Shocking warnings for the effects of modern day electromagnetic radiation sources

How do cordless phones, modems (Wi-Fi), mobile phone masts, electricity cables, baby monitors etc. affects us? What do the European Parliament, the Russian Committee for the Protection from Non-Ionizing Radiation, the World Health Organization and dozens of leading scientists warn?

doctor holding a warning sign

“The limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete. They do not take account of developments in information and communication technologies or vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children. “ European Parliament, Resolution 2007/2252 [1]

"The Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe:

  • 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,
  • reconsider the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations, and apply ALARA principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation
  • 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
  • pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer 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
  • 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;
  • undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior to licensing;
  • introduce clear labeling 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
  • raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings
  • apply strict safety standards for the health impact of electrical systems in new dwellings determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennae not solely according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and regional government authorities, local residents and associations of concerned citizens;
  • increase public funding of independent research, in particular through grants from industry and taxation of products that are the subject of public research studies to evaluate health risks"

Council of Europe, Resolution 1815/2011 [2]

"We are concerned about the body of evidence that indicates that exposure to electromagnetic fields interferes with basic human biology and may increase the risk of cancer and other chronic diseases." International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Porto Alegre Resolution (2009) [3]

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

  • Learning, concentration, and behavioral 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.

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.

On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development.

One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already-present chemical/physical influences, stress the body's immune system, and can bring the body's still-functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt. Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk.

Our therapeutic efforts to restore health are becoming increasingly less effective: the unimpeded and continuous penetration of radiation into living and working areas , particularly bedrooms, an essential place for relaxation, regeneration and healing, causes uninterrupted stress and prevents the patient's thorough recovery.

In the face of this disquieting development, we feel obliged to inform the public of our observations, especially since hearing that the German courts regard any danger from mobile telephone radiation as "purely hypothetical" (see the decisions of the constitutional court in Karlsruhe and the administrative court in Mannheim, Spring 2002).

What we experience in the daily reality of our medical practice is anything but hypothetical! We see the rising number of chronically sick patients also as the result of an irresponsible "safety limits policy", which fails to take the protection of the public from the short- and long-term effects of mobile telephone radiation as its criterion for action. Instead, it submits to the dictates of a technology already long recognized as dangerous. For us, this is the beginning of a very serious development through which the health of many people is being threatened.

We will no longer be made to wait upon further unreal research results - which in our experience are often influenced by the communications industry, while evidential studies go on being ignored. We find it to be of urgent necessity that we act now!

Above all, we are, as doctors, the advocates for our patients. In the interest of all those concerned, whose basic right to life and freedom from bodily harm is currently being put at stake, we appeal to those in the spheres of politics and public health. Please support the following demands with your influence:

  • New health-friendly communications techniques, given independent risk assessments before their introduction and, as immediate measures and transitional steps:
  • Stricter safety limits and major reduction of sender output and HFMR pollution on a justifiable scale, especially in areas of sleep and convalescence
  • A say on the part of local citizens and communities regarding the placing of antennae (which in a democracy should be taken for granted)
  • Education of the public, especially of mobile telephone users, regarding the health risks of electromagnetic fields
  • Ban on mobile telephone use by small children, and restrictions on use by adolescents
  • Ban on mobile telephone use and digital cordless (DECT) telephones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, events halls, public buildings and vehicles (as with the ban on smoking)
  • Mobile telephone and HFMR-free zones (as with auto-free areas)
  • Revision of DECT standards for cordless telephones with the goal of reducing radiation intensity and limiting actual use time, as well as avoiding the biologically critical HFMR pulsation.
  • Industry-independent research, finally with the inclusion of amply available critical research results and our medical observations."

The Freiburger Appeal - Union Resolution of Environmental Medicine, Germany (IGUMED) [4]

"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." Resolution of Venice (2008), International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (IECEM) [5]

"It's all a false alarm? No, the studies are competent, conclusive, powerful, scientific, factual and most certainly correct. The chicks are now dead as a dodo, the peaks in the EEG are obvious as are the dark spots in the brain, the leaks in the blood brain barrier, the breaks in the DNA, the irritation of the nerves. Red blood cells look like frog spawn, ears start to ring, the blood pressure goes up, and the level of concentration goes down. These are the facts. The researchers who made those and many other findings are competent, they are well known and renowned the world over, coming from prestigious universities, institutes, laboratories, agencies, from the WHO, even from the mobile phone service providers themselves. False alarm? No way." 

“When I run up against a brick wall all of ten times and develop a blue bruise each single time, this would be an accurately observed and easily reproducible fact. If I am concerned about it, trying to tell my story or even publish it because I wish to stop this type of wall running, such action will be regarded as premature and unscientific, even as downright fear-mongering. And that because there were simply not enough others be-fore or after me who would have done the same thing, thus replication did not take place. Or if it did, the bruising in other people, age groups, skin colors, and with differ-ent momenta did not turn quite as blue but rather a shade of green. Anyhow, something is still missing, that is the conclusive explanation of the effect: Why does the bruise de-velop? And why in this way and no other, why this color, pain, dizziness? What is going on here? Without clear answers to these questions (and a lot more), it will remain scien-tifically untenable - by a long shot - despite the bruise, despite the pain and dizziness.“

Wolfgang Maes, German Institute for Building Biology [6]

"I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields." Dr. Robert Becker, 2 times Nobel Prize nominee [7]

"Thus in the frequency range 100 kHz to 300 GHz, 50 years ago it was scarcely possible to measure 10 pW/cm2 on the ground in our countries. Today, depending on the location, values one million to one thousand million times higher are recorded because of the explosion of telecommunications.

According to an increasing number of epidemiological and experimental studies, even slight exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields increases the risks of cancer, can be accompanied by nervous disorders and disruption of the circadian rhythms and seems capable of affecting developing organisms.

The results of many in vivo and in vitro studies show increasing clearly the interaction mechanisms underlying such disorders and illnesses, centered mainly in cell membrane, lead to disruption of melatonin secretions, ornithine decarboxylase activity and T-lymphocyte efficacy, testifying to the probable role of non-ionizing radiation in promoting cancer."

European Parliament Resolution B3-0280/92 [8]

“Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity. There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.” Samuel Milham MD, MPH, Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology. [9]

"More meaningful is to ask whether there is an established potential risk to human health from exposure to GSM/TETRA radiation: the answer is undoubtedly ‘yes’. It is probably true to say that if a similar degree of risk and uncertainty as to subjective noxiousness obtained in the case of a new drug or foodstuff, it is unlikely that they would ever be licensed.

Quite apart from their weaker immune systems, pre-adolescent children are particularly vulnerable as recognized by the Stewart Report - because of the increased rate at which their cells are dividing (which makes them more susceptible to genetic damage), and because their nervous system is still developing - the smaller size of their heads and their thinner skulls increasing the amount of radiation that they absorb, particularly at 900MHz. Especially vulnerable to interference by the pulsed microwave radiation used in GSM is their electrical brain-wave activity, which does not settle into a stable pattern until puberty. The use of mobile phones by pre-adolescent children is thus to be strongly discouraged, and the siting of Base-station masts in the vicinity of schools and nurseries (including those hidden in church towers and in illuminated signs, such as those at petrol stations, for example) must be strongly resisted: financial gain must not be allowed to be the overriding consideration.

Adverse health effects in humans of the kinds already reported worldwide such as headaches, sleep disruption, impairment of short-term memory, etc. - whilst maybe not life-threatening in themselves, do nevertheless have a debilitating effect that undoubtedly affects general well-being, and which in the case of some children could well undermine their neurological and academic development, as is already evident from experience in the case of a number of infant/junior schools at which a GSM Base-station is located."[10]

“A major contemporary threat to the health of Society is man-made ‘electrosmog’. This non-ionising electromagnetic pollution of technological origin is particularly insidious, in that it escapes detection by the senses – a circumstance that, in general, tends to promote a rather cavalier attitude, particularly with respect to the necessity of ensuring an adequate degree of personal protection. Yet the nature of the pollution is such that there is literally ‘nowhere to hide’.

Furthermore, given the relatively short time for which we have been exposed to it, we have no evolutionary immunity either against any adverse effects it might directly have on our alive organism or, indirectly, against its possible interference with certain electromagnetic processes of natural origin, which appear to be essential for homeostasis, such as, for example, the Schumann resonance – a weak electromagnetic field that oscillates resonantly in the cavity between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere at frequencies close to those of human brain rhythms, isolation from which has been found to be deleterious to human health.

What distinguishes technologically produced electromagnetic fields from (the majority of) those of natural origin is their much higher degree of coherence. This means that their frequencies are particularly well-defined, a feature that facilitates the discernment of such fields by living organisms, including ourselves. This greatly increases their biological potency, and ‘opens the door’ to the possibility of frequency-specific, non-thermal influences of various kinds, against which existing Safety Guidelines – such as those issued by the International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection ( ICNIRP) - afford no protection.” [21]

Dr. Gerard Hyland, Biophysics, University of Warwick, 2 times Nobel Prize contender

"If there are currently unrecognized adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head (paragraph 4.37), and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, at this time, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children" Steward Report, INDEPENDENT EXPERT GROUP ON MOBILE PHONES, report for the British Pariliament [11]

"Scientific studies at the cellular level, whole animal level and involving human populations, shows compelling and comprehensive evidence that RF/MW exposure down to very low residential exposure levels, levels which are a minute fraction of present “safety standards”, results in altered brain function, sleep disruption, depression, chronic fatigue, headache, impaired memory and learning, adverse reproductive outcomes including miscarriage, still birth, cot death, prematurely and birth deformities. Many other adverse health effects have been found, predominantly cancer of many organs, especially brain cancer, leukemia, breast cancer and testicular cancer. Studies have also found that RF/MW exposed parents have more children with CNS cancers and other health defects. These effects are consistent with genetic damage caused by RF/MW. Many scientific studies have found chromosome aberrations and DNA damage with RF/MW exposure, the first being published in 1959. Three primary biological mechanisms are linked to these effects, genotoxicity, altered cellular calcium ions and melatonin reduction. With melatonin reduction there is usually a rise in serotonin which is associated with awakeness, alertness, anxious, anger, rage and violence depending on the serotonin level, the person and the circumstances. Most of these and many other neurological and health effects are associated with geomagnetic activity, through the Schumann Resonance signal mechanism which alters the human melatonin levels. Is strongly supports a causal connection between the extremely low intensity natural electronic signals and the thousands to billions of times higher humanly generated electromagnetic signals, and the listed health effects. Hence there is strong evidence that ELF and RF/MW is associated with accelerated aging (enhanced cell death and cancer) and moods, depression, suicide, anger, rage and violence, primarily through genotoxic damage, alteration of cellular calcium ions and the melatonin/serotonin balance." Dr. Neil Cherry, Lincoln University in New Zealand [8]

“The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.”Abraham Liboff, researcher, Center of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Florida Atlantic [9]

"Studies of people have shown that both ELF and RF exposures result in an increased risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensities that are too low to cause tissue heating.  Unfortunately, all of our exposure standards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating. Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices.  Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease. We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue can not be underestimated.”  Dr. David Carpenter, School of Public Health, Albany, New York University [9]

"Ambient man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs), across a range of frequencies, are a serious environmental issue. Yet most environmentalists know little about it, perhaps because the subject has been the purview of physicists and engineers for so long that biologists have lost touch with electromagnetism’s fundamental inclusion in the biological paradigm. All living cells and indeed whole living beings, no matter what genus or species, are dynamic coherent electrical systems utterly reliant on bioelectricity for life’s most basic metabolic processes. It turns out that most living things are fantastically sensitive to vanishingly small EMF exposures. Living cells interpret such exposures as part of our normal cellular activities (think heartbeats, brainwaves, cell division itself, etc.) The problem is, man-made electromagnetic exposures aren’t “normal.” They are artificial artifacts, with unusual intensities, signaling characteristics, pulsing patterns, and wave forms, that don’t exist in nature. And they can misdirect cells in myriad ways. Every aspect of the ecosystem may be affected, including all living species from animals, humans, plants and even microorganisms in water and soil. We are already seeing problems in sentinel species like birds, bats, and bees. Wildlife is known to abandon areas when cell towers are placed. Radiofrequency radiation (RF)—the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used in all-things-wireless today—is a known immune system suppressor, among other things. RF is a form of energetic air pollution and we need to understand it as such. Humans are not the only species being affected. The health of our planet may be in jeopardy from this newest environmental concern—added to all the others. Citizens need to call upon government to fund appropriate research and to get industry influence out of the dialogue. We ignore this at our own peril now.” Blake Levit, author of "Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves" [9]

“Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity. There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.” Dr. Samuel Milham, Medical researcher occupational epidemiology [9]

"Sensitivity to EMF has been given the general name “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” or EHS. It comprises nervous system symptoms like headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a disabling problem for the affected persons. Their EMF exposure is generally several orders of magnitude under the limits of internationally accepted standards." World Health Organization [13]

“It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons. There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons. It is clear something serious has happened and is happening. Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives, including the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe, permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage of the world’s population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical conditions.” Dr. Johansson, Neurology Section, Karolinska Institute in Stockholm [14]

“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant” Dr. William Rea, former president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine [14]

“It took about 100 years for us to figure out that cigarette smoke was dangerous,” Carlo says. “It took about 80 years to figure out that asbestos was dangerous. [But] it took us five years to figure out that mobile phones are dangerous, once we started to look. What we’re talking about here is an effect that, at least in terms that are able to be recognized, greater than smoking and asbestos.” Dr. George Carlo, Founder Safe Wireless Initiative [15]

"For the first time in history, we face a situation when most children and teenagers in the world are continuously exposed to the potentially adverse influence of the electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile phones. Electromagnetic field is an important biotropic factor, affecting not just a human health in general, but also the processes of the higher nervous activity, including behavior and thinking. Radiation directly affects human brain when people use mobile phones.

Despite the recommendations, listed in the Sanitary Rules of the Ministry of Health, which insist that persons under 18 years should not use mobile phones (SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03 point 6.9), children and teenagers became the target group for the marketing the mobile communications.

The current safety standards for exposure to microwaves from the mobile phones have been developed for the adults and don’t consider the characteristic features of the children’s organism. The WHO considers the protection of the children’s health from possible negative influence of the EMF of the mobile phones as a highest priority task. This problem has also been confirmed by the Scientific Committee of the European Commission, by national authorities of the European and Asian countries, by participants of the International scientific conferences on biological effects of the EMF.

Potential risk for the children’s health is very high:

  • the absorption of the electromagnetic energy in a child’s head is considerably higher than that in the head of an adult (children’s brain has higher conductivity, smaller size, thin skull bones, smaller distance from the antenna etc.);
  • children’s organism has more sensitivity to the EMF, than the adult’s;
  • children’s brain has higher sensitivity to the accumulation of the adverse effects under conditions of chronic exposure to the EMF
  • EMF affects the formation of the process of the higher nervous activity;
  • today’s children will spend essentially longer time using mobile phones, than today’s adults will.

According to the opinion of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the following health hazards are likely to be faced by the children mobile phone users in the nearest future:

  • disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to the stress, increased epileptic readiness.

Expected (possible) remote health risks:

  • brain tumors, tumors of acoustical and vestibular, nerves (in the age of 25-30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome, and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60).

The members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection emphasize ultimate urgency to defend children’s health from the influence of the EMF of the mobile communication systems. We appeal to the government authorities, to the entire society to pay closest attention to this coming threat and to take adequate measures in order to prevent negative consequences to the future generation’s health. The children using mobile communication are not able to realize that they subject their brain to the EMF radiation and their health – to the risk. We believe that this risk is not much lower than the risk to the children’s health from tobacco or alcohol. It is our professional obligation not to let damage the children’s health by inactivity."

Russian Commission for the Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation [16]

"We need to test the electromagnetic exposure of the sleeping location of the mother during pregnancy and also her working area, if she is working. If the mother is sleeping in strong electromagnetic fields the child will be neurologically abnormal. Within 2 years the child will develop all the signs of autism, neurological dysfunction, hyperactivity, learning disorders and so on." Dr. Dietrich Klingkchart, Institute of Neurobiology Washington [17]

"In the past, we applied microwaves for birth control. Today we make phone calls with it. Go figure." Dr. Huai Chiang, advisor to the World Health Organization in radiation issues, Medical School of Zhejiang China [6]

"The adverse effects of electrosmog may take decades to be appreciated, although some, like carcinogenicity, are already starting to surface. This gigantic experiment on our children and grandchildren could result in massive damage to mind and body with the potential to produce a disaster of unprecedented proportions, unless proper precautions are immediately implemented." Paul Rosch, professor of medicine at New York Medical School [14]

"The European Parliament,(…)

A.   whereas electromagnetic fields (EMFs) exist in nature and have consequently always been present on earth; whereas, however, in recent decades, environmental exposure to man-made sources of EMFs has risen constantly, driven by demand for electricity, increasingly more specialised wireless technologies, and changes in the organisation of society; whereas the end effect is that every individual is now being exposed to a complex mixture of electric and magnetic fields of different frequencies, both at home and at work,

B.   whereas wireless technology (mobile phones, Wi-Fi/WiMAX, Bluetooth, DECT landline telephones) emits EMFs that may have adverse effects on human health,

C.   whereas most European citizens, especially young people aged from 10 to 20, use a mobile phone, an object serving a practical purpose and as a fashion accessory, and whereas there are continuing uncertainties about the possible health risks, particularly to young people whose brains are still developing,

D.   whereas the dispute within the scientific community regarding the potential health risks arising from EMFs has intensified since 12 July 1999, when exposure limits for fields in the 0 Hz to 300 GHz range were laid down in Recommendation 1999/519/EC,

E.   whereas the fact that the scientific community has reached no definite conclusions has not prevented some national or regional governments, in China, Switzerland, and Russia, as well as in at least nine EU Member States, from setting what are termed "preventive" exposure limits, that is to say, lower than those advocated by the Commission and its independent scientific committee, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks(7) ,

F.   whereas actions to limit the exposure of the general public to EMFs should be balanced against improvements to quality of life, in terms of safety and security, brought about by devices transmitting EMFs,

G.   whereas among the scientific projects arousing both interest and controversy is the Interphone epidemiological study, financed by an EU contribution of EUR 3 800 000, primarily under the Fifth RTD Framework Programme(8) , the findings of which have been awaited since 2006,

H.   whereas, however, there are some points that appear to be the subject of general agreement, in particular the idea that reactions to microwave exposure vary from one person to another, the need, as a matter of priority, to conduct exposure tests under actual conditions in order to assess the non-thermal effects associated with radio-frequency (RF) fields, and the fact that children exposed to EMFs are especially vulnerable(9) ,

I.   whereas the EU has laid down exposure limits to protect workers from the effects of EMFs; whereas on the basis of the precautionary principle such measures should also be taken for the sections of population concerned, such as residents and consumers,

J.   whereas the Special Eurobarometer report on Electromagnetic Fields (No 272a of June 2007) indicates that the majority of citizens do not feel that the public authorities inform them adequately on measures to protect them from EMFs,

K.   whereas it is necessary to continue investigations into intermediate and very low frequencies so that conclusions can be drawn as to their effects on health,

L.   whereas the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) must not be threatened by Directive 2004/40/EC as MRI technology is at the cutting edge of research, diagnosis and treatment of life-threatening diseases for patients in Europe,

M.   whereas the MRI safety standard IEC/EN 60601-2-33 establishes limit values for EMFs which have been set so that any danger to patients and workers is excluded.

1.  Urges the Commission to review the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF limits as laid down in Recommendation 1999/519/EC and report to the Parliament; calls for the review to be undertaken by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks;

2.  Calls for particular consideration of biological effects when assessing the potential health impact of electromagnetic radiation, especially given that some studies have found the most harmful effects at lowest levels; calls for active research to address potential health problems by developing solutions that negate or reduce the pulsating and amplitude modulation of the frequencies used for transmission;

3.  Maintains that as well as, or as an alternative to, amending European EMFs limits, the Commission, working in coordination with experts from Member States and the industries concerned (electricity companies, telephone operators and manufacturers of electrical appliances including mobile phones), should draw up a guide to available technology options serving to reduce exposure to EMFs;

4.  Notes that industry stakeholders as well as relevant infrastructure managers and competent authorities can already influence certain factors, for example setting provisions with regards to the distance between a given site and the transmitters, the height of the site in relation to the height of the base station, or the direction of a transmitting antenna in relation to living environments, and, indeed, should obviously do so in order to reassure, and afford better protection to, the people living close to such facilities; calls for optimal placement of masts and transmitters and further calls for the sharing of masts and transmitters placed in this way by providers so as to limit the proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters; calls on the Commission and Member States to draw up appropriate guidance;

5.  Invites the Member States and local and regional authorities to create a one-stop shop for authorisation to install antennas and repeaters, and to include among their urban development plans a regional antenna plan

6.  Urges the authorities responsible for authorising the siting of mobile telephony antennas to reach agreement, jointly with the operators in that sector, on the sharing of infrastructure, in order to reduce the volume thereof and the exposure of the public to EMFs;

7.  Acknowledges the efforts of mobile communications and other EMF-transmitting wireless technologies to avoid damaging the environment, and in particular to address climate change;

8.  Considers that, given the increasing numbers of legal actions and measures by public authorities having the effect of a moratorium on the installation of new EMF-transmitting equipment, it is in the general interest to encourage solutions based on negotiations involving industry stakeholders, public authorities, military authorities and residents" associations to determine the criteria for setting up new GSM antennas or high-voltage power lines, and to ensure at least that schools, crèches, retirement homes, and health care institutions are kept clear, within a specific distance determined by scientific criteria, of facilities of this type;

9.  Calls on the Member States to make available to the public, jointly with the operators in the sector, maps showing exposure to high-voltage power lines, radio frequencies and microwaves, and especially those generated by telecommunications masts, radio repeaters and telephone antennas. Calls for that information to be displayed on an internet page so that it can easily be consulted by the public, and for it to be disseminated in the media;

10.  Proposes that the Commission consider the possibility of using funding from the Trans-European Energy Networks to investigate the effects of EMFs at very low frequencies, and particularly in electrical power lines,

11.  Calls on the Commission, during the 2009-2014 parliamentary term, to launch an ambitious programme to gauge the electromagnetic compatibility between waves created artificially and those emitted naturally by the human body with a view to determining whether microwaves might ultimately have undesirable consequences for human health;

12.  Calls on the Commission to present a yearly report on the level of electromagnetic radiation in the EU, its sources, and actions taken in the EU to better protect human health and the environment;

13.  Calls on the Commission to find a solution enabling Directive 2004/40/EC to be implemented more rapidly and thus ensure that workers are properly protected against EMFs, just as they are already protected under two other Community acts against noise(10) and vibration(11) and to introduce a derogation for MRI under Article 1 of that Directive.

14.  Deplores the fact that, as a result of repeated postponements since 2006, the findings of the Interphone study have yet to be published, the purpose of this international epidemiological study being to establish whether there is a link between use of mobile phones and certain types of cancer, including brain, auditory nerve, and parotid gland tumours;

15.  Draws attention in this context to the appeal for caution from the coordinator of the Interphone study, Elisabeth Cardis, who, in the light of existing knowledge, recommends, as far as children are concerned, that mobile phones should not be used beyond reasonable limits and that landlines should be preferred;

16.  Believes in any event that it is up to the Commission, which has an important contribution to the financing of this global study, to ask those in charge of the project why no definitive findings have been published and, should it receive an answer, to inform Parliament and the Member States without delay;

17.  Also suggests to the Commission, to make for efficiency in policy and budget terms, that the Community funding earmarked for studies on EMFs be partly switched to finance a wide-ranging awareness campaign to familiarise young Europeans with good mobile phone techniques, such as the use of hands-free kits, keeping calls short, switching off phones when not in use (such as when in classes) and using phones in areas that have good reception;

18.  Considers that such awareness-raising campaigns should also familiarise young Europeans with the health risks associated with household devices and the importance of switching off devices rather than leaving them on stand-by;

19.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to increase research and development funding for the evaluation of potential long-term adverse effects of mobile telephony radio frequencies; calls also for an increase in public calls for proposals for investigation of the harmful effects of multiple exposure to different sources of EMFs, particularly where children are concerned;

20.  Proposes that the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies be given the additional task of assessing scientific integrity in order to help the Commission forestall possible cases of risk, conflict of interests, or even fraud that might arise now that competition for researchers has become keener;

21.  Calls on the Commission, in recognition of the public concern in many Member States, to work with all relevant stakeholders, such as national experts, non-governmental organisations and industrial sectors, to improve the availability of, and access to, up-to-date information understandable to non-specialists on wireless technology and protection standards;

22.  Calls on the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and the World Health Organisation (WHO) to be more transparent and open to dialogue with all stakeholders in standard setting;

23.  Condemns certain particularly aggressive marketing campaigns by telephone operators in the run-up to Christmas and other special occasions, including for example the sale of mobile phones designed solely for children or free call time packages aimed at teenagers;

24.  Proposes that the EU's indoor air quality policy should encompass the study of "wireless" domestic appliances, which, like Wi-Fi for Internet access and digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (DECT) telephones, have been widely adopted in recent years in public places and in the home, with the result that citizens are being continuously exposed to microwave emissions;

25.  Calls, given its constant concern to improve consumer information, for the technical standards of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation to be amended with a view to imposing labelling requirements whereby the transmitting power would have to be specified and every wireless-operated device accompanied by an indication that it emitted microwaves;

26.  Calls on the Council and Commission, in coordination with the Member States and the Committee of the Regions, to encourage the introduction of a single standard designed to ensure that local residents are subjected to as low a degree of exposure as possible when high-voltage grids are extended;

27.  Is greatly concerned about the fact that insurance companies are tending to exclude coverage for the risks associated with EMFs from the scope of liability insurance policies, the implication clearly being that European insurers are already enforcing their version of the precautionary principle;

28.  Calls on Member States to follow the example of Sweden and to recognise persons that suffer from electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate protection as well as equal opportunities;

29.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Committee of the Regions, and the WHO.

European Parliament resolution on the health problems associated with electromagnetic fields (2008/2211) [18]

"There is substantial scientific evidence that some modulated fields (pulsed or repeated signals) are bioactive, which increases the likelihood that they could have health impacts with chronic exposure even at very low exposure levels. Modulation signals may interfere with normal, non-linear biological processes. Modulation is a fundamental factor that should be taken into account in new public safety standards; at present it is not even a contributing factor. To properly evaluate the biological and health impacts of exposure to modulated RF (carrier waves), it is also essential to study the impact of the modulating signal (lower frequency fields or ELF-modulated RF). Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony)." BioInitiative Report [12]

"Physicians of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine recognize that patients are being adversely impacted by electromagnetic frequency (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) fields and are becoming more electromagnetically sensitive.

The AAEM recommends that physicians consider patients’ total electromagnetic exposure in their diagnosis and treatment, as well as recognition that electromagnetic and radiofrequency field exposure may be an underlying cause of a patient’s disease process.

Based on double‐blinded, placebo controlled research in humans,1 medical conditions and disabilities that would more than likely benefit from avoiding electromagnetic and radiofrequency exposure include, but are not limited to:

  • Neurological conditions such as paresthesias, somnolence, cephalgia, dizziness,
  • unconsciousness, depression
  • Musculoskeletal effects including pain, muscle tightness, spasm, fibrillation
  • Heart disease and vascular effects including arrhythmia, tachycardia, flushing,
  • edema
  • Pulmonary conditions including chest tightness, dyspnea, decreased pulmonary
  • function
  • Gastrointestinal conditions including nausea, belching
  • Ocular (burning)
  • Oral (pressure in ears, tooth pain)
  • Dermal (itching, burning, pain)
  • Autonomic nervous system dysfunction (dysautonomia).

Based on numerous studies showing harmful biological effects from EMF and RF exposure, medical conditions and disabilities that would more than likely benefit from avoiding exposure include, but are not limited to:

  • Neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)
  • Neurological conditions (Headaches, depression, sleep disruption, fatigue, dizziness, tremors, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased memory, attention deficit disorder, anxiety, visual disruption).
  • Fetal abnormalities and pregnancy
  • Genetic defects and cancer
  • Liver disease and genitourinary disease"

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Recommendations Regarding Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Exposure [19]

"Because there are suggestions that RF exposure may be more hazardous for the fetus and child due to their greater susceptibility, prudent avoidance is one approach to keeping children’s exposure as low as possible."  World Health Organization [20]

“The non-ionizing radiation protection standards recommended by international standards organizations, and supported by the World Health Organization, are inadequate. Existing guidelines are based on results from acute exposure studies and only thermal effects are considered. A world wide application of the Precautionary Principle is required. In addition, new standards should be developed to take various physiological conditions into consideration, e.g., pregnancy, newborns, children, and elderly people.“ The Venice Resolution Initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety [22]

"During critical windows in neurogenesis the brain is susceptible to numerous environmental insults; common medically relevant exposures include ionizing radiation, alcohol, tobacco, drugs and stress. The effects of these agents are dependent on dose and timing of exposure. Even small exposures during periods of neurogenesis have a more profound effect than exposure as an adult. (…) The exposure to cellular telephones in pregnancy may have a comparable effect on the fetus and similar implications for society as do exposures to other common neurodevelopmental toxicants." Researchers Tamir, Aldad, Geliang, Xiao-Bing, Hugh, Yale University [23]

“There are reports of biological effects of EMF at levels below the well recognised standards and guidelines. WHO would now like to develop a framework and guidelines that would allow the application of the PP not only for EMF but also for WHO policy generally. It is not question of whether we apply it. It is a question of how we apply it.” World Health Organization [24]

"There has been a 60-fold increase in ASD in recent years, which cannot be accounted for by improvements in diagnostic methods and can only be explained by changes in the environment. This increase corresponds in time to the proliferation of mobile telecommunications, Wi-Fi, and microwave ovens as well as extremely low frequency fields from household wiring and domestic appliances. We can now explain at least some of this in terms of electromagnetically-induced membrane leakage leading to brain hyperactivity and abnormal brain development." Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, former lecturer Imperial College London [25]

"We have considerable evidence that the symptoms of some neurological illnesses in children, such as ADD and autism, can be exasperated by dirty electricity and that behavior improves considerably in clean environments." Dr Magda Havas, Trent University, Canada [26]

"WiFi/wLAN routers, DECT phones and other wireless devices like baby monitors produce radio frequency emissions that will affect millions of people and babies in their homes, and should be halted until other, less harmful options are investigated." Lukas Margaritis, professor, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology, University of Athens, Athens, Greece [27]

“(congress should) establish cell phone and wireless-free neighborhoods, transportation options, government buildings, and public spaces; require employers to establish wireless free zones; and, mandate the removal of cellular and wireless technologies from public schools and their properties.” ElectromagneticHealth.org petition to the American Congress [28]

“(governments should) designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF.” Benevento Resolution, International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety [29]

Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances. World Health Organization [30]

"You cannot see it, taste it or smell it, but it is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in industrialized countries today. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are the terms that broadly describe exposures created by the vast array of wired and wireless technologies that have altered the landscape of our lives in countless beneficial ways. However, these technologies were designed to maximize energy efficiency and convenience; not with biological effects on people in mind. Based on new studies, there is growing evidence among scientists and the public about possible health risks associated with these technologies.

Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals.

Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this can cause discomfort and disease. Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially, most recently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones (two billion and counting in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI and WI-MAX networks. Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in humans, which could have major public health consequences.

BIOEFFECTS ARE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED

Bioeffects are clearly established and occur at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Bioeffects can occur in the first few minutes at levels associated with cell and cordless phone use. Bioeffects can also occur from just minutes of exposure to mobile phone masts (cell towers), WI-FI, and wireless utility ‘smart’ meters that produce whole-body exposure. Chronic base station level exposures can result in illness.

BIOEFFECTS WITH CHRONIC EXPOSURES CAN REASONABLY BE PRESUMED TO RESULT IN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS

Many of these bioeffects can reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health effects if the exposures are prolonged or chronic. This is because they interfere with normal body processes (disrupt homeostasis), prevent the body from healing damaged DNA, produce immune system imbalances, metabolic disruption and lower resilience to disease across multiple pathways. Essential body processes can eventually be disabled by incessant external stresses (from system wide electrophysiological interference) and lead to pervasive impairment of metabolic and reproductive functions.

LOW EXPOSURE LEVELS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH BIOEFFECTS AND ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS AT CELL TOWER RFR EXPOSURE LEVELS

At least five new cell tower studies are reporting bioeffects in the range of 0.003 to 0.05 μW/cm2 at lower levels than reported in 2007 (0.05 to 0.1 uW/cm2 was the range below which, in 2007, effects were not observed). Researchers report headaches, concentration difficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents; and sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems in adults. Public safety standards are 1,000 – 10,000 or more times higher than levels now commonly reported in mobile phone base station studies to cause bioeffects.

EVIDENCE FOR FERTILITY AND REPRODUCTION EFFECTS: HUMAN SPERM AND THEIR DNA ARE DAMAGED

Human sperm are damaged by cell phone radiation at very low intensities in the low microwatt and nanowatt/cm2 range (0.00034 – 0.07 uW/cm2). There is a veritable flood of new studies reporting sperm damage in humans and animals, leading to substantial concerns for fertility, reproduction and health of the offspring (unrepaired de novo mutations in sperm). Exposure levels are similar to those resulting from wearing a cell phone on the belt, or in the pants pocket, or using a wireless laptop computer on the lap.

Sperm lack the ability to repair DNA damage. Studies of human sperm show genetic (DNA) damage from cell phones on standby mode and wireless laptop use. Impaired sperm quality, motility and viability occur at exposures of 0.00034 uW/cm2 to 0.07 uW/cm2 with a resultant reduction in human male fertility. Sperm cannot repair DNA damage. Several international laboratories have replicated studies showing adverse effects on sperm quality, motility and pathology in men who use and particularly those who wear a cell phone, PDA or pager on their belt or in a pocket (Agarwal et al, 2008; Agarwal et al, 2009; Wdowiak et al, 2007; De Iuliis et al, 2009; Fejes et al, 2005; Aitken et al, 2005; Kumar, 2012).

Other studies conclude that usage of cell phones, exposure to cell phone radiation, or storage of a mobile phone close to the testes of human males affect sperm counts, motility, viability and structure (Aitken et al, 2004; Agarwal et al, 2007; Erogul et al., 2006). Animal studies have demonstrated oxidative and DNA damage, pathological changes in the testes of animals, decreased sperm mobility and viability, and other measures of deleterious damage to the male germ line (Dasdag et al, 1999; Yan et al, 2007; Otitoloju et al, 2010; Salama et al, 2008; Behari et al, 2006; Kumar et al, 2012).

There are fewer animal studies that have studied effects of cell phone radiation on female fertility parameters. Panagopoulous et al. 2012 report decreased ovarian development and size of ovaries, and premature cell death of ovarian follicles and nurse cells in Drosophila melanogaster. Gul et al (2009) report rats exposed to stand-by level RFR (phones on but not transmitting calls) caused decrease in the number of ovarian follicles in pups born to these exposed dams. Magras and Xenos (1997) reported irreversible infertility in mice after five (5) generations of exposure to RFR at cell phone tower exposure levels of less than one microwatt per centimeter squared (μW/cm2).

EVIDENCE THAT CHILDREN ARE MORE VULNERABLE

There is good evidence to suggest that many toxic exposures to the fetus and very young child have especially detrimental consequences depending on when they occur during critical phases of growth and development (time windows of critical development), where such exposures may lay the seeds of health harm that develops even decades later. Existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits seem to be not sufficiently protective of public health, in particular for the young (embryo, fetus, neonate, very young child).

The Presidential Cancer Panel (2010) found that children ‘are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known carcinogens, including radiation.’

FETAL AND NEONATAL EFFECTS OF EMF

Fetal (in-utero) and early childhood exposures to cell phone radiation and wireless technologies in general may be a risk factor for hyperactivity, learning disorders and behavioral problems in school. Fetal Development Studies: Effects on the developing fetus from in-utero exposure to cell phone radiation have been observed in both human and animal studies since 2006. Divan et al (2008) found that children born of mothers who used cell phones during pregnancy develop more behavioral problems by the time they have reached school age than children whose mothers did not use cell phones during pregnancy.

Children whose mothers used cell phones during pregnancy had 25% more emotional problems, 35% more hyperactivity, 49% more conduct problems and 34% more peer problems (Divan et al., 2008). Common sense measures to limit both ELF-EMF and RF EMF in these populations is needed, especially with respect to avoidable exposures like incubators that can be modified; and where education of the pregnant mother with respect to laptop computers, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and RF EMF are easily instituted.

Sources of fetal and neonatal exposures of concern include cell phone radiation (both paternal use of wireless devices worn on the body and maternal use of wireless phones during pregnancy). Exposure to whole-body RFR from base stations and WI-FI, use of wireless laptops, use of incubators for newborns with excessively high ELF-EMF levels resulting in altered heart rate variability and reduced melatonin levels in newborns, fetal exposures to MRI of the pregnant mother, and greater susceptibility to leukemia and asthma in the child where there have been maternal exposures to ELF-EMF. A precautionary approach may provide the frame for decision-making where remediation actions have to be realized to prevent high exposures of children and pregnant woman. (Bellieni and Pinto, 2012 – Section 19)

EMF/RFR AS A PLAUSIBLE BIOLGICAL MECHANISM FOR AUTISM (ASD)

  • Children with existing neurological problems that include cognitive, learning, attention, memory, or behavioral problems should as much as possible be provided with wired (not wireless) learning, living and sleeping  environments,
  • Special education classrooms should observe 'no wireless' conditions to reduce avoidable stressors that may impede social, academic and behavioral progress.
  • All children should reasonably be protected from the physiological stressor of significantly elevated EMF/RFR (wireless in classrooms, or home environments).
  • School districts that are now considering all-wireless learning environments should be strongly cautioned that wired environments are likely to provide better learning and teaching environments, and prevent possible adverse health consequences for both students and faculty in the long-term.
  • Monitoring of the impacts of wireless technology in learning and care environments should be performed with sophisticated measurement and data analysis techniques that are cognizant of the non-linear impacts of EMF/RFR and of data techniques most appropriate for discerning these impacts.
  • There is sufficient scientific evidence to warrant the selection of wired internet, wired classrooms and wired learning devices, rather than making an expensive and potentially health harming commitment to wireless devices that may have to be substituted out later, and
  • Wired classrooms should reasonably be provided to all students who opt-out of wireless environments. (Herbert and Sage, 2012 – Section 20)

Many disrupted physiological processes and impaired behaviors in people with ASDs closely resemble those related to biological and health effects of EMF/RFR exposure.

Biomarkers and indicators of disease and their clinical symptoms have striking similarities. Broadly speaking, these types of phenomena can fall into one or more of several classes: a) alteration of genes or gene expression, b) induction of change in brain or organism development, c) alteration of phenomena modulating systemic and brain function on an ongoing basis throughout the life course (which can include systemic pathophysiology as well as brain-based changes), and d) evidence of functional alteration in domains such as behavior, social interaction and attention known to be challenged in ASD. Several thousand scientific studies over four decades point to serious biological effects and health harm from EMF and RFR. These studies report genotoxicity, single-and double-strand DNA damage, chromatin condensation, loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells, reduction in free-radical scavengers (particularly melatonin), abnormal gene transcription, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, damage to sperm morphology and function, effects on behavior, and effects on brain development in the fetus of human mothers that use cell phones during pregnancy.

Cell phone exposure has been linked to altered fetal brain development and ADHDlike behavior in the offspring of pregnant mice. Reducing life-long health risks begins in the earliest stages of embryonic and fetal development,  is accelerated for the infant and very young child compared to adults, and is not complete in young people (as far as brain and nervous system maturation) until the early 20’s. Windows of critical development mean that risk factors once laid down in the cells, or in epigenetic changes in the genome may have grave and life-long consequences for health or illness for every individual. All relevant environmental conditions, including EMF and RFR, which can degrade the human genome, and impair normal health and development of species including homo sapiens, should be given weight in defining and implementing prudent, precautionary actions to protect public health. Allostatic load in autism and autistic decompensation - we may be at a tipping point that can be pushed back by removing unnecessary stressors like EMF/RFR and building resilience.

The consequence of ignoring clear evidence of large-scale health risks to global populations, when the risk factors are largely avoidable or preventable is too high a risk to take. With the epidemic of autism (ASD) putting the welfare of children, and their families in peril at a rate of one family in 88, the rate still increasing annually, we cannot afford to ignore this body of evidence. The public needs to know that these risks exist, that transition to wireless should not be presumed safe, and that it is very much worth the effort to minimize exposures that still provide the benefits of technology in learning, but without the threat of health risk and development impairments to learning and behavior in the classroom. (Herbert and Sage, 2012 – Section 20)

THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER IS AT RISK

The BBB is a protective barrier that prevents the flow of toxins into sensitive brain tissue. Increased permeability of the BBB caused by cell phone RFR may result in neuronal damage. Many research studies show that very low intensity exposures to RFR can affect the blood-brain barrier (BBB) (mostly animal studies). Summing up the research, it is more probable than unlikely that non-thermal EMF from cell phones and base stations do have effects upon biology. A single 2-hr exposure to cell phone radiation can result in increased leakage of the BBB, and 50 days after exposure, neuronal damage can be seen, and at the later time point also albumin leakage is demonstrated. The levels of RFR needed to affect the BBB have been shown to be as low as 0.001 W/kg, or less than holding a mobile phone at arm’s length. The US FCC standard is 1.6 W/kg; the ICNIRP standard is 2 W/kg of energy (SAR) into brain tissue from cell/cordless phone use. Thus, BBB effects occur at about 1000 times lower RFR exposure levels than the US and ICNIRP limits allow. (Salford et al, 2012 - Section 10)

If the blood-brain barrier is vulnerable to serious and on-going damage from wireless exposures, then we should perhaps also be looking at the blood-ocular barrier (that protects the eyes), the blood-placenta barrier (that protects the developing fetus) and the blood-gut barrier (that protects proper digestion and nutrition), and the blood-testes barrier (that protects developing sperm) to see if they too can be damaged by RFR.

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES CONSISTENTLY SHOW ELEVATIONS IN RISK OF BRAIN CANCERS

Brain Tumors: There is a consistent pattern of increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with use of mobile phones and cordless phones. “Based on epidemiological studies there is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with use of mobile phones and cordless phones. The evidence comes mainly from two study centres, the Hardell group in Sweden and the Interphone Study Group. No consistent pattern of an increased risk is seen for meningioma. A systematic bias in the studies that explains the results would also have been the case for meningioma. The different risk pattern for tumor type strengthens the findings regarding glioma and acoustic neuroma. Meta-analyses of the Hardell group and Interphone studies show an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Supportive evidence comes also from anatomical localisation of the tumor to the most exposed area of the brain, cumulative exposure in hours and latency time that all add to the biological relevance of an increased risk. In addition risk calculations based on estimated absorbed dose give strength to the findings.

“There is reasonable basis to conclude that RF-EMFs are bioactive and have a potential to cause health impacts. There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with use of wireless phones (mobile phones and cordless phones) mainly based on results from case-control studies from the Hardell group and Interphone Final Study results. Epidemiological evidence gives that RF-EMF should be classified as a human carcinogen. Based on our own research and review of other evidence the existing FCC/IEE and ICNIRP public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health. New public health standards and limits are needed. (Hardell et al, 2012 –Section 11)

EVIDENCE FOR GENETIC EFFECTS

One hundred fourteen (114) new papers on genotoxic effects of RFR published between 2007 and early 2014 are profiled. Of these, 74 (65%) showed effects and 40 (35%) showed no effects. Fifty nine (59) new ELF-EMF papers and two static magnetic field papers that report on genotoxic effects of ELF-EMF between 2007 and early 2014 are profiled. Of these, 49 (83%) show effects and 10 (17%) show no effect. (Lai, 2014 – Section 6)

EVIDENCE FOR NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS (Updated March 2014)

Two hundred eleven (211) new papers that report on neurological effects of RFR published between 2007 and early 2014 are profiled. Of these, 144 (68%) showed effects and 67 (32%) showed no effects. One hundred five (105) new ELF-EMF papers (including two static field papers) that report on neurological effects of ELF-EMF published between 2007 and early 2014 are profiled. Of these, 95 (90%) show effects and 10 (10%) show no effect. (Lai, 2014 – Section 9)

EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA)

With overall 42 epidemiological studies published  to date power frequency EMFs are among themost comprehensively studied environmental factors. Except ionizing radiation no other environmental factor has been as firmly established to increase the risk of childhood leukemia. Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies of an increased risk from exposure to EMF (power frequency magnetic fields) that cannot be attributed to chance, bias or confounding. Therefore, according to the rules of IARC such exposures can be classified as a Group 1 carcinogen (Known Carcinogen).

There is no other risk factor identified so far for which such unlikely conditions have been put forward to postpone or deny the necessity to take steps towards exposure reduction. As one step in the direction of precaution, measures should be implemented to guarantee that exposure due to transmission and distribution lines is below an average of about 1 mG. This value is arbitrary at present and only supported by the fact that in many studies this level has been chosen as a reference.

Base-station level RFR at levels ranging from less than 0.001 uW/cm2 to 0.05 uW/cm2. In 5 new studies since 2007, researchers report headaches, concentration difficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents; and sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems in adults.

MELATONIN, BREAST CANCER AND ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Conclusion: Eleven (11) of the 13 published epidemiologic residential and occupational studies are considered to provide (positive) evidence that high ELF MF exposure can result in decreased melatonin production. The two negative studies had important deficiencies that may certainly have biased the results. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that long-term relatively high ELF MF exposure can result in a decrease in melatonin production. It has not been determined to what extent personal characteristics, e.g., medications, interact with ELF MF exposure in decreasing melatonin production

Conclusion: New research indicates that ELF MF exposure, in vitro, can significantly decrease melatonin activity through effects on MT1, an important melatonin receptor.  (Davanipour and Sobel, 2012 – Section 13)

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

There is strong epidemiologic evidence that exposure to ELF MF is a risk factor for AD. There are now twelve (12) studies of ELF MF exposure and AD or dementia which . Nine (9) of these studies are considered positive and three (3) are considered negative. The three negative studies have serious deficiencies in ELF MF exposure classification that results in subjects with rather low exposure being considered as having significant exposure. There are insufficient studies to formulate an opinion as to whether radiofrequency MF exposure is a risk or protective factor for AD. There is now evidence that (i) high levels of peripheral amyloid beta are a risk factor for AD and (ii) medium to high ELF MF exposure can increase peripheral amyloid beta. High brain levels of amyloid beta are also a risk factor for AD and medium to high ELF MF exposure to brain cells likely also increases these cells’ production of amyloid beta. There is considerable in vitro and animal evidence that melatonin protects against AD. Therefore it is certainly possible that low levels of melatonin production are associated with an increase in the risk of AD. (Davanipour and Sobel, 2012 – Section 13)

STRESS PROTEINS AND DNA AS A FRACTAL ANTENNA FOR RFR

DNA acts as a ‘fractal antenna’ for EMF and RFR. The coiled-coil structure of DNA in the nucleus makes the molecule react like a fractal antenna to a wide range of frequencies. The structure makes DNA particularly vulnerable to EMF damage. The mechanism involves direct interaction of EMF with the DNA molecule (claims that there are no known mechanisms of interaction are patently false) Many EMF frequencies in the environment can and do cause DNA changes. The EMF-activated cellular stress response is an effective protective mechanism for cells exposed to a wide range of EMF frequencies. EMF stimulates stress proteins (indicating an assault on the cell). EMF efficiently harms cells at a billion times lower levels than conventional heating. Blank, 2012 – Section 7)

Safety standards based on heating are irrelevant to protect against EMF-levels of exposure. There is an urgent need to revise EMF exposure standards. Research has shown thresholds are very low (safety standards must be reduced to limit biological responses). Biologically-based EMF safety standards could be developed from the research on the stress response. (Blank, 2012 – Section 7)

EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION OF THE MODULATING SIGNAL - HUMAN STEM CELL DNA DOES NOT ADAPT OR REPAIR

Human stem cells do not adapt to chronic exposures to non-thermal microwave (cannot repair damaged DNA), and damage to DNA in genes in other cells generally do not repair as efficiently. (Belyaev, 2012 – Section 15)

Non-thermal effects of microwaves depend on variety of biological and physical parameters that should be taken into account in setting the safety standards. Emerging  evidence suggests that the SAR concept, which has been widely adopted for safety standards, is not useful alone for the evaluation of health risks from non-thermal microwave of mobile communication. Other parameters of exposure, such as frequency, modulation, duration, and dose should be taken into account. Lower intensities are not always less harmful; they may be more harmful. Intensity windows exist, where bioeffects are much more powerful. A linear, dose-response relationship test is probably invalid for testing of RFR and EMF (as is done in chemicals testing for toxicity). Resonant frequencies may result in biological effects at very low intensities comparable to base station (cell tower) and other microwave sources used in mobile communications. These exposures can cause health risk.

The current safety standards are insufficient to protect from non-thermal microwave effects. The data about the effects of microwave at super-low intensities and significant role of duration of exposure in these effects along with the data showing that adverse effects of non-thermal microwave from GSM/UMTS mobile phones depend on carrier frequency and type of the microwave signal suggest that microwave from base-stations/masts, wireless routers, WI-FI and other wireless devices and exposures in common use today can also produce adverse effects at prolonged durations of exposure. Most of the real signals that are in use in mobile communication have not been tested so far. Very little research has been done with real signals and for durations and intermittences of exposure that are relevant to chronic exposures from mobile communication. In some studies, so-called “mobile communication-like” signals were investigated that in fact were different from the real exposures in such important aspects as intensity, carrier frequency, modulation, polarization, duration and intermittence.

New standards should be developed based on knowledge of mechanisms of non-thermal effects. Importantly, because the signals of mobile communication are completely replaced by other signals faster then once per 10 years, duration comparable with latent period, epidemiologic studies cannot provide basement for cancer risk assessment from upcoming new signals. In many cases, because of ELF modulation and additional ELF fields created by the microwave sources, for example by mobile phones, it is difficult to distinguish the effects of exposures to ELF and microwave. Therefore, these combined exposures and their possible cancer risks should be considered in combination. As far as different types of microwave signals (carrier frequency, modulation, polarization, far and near field, intermittence, coherence, etc.) may produce different effects, cancer risks should ideally be estimated for each microwave signal separately. The Precautionary Principle should be implemented while new standards are in progress. It should be anticipated that some part of the human population, such as children, pregnant women and groups of hypersensitive persons could be especially sensitive to the non-thermal microwave exposures. (Belyaev, 2012 – Section 15)

EFFECTS OF WEAK-FIELD INTERACTIONS ON NON-LINEAR BIOLOGICAL OSCILLATORS AND SYNCHRONIZED NEURAL ACTIVITY

A unifying hypothesis for a plausible biological mechanism to account for very weak field EMF bioeffects other than cancer may lie with weak field interactions of pulsed RFR and ELF-modulated RFR as disrupters of synchronized neural activity. Electrical rhythms in our brains can be influenced by external signals. This is consistent with established weak field effects on coupled biological oscillators in living tissues. Biological systems of the heart, brain and gut are dependent on the cooperative actions of cells that function according to principles of nonlinear, coupled biological oscillations for their synchrony, and are dependent on exquisitely timed cues from the environment at vanishingly small levels (Buzsaki, 2006; Strogatz, 2003). The key to synchronization is the joint actions of cells that co-operate electrically - linking populations of biological oscillators that couple together in large arrays and synchronize spontaneously.

Synchronous biological oscillations in cells (pacemaker cells) can be disrupted by artificial, exogenous environmental signals, resulting in desynchronization of neural activity that regulates critical functions (including metabolism) in the brain, gut and heart and circadian rhythms governing sleep and hormone cycles (Strogatz, 1987). The brain contains a population of oscillators with distributed natural frequencies, which pull one another into synchrony (the circadian pacemaker cells). Strogatz has addressed the unifying mathematics of biological cycles and external factors disrupt these cycles (Strogatz, 2001, 2003). “Rhythms can be altered by a wide variety of agents and that these perturbations must seriously alter brain performance” (Buzsaki, 2006).

“Organisms are biochemically dynamic. They are continuously subjected to time-varying conditions in the form of both extrinsic driving from the environment and intrinsic rhythms generated by specialized cellular clocks within the organism itself. Relevant examples of the latter are the cardiac pacemaker located at the sinoatrial node in mammalian hearts (1) and the circadian clock residing at the suprachiasmatic nuclei in mammalian brains (2). These rhythm generators are composed of thousands of clock cells that are intrinsically diverse but nevertheless manage to function in a coherent oscillatory state. This is the case, for instance, of the circadian oscillations exhibited by the suprachiasmatic nuclei, the period of which is known to be determined by the mean period of the individual neurons making up the circadian clock (3– 7). The mechanisms by which this collective behavior arises remain to be understood.” (Strogatz, 2001; Strogatz, 2003)

Synchronous biological oscillations in cells (pacemaker cells) can be disrupted by artificial, exogenous environmental signals, resulting in desynchronization of neural activity that regulates critical functions (including metabolism) in the brain, gut and heart and circadian rhythms governing sleep and hormone cycles. The brain contains a population of oscillators with distributed natural frequencies, which pull one another into synchrony (the circadian pacemaker cells). Strogatz has addressed the unifying mathematics of biological cycles and external factors disrupt these cycles.

EMF AND RFR MAKE CHEMICAL TOXINS MORE HARMFUL

EMF acts on the body like other environmental toxicants do (heavy metals, organic chemicals and pesticides). Both toxic chemicals and EMF may generate free radicals, produce stress proteins and cause indirect damage to DNA. Where there is combined exposure the damages may add or even synergistically interact, and result in worse damage to genes. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

EMF IS SUCCESSFULLY USED IN HEALING AND DISEASE TREATMENTS

“The potential application of the up-regulation of the HSP70 gene by both ELF-EMF and nanosecond PEMF in clinical practice would include trauma, surgery, peripheral nerve damage, orthopedic fracture, and vascular graft support, among others. Regardless of pulse design, EMF technology has been shown to be effective in bone healing [5], wound repair [11] and neural regeneration [31,36,48,49,51,63,64,65,66]. In terms of clinical applica- tion, EMF-induction of elevated levels of hsp70 protein also confers protection against hypoxia [61] and aid myocardial function and survival [20,22]. Given these results, we are particularly interested in the translational significance of effect vs. efficacy which is not usually reported by designers or investigators of EMF devices. More precise description of EM pulse and sine wave parameters, including the specific EM output sector, will provide consistency and “scientific basis” in reporting findings.”

“The degree of electromagnetic field-effects on biological systems is known to be dependent on a number of criteria in the waveform pattern of the exposure system used; these include frequency, duration, wave shape, and relative orientation of the fields [6,29,32,33,39,40]. In some cases pulsed fields have demonstrated increased efficacy over static designs [19,21] in both medical and experimental settings.” (Madkan et al, 2009) (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

ELF-EMF AND RFR ARE CLASSIFIED AS POSSIBLE CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS – WHY ARE GOVERNMENTS NOT ACTING?

The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified wireless radiofrequency as a Possible Human Carcinogen (May, 2011)*. The designation applies to low-intensity RFR in general, covering all RFR-emitting devices and exposure sources (cell and cordless phones, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless hotspots, electronic baby monitors, wireless classroom access points, wireless antenna facilities, etc). The IARC Panel could have chosen to classify RFR as a Group 4 – Not A Carcinogen if the evidence was clear that RFR is not a cancer-causing agent. It could also have found a Group 3 designation was a good interim choice (Insufficient Evidence). IARC did neither. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

NEW SAFETY LIMITS MUST BE ESTABLISHED - HEALTH AGENCIES SHOULD ACT NOW

Existing public safety limits (FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits) do not sufficiently protect public health against chronic exposure from very low-intensity exposures. If no mid-course corrections are made to existing and outdated safety limits, such delay will magnify the public health impacts with even more applications of wireless-enabled technologies exposing even greater populations around the world in daily life. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

SCIENTIFIC BENCHMARKS FOR HARM PLUS SAFETY MARGIN = NEW SAFETY LIMITS THAT ARE VALID

Health agencies and regulatory agencies that set public safety standards for ELF-EMF and RFR should act now to adopt new, biologically-relevant safety limits that key to the lowest scientific benchmarks for harm coming from the recent studies, plus a lower safety margin. Existing public safety limits are too high by several orders of magnitude, if prevention of bioeffects and minimization or elimination of resulting adverse human health effects. Most safety standards are a thousand times or more too high to protect healthy populations, and even less effective in protecting sensitive subpopulations.(Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

SENSITIVE POPULATIONS MUST BE PROTECTED

Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be set at lower levels than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS). (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

PROTECTING NEW LIFE - INFANTS AND CHILDREN

Strong precautionary action and clear public health warnings are warranted immediately to help prevent a global epidemic of brain tumors resulting from the use of wireless devices (mobile phones and cordless phones). Common sense measures to limit both ELF-EMF and RFR in the fetus and newborn infant (sensitive populations) are needed, especially with respect to avoidable exposures like baby monitors in the crib and baby isolettes (incubators) in hospitals that can be modified; and where education of the pregnant mother with respect to laptop computers, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and RFR are easily instituted. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

Wireless laptops and other wireless devices should be strongly discouraged in schools for children of all ages. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FOR JUDGING THE SCIENCE

The standard of evidence for judging the scientific evidence should be based on good public health principles rather than demanding scientific certainty before actions are taken. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

WIRELESS WARNINGS FOR ALL

The continued rollout of wireless technologies and devices puts global public health at risk from unrestricted wireless commerce unless new, and far lower exposure limits and strong precautionary warnings for their use are implemented. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

EMF AND RFR ARE PREVENTABLE TOXIC EXPOSURES

We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from multi-generational adverse health consequences by reducing both ELF and RFR exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce unnecessary EMF exposures will lower disease burden and rates of premature death. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

DEFINING A NEW ‘EFFECT LEVEL’ FOR RFR

On a precautionary public health basis, a reduction from the BioInitiative 2007 recommendation of 0.1 uW/cm2 (or one-tenth of a microwatt per square centimeter) for cumulative outdoor RFR down to something three orders of magnitude lower (in the low nanowatt per square centimeter range) is justified.

A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts p er centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or for children as a sensitive subpopulation yields a 300 to 600 picowatts per square centimeter precautionary action level. This equates to a 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR.

These levels may need to change in the future, as new and better studies are completed. We leave room for future studies that may lower or raise today’s observed ‘effects levels’ and should be prepared to accept new information as a guide for new precautionary actions. (Sage and Carpenter, 2012 – Section 24)

PULSED RADIATION MORE DANGEROUS

There is substantial scientific evidence that some modulated fields (pulsed or repeated signals) are bioactive, which increases the likelihood that they could have health impacts with chronic exposure even at very low exposure levels. Modulation signals may interfere with normal, non-linear biological processes. Modulation is a fundamental factor that should be taken into account in new public safety standards; at present it is not even a contributing factor. To properly evaluate the biological and health impacts of exposure to modulated RF (carrier waves), it is also essential to study the impact of the modulating signal (lower frequency fields or ELF-modulated RF). Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony).

BioInitiative Report 2012 [12]




[1] www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=INI/2007/2252

[2] Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1815 (2011), The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

[3) http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Porto_Alegre_Resolution.pdf

[4] www.laleva.cc/environment/freiburger_appeal.html

[5] http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm

[6] Wolfgang Maes, Science - Really ;, Conference 2006 «Building Biology - Architecture - Environmental Medicine»

[7] http://www.wirelessimpacts.org/science/becker.html

[8] Actual Or Potential Effects of ELF and RF / MW Radiation on Enhancing Violence and Homicide, and accelerating Aging of Human, Animal Or Plant Cells. Dr Neil Cherry Associate Professor of Environmental Health Lincoln University New Zealand, neilcherry.com/documents/90_s8_EMR_and_Aging_and_violence.pdf

[9] http://electromagnetichealth.org/quotes-from-experts/

[10] How Exposure to GSM & TETRA Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans by G J Hyland

[11] IEGMP - Stewart Report, 2000. United Kingdom Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones

[12] http://www.bioinitiative.org

[13] WHO International Seminar and Working Group meeting on EMF Hypersensitivity (Prague, October 25-27, 2004)

[14] Camilla Rees- Magda Havas, Public Health SOS - The Shadow Side of The Wireless Revolution

[15] A recent poll suggests widespread cell phone use is a social malady. One scientist think it’s a lot worse than that, http://www.emfacts.com/2006/10/578/

[16] Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, CHILDREN AND MOBILE PHONES: THE HEALTH OF THE FOLLOWING GENERATIONS IS IN DANGER

[17] Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD, Why the U.S. Needs Pre-Conception Healthcare, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSit3i_-z0w

[18] European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields (2008/2211(INI))

[19] American Academy of Environmental Medicine Recommendations Regarding Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Exposure

[20] WHO 2002. Children’s Health and Environment: A Review of Evidence: A Joint Report from the European Environmental Agency and The World Health Organization

[21]G.J. Hyland, University of Warwick, International Institute of Biophysics, The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation’ http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/Physiological.html

[22] http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm

[23] Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice, Tamir S. Aldad, Geliang Gan, Xiao-Bing Gao , Hugh S. Taylor

[24] World Health Organization Conference on "Application of the Precautionary Principle in Electromagnetic Fields", February 2003

[25] Andrew Goldsworthy, The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields, MCSA NEWS, VOLUME seven, ISSUE 7, JULY 2012

[26] Technology and Health Risks, Biological Effects of Exposure to Dirty Electricity, http://biotech.about.com/od/biotechindailylife/a/dirtyEinterview.htm

[27] New, Biological Effects based, EMF / RF Exposure Guidelines, www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20110203-biological-guidelines.asp

[28 ] http://electromagnetichealth.org/petition-congress/

[29] http://www.icems.eu/benevento_resolution.htm

[30] World Health Organization, Electromagnetic Fields, http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/

What you should know about modern day electrosmog

Why has our exposure to electromagnetic fields increased significantly in recent years? What are the main radiation sources today? How is human health affected? Are we protected by existing legal safety limits? Why many scientists warn about the dangers of uncontrolled use of technology, particularly by pregnant women and children? How to protect yourself.

Read more..

How to measure electromagnetic radiation

Why buy an EMF meter? How to choose the right one - Which features to look out for and for which you should avoid overpaying - How to use the meter - Is there a device that measures all types of radiation? Are radiation measurements only needed when there is a significant radiation source nearby? Which radiation values are considered high and where are they usually recorded?

Read more..

How to reduce your radiation exposure

Simple tips and solutions to easily reduce your daily exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields from cell phone masts, mobile and cordless phones, wireless modem-routers (Wi-Fi), electric appliances, electrical cables, power lines, transformers, laptops, tablets etc.

Read more..

Popular articles

Is there a safe baby monitor with low radiation?

What radiation do baby monitors emit; Are there risks for the baby's health? Guide to choosing a baby monitor. Which are the safest? Analog or digital? Can audio and video from your wireless intercom be intercepted?

Read More ...

EMF: an infertility cause you should be aware of

Recent research shows that increased exposure to wireless radiation laptop, tablet, smartphone etc. is a negative factor contributing to the modern increase of male and female infertility. What other sources of radiation appear to...

Read More ...

What you don't know about the new "smart" power meters

Do you have "smart" meters installed your house? Are they safe? How much radiation do they emit? Do they health? Are they vulnerable to hackers attack? Are there alternatives? Are there  ways to avoid them?

Read More ...

Are you exposed to elevated electromagnetic fields? These are the main radiation sources today..

Did you know that... The levels of electromagnetic radiation in indoor and outdoor areas have increased significantly in recent years? There are now cell phone masts in almost every neighborhood, usually camouflaged in chimneys, heaters, signs...

Read More ...

How to shield your house from electromagnetic radiation

Protect yourself from the electromagnetic fields of cell phone masts, WiFi networks, etc. with innovative shielding materials. How to use special reflective paints, window films, fabrics, canopies, curtains and meshes.

Read More ...

What you don't know about the effects of radioactivity

What radioactive sources surround you what are their effect on your health? What does the Radiation Hormesis theory claim; Which kind of ionizing radiation is a proven carcinogen? Are there risks from the nuclear accident in Japan? How to...

Read More ...

Radiation from cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, tablets, laptops, smartphones: Health effects and safer alternatives

Are there health effects due to the radiation of wireless modems, phones, tablets and laptops? How you can reduce your daily electromagnetic exposure? How to avoid radiation from neighbors wireless devices? Are there safe alternatives...

Read More ...

Wireless Free Ζones in houses, hospitals and hotels? How to create them

Why are areas with zero wireless radiation are necessary to a part of the population? Which countries are developing Wireless Free Zones in hospitals, hotels and shelters? How to create an area without radiation in your home or office...

Read More ...

Shocking warnings for the effects of modern day electromagnetic radiation sources

How do cordless phones, modems (Wi-Fi), mobile phone masts, electricity cables, baby monitors etc. affects us? What do the European Parliament, the Russian Committee for the Protection from Non-Ionizing Radiation, the World Health...

Read More ...

New report changes everything you know about the health effects of electromagnetic radiation

What does recent research shows about the effects of long term exposure to common sources of electromagnetic radiation such as mobile phones, wireless devices, electricity cables etc? Read the shocking conclusions of the Bioinitiative...

Read More ...

Cell phone masts radiation health effects - How to protect yourself

How much radiation do cell phone masts emit? Why are they frequently camouflaged? How can you detect the cell towers in your neighborhood? Are there are health effects? Who benefits from their installation?How to protect yourself?

Read More ...

Power lines and transformers: Health effects and safe distance

How much radiation do power lines, high voltage pylons and transformers emit? Which levels of electric and magnetic fields cause effects on human health and when are exceeded? Which source is the most common cause of elevated magnetic...

Read More ...

Electrohypersensitivity: What you need to know about the allergy of the 21st century

In the past it has been called "yuppie flu" and "microwave disease". Its symptoms include unexplained allergies, whistling in the ears, tachycardia and cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, numbness of the head, constant headaches, etc. Are you...

Read More ...

Is electromagnetic radiation dangerous for children and pregnant? A cause for rise in autism?

Are there health effects on children and pregnant women from the radiation of mobile phones, wireless modems, laptops, tablets, cell phone masts, power cables etc; What's the connection with the modern rise of childhood cognition and...

Read More ...