Socioeconomic pressures and outdated, incorrect scientific beliefs have severely slowed progress toward appropriate protection of the public.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines (devised in 1998) that we currently use in England, are obsolete. They are based on thermally induced (tissue heating) effects which have been undermined by thousands of papers demonstrating serious biological effects at non-thermal levels, orders of magnitude below current ICNIRP guidelines.
More convenient admissions of these low level effects currently justify non-thermal doses of RF used for therapeutic applications and provisionally for military warfare. In addition to neglecting non-thermal effects, these guidelines also fail to take into account cumulative effects, modulation effects, interference effects, reflection/conduction effects, frequency and intensity windows (some studies have shown that lower intensities of radiation can have unexpectedly greater biological disruption), non-linear effects, dosimetry, timing of exposure, radiofrequency/ magnetic field /extremely low frequency synergy, chemical synergy and other important characteristics now known to enhance biological disruption.
Many other countries have chosen to adopt more biologically calculated safety limits orders of magnitude below ours.
Human Rights and Protection
There are clear human rights issues, particularly for vulnerable groups, but in essence for any individual who wishes not to be exposed in their home, place of work or public building and yet is being given no choice. Additionally, there are issues with ‘informed consent’ given that the vast majority of individuals and policy makers are not informed.
The application of the Precautionary Principle has been called for by many professional organisations in this case, in order to protect health and right to life first and foremost, but also to protect the economy given the escalating costs to this country. Socioeconomic concerns regarding such dramatic change has led some to suggest the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) principle. Whilst it is undoubtedly a step forward, the subjective nature of one’s interpretation of ‘reasonable’ renders it ultimately unprotective, unless it is structured with biologically based safety limits. If such limits are integrated, however, it remains an alternative in this situation.
Author of page Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, see credits for graphics owners. If you wish to use or discuss any content from this site, please contact the relevant author / owner either directly or via ‘contact’ above. A link to the references for each section will also be coming soon.