as an observer in this IARC Monographs meeting is sponsored by the CTIA – The Wireless Association.

Prof A. Lerchl, the highest ranking German in the mobile radiation protection officer, adviser to the federal government and the representative of the German state in international bodies, was denied participation in the Monograph meeting due to his alleged close links to the industry.

An investigation of ICNIRP as well as a number of national agencies also needs to be conducted.  These agencies need to be accountable to the public and the process of standard setting should be transparent.

2.  IARC classifies Radio Frequency Radiation is a Class 2B Carcinogen “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. Click here for pdf.

This is a momentous ruling as it acknowledges that radiation from cell phones may cause an increased risk in gliomas (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuromas (tumor of the acoustic nerve).  The 2B designation is not limited to cell phones.  It applies to all sources of RF radiation and that includes cordless phones, wireless baby monitors, WiFi, smart meters, cell phone antennas, broadcast and radar antennas.

Visit microwave news for a detailed account of the meeting.

With this ruling we can hope that agencies like Health Canada will revisit their guidelines and make sufficient changes to protect the public and those exposed occupationally to this radiation.

Those who manufacture equipment that emits radio frequency radiation should begin to redesign their products to minimize both the intensity and duration of radiation.  Cordless phones and wireless baby monitors that emit radiation constantly should not be sold.  In Europe voice-activated baby monitors are available yet I have not been able to find any in North America.  Wired devices do not emit this radiation and should be the first choice for those who do not want to be exposed and who do not want to expose their neighbours as this radiation extends beyond the household and is a particular problem in multi-unit dwellings.

3.  The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) released a document entitled:  The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment.  Resolution 1815 (2011). Click here for link.

This report has a number of excellent recommendations that are provided here:

8. In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe:

8.1. in general terms:

8.1.1. take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;

8.1.2. reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations and apply “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;

8.1.3. put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;

8.1.4. pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” persons suffering from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;

8.1.5. in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human health, step up research on new types of antennas and mobile phone and DECT-type devices, and encourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are just as efficient but have less negative effects on the environment and health;

8.2. concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX for computers and other wireless devices such as baby phones:

8.2.1. set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre;

8.2.2. undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior to licensing;

8.2.3. introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any health risks connected with its use;

8.2.4. raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves;

8.3. concerning the protection of children:

8.3.1. develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;

8.3.2. for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises;

8.4. concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base stations:

8.4.1. introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings;

8.4.2. apply strict safety standards for sound electric systems in new dwellings;

8.4.3. reduce threshold values for relay antennas in accordance with the ALARA principle and install systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all antennas;

8.4.4. determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennas not solely according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and regional government officials, local residents and associations of concerned citizens;

8.5. concerning risk assessment and precautions:

8.5.1. make risk assessment more prevention oriented;

8.5.2. improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk scale, making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several risk hypotheses and considering compatibility with real life conditions;

8.5.3. pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;

8.5.4. formulate a human rights oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA principles;

8.5.5. increase public funding of independent research, inter alia through grants from industry and taxation of products which are the subject of public research studies to evaluate health risks;

8.5.6. create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds;

8.5.7. make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;

8.5.8. promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including civil society (Aarhus Convention).

4.  Research at Queen’s University in Kingston documents that cell phone use may lead to low sperm quality and a decrease in male fertility.

Click here for article in Science Daily; and article in mobiledia.

Cell phone use may reduce male fertility
(Queen’s University Press Release, May 19, 2011)

Men who have been diagnosed with poor sperm quality and who are trying to have children should limit their cell phone use. Researchers have found that while cell phone use appears to increase the level of testosterone circulating in the body, it may also lead to low sperm quality and a decrease in fertility.

“Our findings were a little bit puzzling,” says Rany Shamloul, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology and lead researcher on the project. “We were expecting to find different results, but the results we did find suggest that there could be some intriguing mechanisms at work.”

The research team discovered that men who reported cell phone use had higher levels of circulating testosterone but they also had lower levels of luteinizing hormone (LH), an important reproductive hormone that is secreted by the pituitary gland in the brain.

The researchers hypothesize that electromagnetic waves (EMW) emitted by cell phones may have a dual action on male hormone levels and fertility. EMW may increase the number of cells in the testes that produce testosterone; however, by lowering the levels of LH excreted by the pituitary gland, EMW may also block the conversion of this basic circulating type of testosterone to the more active, potent form of testosterone associated with sperm production and fertility.

More in-depth research is needed to determine the exact ways in which EMW affects male fertility.
_______

So it is not only cancers we need to be concerned about but reproduction as well.  If cell phones can damage sperm image what a laptop computer in WiFi mode is doing to sperm and possibly to egg cells.  Important to heed these warnings.

This is confirmed by new studies showing that radiation from cell phones damages DNA, brain and sperm.  Read more here and here about effects on rats mice and rabbits, abstract for rabbit study; rats and the blood brain barrier; spatial memory in mice.

5.  Cell phone radiation causes piping (swarming) in bees.

Daniel Favre’s research on bees may explain why some bee colonies are empty.  After exposing a bee hive to cell phones the bees in the hive began to make a different sound that is called piping.  This piping is a message for the colony to swarm or leave the hive. Although there are probably several reasons for the global colony collapse disorder, radiation from cell towers is a good candidate especially in hives that are empty.  Click here to read Favre’s article “Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping”.

6.   Scientists who speak out about the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation are harassed.

Scientists who participated in Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Health  (HESA) meetings in April 2010 continue to be harassed.

Dr. Olle Johansson, who works at the Karolinska’s Department of Neuroscience, in a recent email message stated, “Due to unforeseen circumstances I am now being evicted from my premises.”

Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos, a biophysicist at the University of Athens was reassigned a windowless workspace the size of a toilet cubicle after he testified in Canada.

Dr. Annie Sasco, an epidemiologist with the University of Bordeaux had her office taken away from her.

Read more here.

This unfortunately is not new.  Other scientists who have made discoveries that document the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation are threatened, their labs or offices are taken away; their funding is cut; they are threatened with legal action; and some are fired.

The playing field is not level and the rules change depending on who has the most money but the truth will come out.  It already is.

November 8, 2010. Most of the documents in Zory’s Archive are concerned with the biological effects of radio frequency radiation. This week we have one that focuses on the biological effects of low frequency electric and magnetic fields.

Nair, I, MG Morgan, and HK Florig. 1989. Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, Background paper as part of OTA’s assessment of Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing:  Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, 110 pp.

Introduction and Overview

Electric and magnetic fields produced by electric power systems have recently been added to the list of environmental agents that are a potential threat to public health. This paper describes peoples’ exposures to fields from power systems and other sources (Section 2), reviews existing scientific evidence on the biological effects of these fields (Sections 3 through 7), presents a history of research support and of regulatory activity (Sections 8 and 9 ), and discusses problems and alternatives in regulatory action (Section 10).

The electric power that is used in our homes, offices and factories uses AC or alternating current.  This is in contrast to the DC or direct current that is produced by batteries. An alternating current does not flow steadily in one direction. It alternates back and forth. The power used in North America alternates back and forth 60 times each second. This is called 60 hertz (Hz) power. In Europe and some other parts of the world the frequency of electric power is 50 hertz rather than 60 Hz.

There are electric and magnetic fields wherever there is electric power. This means that there are fields associated with large and small powerlines, wiring and lighting in homes and places of work, and all electrical appliances. These fields are created by the electric charges that are pumped into the power system by electric power generating stations. Electric fields arise from the amount of that charge and magnetic fields result from the motion of that charge. Taken together, these fields are often referred to as electromagnetic fields. The electric and magnetic fields created by power systems oscillate with the current. That is why fields around power systems are called power-frequency or 60 hertz fields. A more complete description of the electromagnetic fields from power systems is presented in Section 2.

Public concerns about power-frequency fields first emerged in the late 1960s as power companies turned increasingly to extra high voltage (EHV) transmission lines to handle large increases in electricity use. EHV lines carry electric power with lower energy losses and with smaller land usage than multiple lower-voltage lines with the same power-delivery capacity. Public attention to EHV transmission lines focused first on the aesthetic impact of their large towers, on the aesthetic and ecological impacts at their rights-at-way, and on various nuisance effects created by their strong electric fields. These nuisance effects include audible noise, TV/radio interference, and induced shocks that can occur when a person standing beneath an EHV line touches a large ungrounded metal object such as a truck or farm vehicle.  By the early 1970s, the American National Standards Institute had issued voluntary standards to address nuisance effects. The first evidence that power-frequency fields might have a direct effect on human health appeared in 1972 when Soviet investigators reported that workers in Soviet EHV switchyards suffered from a number of nonspecific ailments [Korobkova 72]. Although these reports were greeted with much skepticism by western scientists, they served to stimulate public concern. By the mid-seventies, health effects had become a central issue in transmission line siting hearings in several states.

There are two reasons why conventional wisdom has until recently held that the fields associated with power systems could pose no threat to human health. First, there is no significant transfer of energy from power-frequency fields to biological systems. Unlike X-rays (i.e. ionizing radiation), powerfrequency fields do not break chemical bonds. Unlike microwaves (i.e. non-ionizing radiation), powerfrequency fields cannot cause significant tissue heating. Second, all cells in the body maintain large natural electric fields across their outer membranes. These naturally occurring fields are at least 100 times more intense than those that can be induced by exposure to common power-frequency fields.

However, despite the low energy of power-frequency fields and the very small perturbations that they make to the natural fields within the body, studies over the last fifteen years have demonstrated unequivocally that under certain circumstances, the membranes of cells can be sensitive to even fairly weak externally imposed low frequency electromagnetic fields. Extremely small signal changes can trigger major biochemical responses critical to the functioning of the cell [Adey 81, Adey 84, Adey 87].  This should perhaps have come as no surprise, as cells, especially those in the nervous system, make use of complex electrochemical processes in their normal function. The ability of some animals including eels, sharks, and pigeons to detect extremely weak ELF fields and use them for homing and finding prey clearly demonstrates that at least some specialized cells can be exquisitely sensitive to such fields [Fessard 74, Gould 82]. Among the responses demonstrated in laboratory studies using animal cells and tissue are:

• modulation of ion flows;

• interference with DNA synthesis and RNA transcription;

• interaction with the response of normal cells to various agents and biochemicals such as hormones, neurotransmitters, and growth factors;

• interaction with the biochemical kinetics of cancer cells.

Even when effects are demonstrated consistently on the cellular level in laboratory experiments, it is hard to predict whether and how they will affect the whole organism. Processes at the individual cell level are integrated through complex mechanisms in the animal. When a process in the cell is lightly perturbed by an external agent such as an ELF field, other processes may compensate for it so that there is no overall disturbance to the organism. Some perturbations may be within the ranges of disturbances that a system can experience and still function properly. This difficulty in extrapolating cellular level effects to predict the existence or severity of possible public health effects, together with the absence of any large-scale and obvious public health effect associated with electrification, are two arguments advanced during the last decade in support of the claim that there is no need for concern about possible public health effects from exposure to power-frequency fields.

Another problem in deducing possible health effects from cellular level effects has been the lack of a theoretical model to explain and understand the detailed mechanism of interaction. ELF fields affect the cell via the cell membrane. Cell membrane biology is still in its infancy although this area of molecular biology has made great strides in the past few years. Until recently, there was not enough understanding to even advance hypotheses on the potential mechanisms by which ELF fields may cause significant perturbations in cell and organ functions. Hypotheses are now being advanced but are still at a speculative stage [Adey 86, Smith 87, Liboff 86].

As we discuss in Section 3, findings at the cellular level display considerable complexity including resonant responses (or, “windows”) in frequency and field strength, complex time dependencies, and dependence on the ambient DC magnetic field created by the earth. For these reasons, ELF fields appear to be an agent to which there is no known analog. Many lessons learned from environmental hazards such as chemical agents (PCB, vinyl chloride, benzene, etc.) or physical agents (ionizing radiation, asbestos etc.) may not directly apply to ELF fields. This is because in the case of fields it is not yet clear what measures of exposure or “dose” are relevant. In contrast to more familiar environmental agents where “if some of it is bad, more of it is worse”, it may not be safe to assume that if ELF field exposure leads to health risks, exposure to stronger fields or exposure for longer periods is worse than exposure to weaker fields or brief periods.

In addition to cellular studies, whole animal and human experiments have examined five general categories of effects:

1. General effects such as detection, avoidance and behavior response and development and learning of animals, and moods of humans;

2. Effects on externally measured physical parameters such as growth and birthweight, respiration, heartbeat rate, and temperature rhythms;

3. Effects on specific biochemicals such as hormones that are responsible for the maintenance, regulation and control of general physiological and psychological functions; for response to environmental stressors; for growth and development; and, for triggering special responses such as sexual function, and fetal and newborn nourishment;

4. Effects on circadian rhythms of animals and humans, and,

5. Effects in the epidemiology of cancer, particularly leukemia and brain cancer.

Several authors and scientific advisory panels have reviewed the effects literature [Adey 86, Adey 87, AIBS 85, Carstensen 87, Florida 85, Grandolfo 86, lee 86, NYSPlP 87, Sheppard 83, West 86, WHO 84].  In summary, the results are complex and inconclusive. There have been many “negative” experiments, that is, experiments that have looked for effects but not found any difference between biological systems that have been exposed to fields and those that have not. However, the growing number of positive findings have now clearly demonstrated that under specific circumstances even weak low-frequency electromagnetic fields can produce substantial changes at the cellular level, and in a few experimental settings, effects have also been demonstrated at the level of the whole animal.

Epidemiological evidence, while controversial and subject to a variety of criticisms, is beginning to provide a basis for concern about risks from chronic exposure. Some observers find this epidemiological evidence more persuasive in light of the clear evidence of effects that is available at the cellular level, but others insist on treating the evidence from these two areas as separate.

As recently as a few years ago, scientists were making categorical statements that on the basis of all available evidence there are no health risks from human exposure to power-frequency fields. In our view, the emerging evidence no longer allows one to categorically assert that there are no risks. But it does not provide a basis for asserting that there is a significant risk.

If exposure to fields does turn out to pose a health risk, it is unlikely that high voltage transmission lines will be the only sources of concern. Power-frequency fields are also produced by distribution lines, wall wiring, appliances, and lighting fixtures. These non-transmission sources are much more common· than transmission lines and could play a far greater role than transmission lines in any public health problem.

Commonwealth Club 11-18-10. Panel I – Magda Havas, PhD from ElectromagneticHealth.Org on Vimeo.

September 2009. Dr. Sam Milham, MD, has been researching the health effects of electromagnetic exposure for decades and his most recent paper, which appeared in the September issue of the Journal of Medical Hypotheses, is particularly disturbing. See summary below.

In the 1940s, there was a discrepancy between electricity use in rural vs urban centres in some US states. This allowed Milham to compare death rates for various diseases and relate them to the degree of electrification.

In states with 96% or more electrification, and hence little difference in electrification between rural and urban regions, there was no consistent pattern and little difference in the rural/urban death rate (see figure 5 below). However in states with less than 60% electrification, and most of that in urban centres, the death rate was significant higher in urban areas than in rural areas (figure 5). Similar trends were reported for deaths attributed to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and suicide.

Milham then calculated the percent urban excess for these deaths as follows: All deaths 20.9%; suicide 29.5%; coronary disease 33.7%; all cancers 49.2%; and diabetes 66%. If this urban excess is due to electrification then we have a very serious health issue that needs to be addressed.

This important paper needs to be taken seriously by government health departments. Other scientific studies confirm these findings although none of them shows such dramatic results.

Doctors and scientists can readily understand how chemicals may either help or harm the body since we have a long history of chemicals and their biological effects both in terms of the healing effects of medication and the harmful effects of chemical pollutants. Indeed, we attribute the increase in the “diseases” of the 21st century to some combination of chemical toxicants (for example cigarette smoking and heart disease, asbestos and mesothelioma), or biological agents (such as the flu virus, bacterial infection, parasites, mould), and some combination of lifestyle choices (diet and exercise).

Few take into consideration the impact that the electromagnetic environment has on our health. For some reason the only harmful aspects of electromagnetic energy that are widely accepted include excess UV radiation leading to melanoma, x-rays and cosmic radiation contributing to various types of cancers, the heating effect of microwaves, childhood leukemia and magnetic fields, and light at night reducing melatonin levels and possibly contributing to breast cancer. Apart from these, it is assumed that electricity and the wireless technology that surrounds us is totally benign. How absurd!

The sooner we recognize that electromagnetic energy can both harm and heal the sooner we will be able to address many of the health issues we are facing today. We desperately need an infusion of information and/or a paradigm shift in the way health care professions, doctors, medical schools, and medical scientists understand and deal with electromagnetic energy. This understanding will come. My hope it that is comes sooner rather than later so that we can more effectively alleviate some of the causes of human suffering.
-magda havas

Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of ‘‘diseases of civilization”

Samuel Milham, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA, USA Medical Hypotheses, September 2009 in press.

Summary: The slow spread of residential electrification in the US in the first half of the 20th century from urban to rural areas resulted by 1940 in two large populations; urban populations, with nearly complete electrification and rural populations exposed to varying levels of electrification depending on the progress of electrification in their state. It took until 1956 for US farms to reach urban and rural non-farm electrification levels. Both populations were covered by the US vital registration system. US vital statistics tabulations and census records for 1920–1960, and historical US vital statistics documents were examined. Residential electrification data was available in the US census of population for 1930, 1940 and 1950. Crude urban and rural death rates were calculated, and death rates by state were correlated with electrification rates by state for urban and rural areas for 1940 white resident deaths. Urban death rates were much higher than rural rates for cardiovascular diseases, malignant diseases, diabetes and suicide in 1940. Rural death rates were significantly correlated with level of residential electric service by state for most causes examined. I hypothesize that the 20th century epidemic of the so called diseases of civilization including cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes and suicide was caused by electrification not by lifestyle. A large proportion of these diseases may therefore be preventable.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

November 25, 2009

1,500 attend meeting on power lines

By CBC News

Around 1,500 people attended a rally at Edmonton’s Rexall Place Tuesday night to demand the province bury an above ground, high-voltage transmission line proposed to run near the city.

Around 1,500 people attended a rally at Edmonton’s Rexall Place Tuesday night to demand the province bury an above-ground, high-voltage transmission line proposed to run near the city.

“It’s kind of playoff hockey time here, so to speak,” said John Kristensen, a member of the group Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans, which organized the rally. “We need to impress upon Alberta Energy and the entire Alberta Government that we need this line buried.”

The 500-kilovolt line, which would be built by Epcor and Alta Link, would connect the so-called industrial heartland northeast of the city to existing power facilities near Edmonton along one of four proposed routes, which could run along either the western or eastern borders of the city.

Many people at the meeting worried about the effects of the line on their health and property values if it remains above ground.

“They are going in my backyard and I don’t want them there,” said Monica Benson. “I came to get educated and find out more about it so that I could pressure the government officials and try and get them buried.”

“We are concerned because our house is the last row of houses in Sherwood Park that is a proposed route for these power lines,” said Joanne Mikula.

Consumers will pay cost of buried lines, companies say

The power companies have warned burying the lines could cost anywhere from four to 20 times as much as the above-ground option, and could be impractical. But Mikula said the extra cost would be worth it.

“Even if it was 20 bucks a month, it isn’t really that big of a deal,” she said.

Magda Havas, an associate professor from Trent University in Ontario, spoke to the crowd about research that suggests exposure to above-line power lines can cause cancer.

“Burying the power lines gets rid of so many problems associated with the high-voltage above-ground lines,” she told CBC News.

The power companies are researching whether burying the lines is a feasible option.

“We’re not opposed in anyway at all to underground installation,” said Tim LaRiche from EPCOR. “In fact, we at EPCOR already have 125 kilometres of underground transmission in the city of Edmonton. None of it is at 500 kilovolts. So this is much larger that’s being proposed here.”

EPCOR and Altalink are planning to narrow down the four route options to two before the end of the year.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/11/25/edmonton-power-line-meeting-rexall-place.html?ref=rss

November 25, 2009.

Thousands turn up for power-line protest

ctvedmonton.ca

About 1,500 people filed into Rexall Place Tuesday evening with a strong message against the construction of massive power-lines.

The rally’s organizer, the Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans group (RETA), are against 500 kilovolt power-lines the province wants to run around Edmonton.

The government is looking at four different routes, and all of them pass near bedroom communities around the city.

“Bury the lines when they go by schools, houses daycares, hospitals, environmentally sensitive areas,” said Bruce Johnson with RETA.

The government’s proposal is also drawing in fierce criticism from area residents. Many would rather have the more expensive option of running the lines underground.

“It’s simple, bury the buggers. We don’t want them,” said resident Monica Benson.

Medical expert Dr. Magda Havas revealed to the crowd Tuesday her studies, which have shown higher rates of cancer around voltage lines.

“The higher the magnetic field, the greater the risk of developing childhood leukemia,” said Havas. “The area around high voltage lines is a wasteland and it should never be a place where we put schools or playgrounds.”

Rally participants also signed a petition hoping their message reaches government officials who have the power to make adjustments.

“It’s our government,” said Johnson. “They’re the ones that are making the policy and they are the ones that need to change the policy.”

Those who attended the rally also received an update on a feasibility study being done in the idea of underground lines. Those results are due out in January.

With files from Bill Fortier

© 2008 All Rights Reserved.

November 25, 2009.

Residents fight proposed power expansion

ctvedmonton.ca

Thousands are expected to rally Tuesday evening at Rexall Place to fight a proposed power expansion in Alberta.

A massive power-line is proposed to go in one of four routes around the city. The organizers of the rally say an expected large turnout will help them get their message out loud and clear to the Alberta government.

“The larger the turnout, the stronger we feel the message as far as sending the Alberta government the message that we need to start burying these (power) lines like they are in the rest of the world,” said John Kristensen with Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans (RETA).

The group says they’ve asked a researcher from Trent University to help with their fight.

Magda Havas says burying the power-lines is the safest way to go. And that would help to eliminate electrical fields and weaken magnetic ones. Havas believes Health Canada should be doing more to protect Canadians.

“The area around high voltage lines is a wasteland and it should never be a place where we put schools or playgrounds,” said Havas.

And many Edmontonians plan on attending Tuesday’s rally to support RETA’s message.

“I think everybody needs to get involved in it and make sure that the right thing is done,” said Diane Shusheski.

Two reports are still expected to come out soon, which will give residents a better sense of how much underground lines in and around the city will cost.

A decision on the power transmission routes is expected sometime in January.

With files from CTV’s Rob McAnally

© 2008 All Rights Reserved.

November 25, 2009.

Tuesday night, thousands of people attended a meeting to promote the undergrounding of a 500 kilo volt transmission line proposed for Alberta. The meeting, organized by RETA (Responsible Electricity Transmission for Albertans) drew between 2,000 and 4,000 people and was held in Rexall Place, where the Edmonton Oilers play their games. The evening started with a procession of children carrying glow sticks and reminded those attending the purpose of the meeting, which was to protect those living near these high voltage power lines. Talks, interspersed with video interviews of leukemia sufferers, juxtaposed the scientific statistics with the real life drama of living with leukemia. For more information read “High-voltage rally to draw thousands” and “Mass Power-Line Protest” in the Edmonton Journal and visit the RETA website.

February 2007. For those concerned about living near a high voltage transmission line, read the expert testimony by Dr. Havas produced in response to the Altalink 500 kV Transmission System in the Edmonton-Calgary area.

Imagine a world identical to our own with one exception . . . everyone is deaf. There is no radio, and television remains at the level of the silent movie. Telephone communication is visual but beyond that the world is very much like our own. What would such a world be like?” Click here for expert testimony, a 40-page pdf.