TheFullertonInformer.com

EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, November 2007: Report on the Effects on reproduction and development

“Overall, the literature indicates that exposure to low intensity fields, at levels experienced by members of the public, should not have a significant impact on fertility or on development either before or after birth. However, should exposure be sufficiently intense to raise tissue temperatures by a few degrees or more, or to increase core body temperature by more than about 1 0C, then the possibility of effects increases. Intense and prolonged exposure of pregnant animals to RF fields will induce a range of adverse effects that depend on the degree and duration of hyperthermia. These range from subtle behavioural changes, to retardation of fetal growth, gross morphological changes, and increased intrauterine deaths. Similarly, testicular temperatures in mammals are normal several degrees below that of the rest of the body, and exposure to heat (from RF fields or other sources) can induce temporary sterility. It is less clear whether synergistic effects occur with combined exposure to RF fields and other agents. Results suggest that complex interactions may occur but only using RF fields at hyperthermic levels”.

German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF), May 2008: Statement by the German Commission on Radiological Protection (Strahlenschutzkommission – SSK)

“Although a final evaluation of the DMF is only possible when the studies still in progress have been completed, the findings available to date show that the initial fears of health risks could not be confirmed. Nor have the research findings of the DMF led to any new indications of health impacts that have not previously been considered. In agreement with other international bodies (WHO, ICNIRP) it can be stated that the protection concepts underlying the present basic restrictions are not challenged”.

National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health, BC Centre for Disease Control, Sept 2008: Cellular/Mobile Phone Use and Intracranial Tumours

“There is insufficient evidence to indicate a causal association between cell phone use and intracranial tumours. There is weak evidence supporting an increase in odds of glioma, acoustic neuroma, and meningioma in adults with regular, ipsilateral use for 10 years or longer. Existing findings are suggestive but preliminary because they are based on few studies with small numbers and potential biases”.

EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, October 2008: Report estimating upper and lower bounds of probabilities of occurrence of possible health effects.

“The possibility of the exposure to low level EM fields having hazardous effects on human health is to date a topic of concern. In the last years different specific mechanisms have been proposed to explain possible interaction between electric, magnetic or EM fields and living matter, at different levels of biological complexity. In particular, at molecular level, models have been developed able to face the problem of overcoming local water viscosity and thermal agitation. Among them, the most plausible one is the action of magnetic field on RP recombination, since the spins of radicals are very weakly coupled to the thermal bath and thus sensitive even to low intensity fields. At higher complexity levels concepts as nonlinearity, stochastic resonance, cooperative actions, spatial and temporal integration of biological responses have been invoked to account for the possibility of weak signals to be detect by membranes, cells and network of cells. However, in spite of the great number of proposed models, there is not yet a specific mechanism able to link the action of the EM field at different complexity levels, from the first interaction step, at molecular level, up to some adverse effects on organism health. Therefore, except for the thermal effects, present knowledge does not allow quantification of a threshold value for the field, below which the probability of occurrence of health effects is negligible. In this context, further research work, including both theoretical and experimental activities, seems to be necessary”.

EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, October 2008: Status report on relevant risk communication initiatives and regulatory harmonization in the EU

“There is no common approach to EMF risk communication that will satisfy all stakeholders. This makes the position of responsible authorities even more challenging when protecting the health of the public, and responding at the same time to public demands for more information, education, measurement and participation concerning these matters. Essential evidence-based information and best practice advice is provided by National scientific institutes, the WHO, and other competent international scientific institutions. The greatest difficulty, however, is that often the majority of the public does not take part in the communication process. So letting aside some highly motivated concerned citizens and action groups, which usually have their own made up opinions, we are left with an apparently silent majority”.

EMF-NET: EFFECTS OF THE EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
FIELDS: FROM SCIENCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFER WORKPLACE, October 2008: Report estimating approximate upper and lower bounds on ‘cost/benefit ratios’ for the services provided.

“To date, a debate is still open in the scientific community about possible health effects due to non-thermal or specific mechanisms of interaction with low level EM field. As discussed in D42, present knowledge does not allow us to quantify a threshold below guidelines, above which the EM field could induce adverse biological effects. As an example, a recent study [44] on the binding process of the carbon monoxide to the myoglobin under a 1 GHz microwave field indicates alterations in the biochemical process only for E field intensities comparable with the atomic/molecular ones, well above any possible value induced by the environmental fields. Therefore, to date, a cost/benefit analysis for the services provided seems to be unnecessary. However, although it has not been established that any of proposed specific mechanism could result in adverse health effects at levels below guidelines, one cannot conclude that long term effects will not be seen. Therefore, in depth investigation on specific mechanisms is advisable, in order to reconstruct the whole chain of effect, from the “first interaction step” at molecular level up the whole organism behavior”.

Scientific Advisory Committee on Radiofrequency Fields and Health (CCRAS) Spain, Jan 2009: CCSAR’s report on radiofrequency fields and health (2007-2008).

“The exposure levels of Spaniards to MT RFs are extremely low…RFs are not considered a causal factor of the symptoms of persons who claim to be hypersensitive…the use and exposure of adult individuals to waves from mobile telephones over a period of less than 10 years is not associated with an increase in the number of brain tumours… as a whole, the national and international committees for protection against RF waves unanimously conclude that recent scientific/technical breakthroughs do not justify changes in the present RF benchmark levels and exposure limits for the public and for workers”.

Update to Royal Society of Canada Report (2004 – 2007), 2009: Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields and health.

“At present, the results from epidemiologic studies do not provide sufficient evidence to support a clear association between mobile phone use and an increased risk of head and neck benign tumors… Animal carcinogenesis studies conducted to date (Table 2) provide no convincing evidence that nonthermal RF field exposures either cause or contribute to cancer, although some studies suggest the possibility for low-level exposures to increase the risk of cancer”.

Statens strålskyddsinstitut (SSI), Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields 2009: Recent Research on EMF and Health Risks. Sixth annual report.

“A large number of cell studies are done on both genotoxic and non-genotoxic outcomes,
such as apoptosis and gene expression. There are no new positive findings from cellular
studies that have been well established in terms of experimental quality and replication”.

“…animal studies have not identified any clear effects on any of a number of different biological endpoints following exposure to RF radiation typical of mobile phone use, generally at levels too low to induce significant heating”.

“Many human laboratory studies reviewed here are provocation studies with rather short exposures. Most use methods that are too crude, or look at phenomena that are too small, or non-existent, for the research to be informative”.

“Several epidemiological studies on mobile phone use and cancer have been presented since the previous report, including national studies from the Interphone group as well as other studies. There are also studies on reproductive outcomes. A few recent studies on people living near transmitters have also appeared. None of this changes any of the Groups previous conclusions”.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 2009: Review of the scientific evidence on dosimetry, biological effects, epidemiological observations, and health consequences concerning exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).

Overall, it is concluded that:
“The mechanisms by which RF exposure heats biological tissue are well understood and the most marked and consistent effect of RF exposure is that of heating, resulting in a number of heat-related physiological and pathological responses in human subjects and laboratory animals. Heating also remains a potential confounder in in vitro studies and may account for some of the positive effects reported”.

”Recent concern has been more with exposure to the lower level RF radiation characteristic of mobile phone use. Whilst it is in principle impossible to disprove the possible existence of non-thermal interactions, the plausibility of various non-thermal mechanisms that have been proposed is very low”.

“Concerning cancer-related effects, the recent in vitro and animal genotoxicity and
carcinogenicity studies are rather consistent overall and indicate that such effects are unlikely at SAR levels up to 4 W kg-1. With regard to in vitro studies of RF effects on non-genotoxic end-points such as cell signaling and gene/protein expression, the results are more equivocal, but the magnitudes of the reported RF radiation induced changes are very small and of limited functional consequence. The results of studies on cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis and cell transformation are mostly negative”.

“There is some evidence of small changes in brain physiology, notably on spontaneous EEG, and somewhat more variable evidence of changes in sleep EEG and regional cerebral blood flow but these may be of limited functional consequence; no changes were seen in cognitive function. With regard to more general physiological end-points, the evidence suggests that there are no consistent effects of non-thermal RF exposures on cardiovascular physiology, circulating hormone levels or on auditory or vestibular function, except for the auditory perception of pulsed RF such as that characteristic of radar”.

“The evidence from double-blind provocation studies suggests that subjective symptoms, such as headaches, that have been identified by some individuals as associated with RF exposure, whilst real enough to the individuals concerned, are not causally related to EMF exposure”. “The experimental data do not suggest so far that children are more susceptible than adults to RF radiation, but few relevant studies have been conducted”.

“Studies of the effects of RF modalities such as high peak power pulses have been somewhat diverse and sporadic; no effects have been seen other than those associated with heating and with acoustic perception”.

“Results of epidemiological studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect”.

Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection DG, Jan 2009: Health Effects of Exposure to EMF

“The question receiving most attention is whether RF field exposure is involved in
carcinogenesis. The previous opinion stated that, based on epidemiological findings,
mobile phone use for less than ten years is not associated with cancer incidence.
Regarding longer use, it was deemed difficult to make an estimate since few persons had used mobile phones for more than ten years. Since then, a few additional epidemiological studies have been published. Unfortunately they do not significantly extend the exposure period. These studies do not change this assessment”.

“New improved studies on the association between RF fields from broadcast transmitters and childhood cancer provide evidence against such an association”.

“Animal studies show that RF fields similar to those from mobile phones, alone or in
combination with known carcinogenic factors, are not carcinogenic in laboratory rodents. Certain studies have also employed higher exposure levels (up to 4 W/kg), still with no apparent effects on tumor development”.

“Furthermore, the in vitro studies regarding genotoxicity fail to provide evidence for an involvement of RF field exposure in DNA-damage”.

“It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans. However, as the widespread duration of exposure of humans to RF fields from mobile phones is shorter than the induction time of some cancers, further studies are required to identify whether considerably longer-term (well beyond ten years) human exposure to such phones might pose some cancer risk”.

“Regarding non-carcinogenic outcomes, …the conclusion that scientific studies have failed to provide support for an effect of RF fields on self-reported symptoms still holds”.

“Recent studies have not shown effects from RF fields on human or animal reproduction and development. No new data have appeared that indicate any other effects on human health”.

“From the risk assessment perspective it is important to recognise that information on possible effects caused by RF fields in children is limited. Furthermore, there is a lack of information on diseases other than those discussed in this report”.

Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich Gesundheit, Sep 2009: Report Health 16, Children’s health and RF EMF exposure

“For children under 8 years no conclusive evidence exists for the assumption that the SAR level in children’s head is higher than for adults. For whole body exposure, there is some evidence that the ICNIRP reference level cannot ensure that basic restrictions are not exceeded under any circumstances… Overall, the review of the existing scientific literature does not support the assumption that children’s health is affected by RF EMF exposure from mobile phones or base stations. Especially, animal research provides no substantial argument that children are at risk. However, with respect to some endpoints in human risk assessment, in particular cognitive effects and general health disturbances, the available evidence is rather limited so that no firm conclusions can be drawn… The balance of evidence of studies on human does not indicate an evaluated risk of RF EMF exposure for children’s health… The available data from animal experiments do not indicate that younger animals are at risk, when exposed to RF electromagnetic fields at relevant exposure scenarios… Nearly all studies concerning offspring do not suggest any significant threat to the development of offspring when exposed to non-thermal RF levels… The weight of evidence solidly refutes the assumption that RF EMF exposure causes effects on the permeability of the blood brain barrier and nerve cell damage in young animals”.

French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (Afsset), Oct 2009: Report on expert update related to radiofrequency fields, Collective Working Group on Radiofrequency fields

More than 1,000 studies were reviewed by Afsset, including studies on mobile phones, Wi-Fi emitters, microwave ovens, cordless home phones and other devices that use frequencies of between 9 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). Most of the studies did not show any negative effects but some studies at high exposure levels did indicate possible health effects such as cell damage, reduced male fertility, and a lower blood flow to the brain.

A joint statement from the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities, Nov 2009: EXPOSURE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS

“The Nordic authorities agree that there is no scientific evidence for adverse health effects caused by radiofrequency field strengths in the normal living environment at present. This conclusion concurs with the opinion of international scientific and advisory bodies listed as references below [ICNIRP, 1998 and 2009; WHO, 2005 and 2006; SCENIHR 2009; SSI`s Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields, 2007]. The Nordic authorities therefore at present see no need for a common recommendation for further actions to reduce these radiofrequency fields”.

European Health Risk Assessment Network on Electromagnetic Fields Exposure
EFHRAN, July 2010: Report on the analysis of risks associated to exposure to EMF: in vitro and in vivo (animals) studies

“For the three frequency ranges examined, the conclusions of the 2009 SCENIHR report are still valid in spite of the publication of several positive findings. Many of the new publications originate from laboratories and countries that are new to bioelectromagnetics research. This translates sometimes into unsatisfactory dosimetry or statistical analysis. Health risk assessment to be performed in the coming years (e.g., WHO EMF project) will need to be carried out with strict quality criteria”.

Yup, the first radio broadcast, and there for significant RF field exposure happened in 1906. That’s 107 years of RF exposure and after that time EMF has, aggressively, been classified as 2B. It only took 50 years to figure out tobacco was carcinogenic (class 1) so something doesn’t make sense here. Interesting by the way that smoking seems to reduce the risk of endometrial cancer though.. by like 30% or so

It is dumbfounding and incomprehensible that those entrusted with our children’s safety are making the decision for us to have our children exposed to wireless radiation. The technology can be accessed via hardwires, so why risk our children’s health? Nothing is that necessary, but especially when a wired alternative is available.
I guess jobs are on the line and wireless technology wins. This is really insane.