Safety Limits and Political Conflicts of Interest


[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text el_class=”phireBox”]

Socioeconomic pressures and outdated, incorrect scientific beliefs have severely slowed progress toward appropriate protection of the public.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 1) that we currently use in England, are obsolete 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 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 20.

More convenient admissions of these low level effects currently justify non-thermal doses of RF used for therapeutic applications 21 22 23 24 and provisionally for military warfare. In addition to neglecting non-thermal effects, these guidelines also fail to take into account cumulative effects 25, modulation effects 26 27 28, interference effects 29, reflection/conduction effects 30, frequency and intensity windows 31 32 33 34 (some studies have shown that lower intensities of radiation can have unexpectedly greater biological disruption), non-linear effects 35 36 , dosimetry 37 38 39 40 , timing of exposure 41 42 43 , radiofrequency/ magnetic field /extremely low frequency synergy 44, chemical synergy 45 46 47 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.

Isaaac's countries bar chart with UK limits

Thank you to Dr. Isaac Jamieson

 

Human Rights and Protection
There are clear human rights issues 48, 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 49 has been called for by many professional organisations in this case 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59, 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 60 61 62. Socioeconomic concerns regarding such dramatic change has led some to suggest the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) principle 63 64 65. 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.

[/vc_column_text]

[vc_column_text el_class=”phireBox”]

References

1. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), 1998.
ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300GHz)
Published in: Health Physics 74 (4):494-522; 1998

2. Gandhi et al, 2012, Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51.
Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children.
(full paper)

3. European Parliament, 2008-2009
2008/2211(INI) – 02/04/2009 Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010, Thurs 4 Sept 2008, items 21-23.

4. ICEMS Position Paper on the Cerebral Tumor Court Case Final Paper, Rome-Bologna-Chicago, October 23, 2012.

5. Johansson, Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 157–177
Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields — A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment

6. Oberfeld et al, 2004, Presented at Conference in Kos.
The Microwave Syndrome – Further Aspects of a Spanish Study

7. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1815 (2011) (Final resolution)

8. Canadian Human Rights Commission, May 2007. The Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities

9. Seletun Panel, 2009

10. Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA)

11. Venice Resolution, 2008, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).

12. Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations, Austria 2000

13. London resolution, 2007. Johansson, Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 247–248

14. Helsinki Appeal 2005

15. Canadian Teachers’ Federation, 2013 (over 200,000 teachers across Canada)
Brief to the expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada reviewing Safety Code 6A Canadian Teachers’ Federation Brief on Wi-Fi exposure in Canadian classrooms, October 2013

16. Russian National Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection RCNIRP, 2012
Recommendations of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection of the necessity to regulate strictly the use of Wi-Fi in kindergartens and schools

17. Blackman, 2009, Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):205-16.
Cell phone radiation: Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment. (full article)

18. American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
AAEM Letter to the FCC regarding Radiofrequency Exposure Limits. (Aug 2013) 

19. Herbert & Sage, 2013, Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):191-209, Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):211-34
Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link – Part I Part II

20. BioInitiative Report 2012

21. Meijer et Geesink, 2018, Journal Cancer Therapy. 9(3):188-230.
Favorable and Unfavorable EMF Frequency Patterns in Cancer: Perspectives for Improved Therapy and Prevention

22. Ozgur et al, 2014, Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014 May 11.
Mobile Phone Radiation Alters Proliferation of Hepatocarcinoma Cells.

23. Huber et al, 2002, J Sleep Res. 2002 Dec;11(4):289-95.
Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG.

24. BioInitiative Report, 2012.
A report by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world (ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MSc, MA or MPHs) about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS), and five full members of BEMS.  One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. 

25. Neubauer C et al, 1990, Bioelectromagnetics. 1990;11(4):261-8.
Microwave irradiation of rats at 2.45 GHz activates pinocytotic-like uptake of tracer by capillary endothelial cells of cerebral cortex.

26. Hinrikus et al, 2008, Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Oct;29(7):527-38.
Effect of low frequency modulated microwave exposure on human EEG: individual sensitivity.

27. Huber et al, 2002, J Sleep Res. 2002 Dec;11(4):289-95.
Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG.

28. Panagopoulos et al, 2013, PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663.
Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects.

29. Panagopoulos et al, 2015, Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 12;5:14914.
Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity.

30. Yang et al, 2007, Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:5294-7.
A simulation for effects of RF electromagnetic radiation from a mobile handset on eyes model using the finite-difference time-domain method.

31. Blackman, 2009, Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):205-16.
Cell phone radiation: Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment. (full article)

32. Panagopoulos et al, 2010, Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 May;86(5):345-57.
Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna.

33. Panagopoulos et al, 2013, PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663.
Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects.

34. Céspedes & Ueno, 2009, Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Jul;30(5):336-42.
Effects of radio frequency magnetic fields on iron release from cage proteins.

35. Jiang et al, 2012, PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e32040.
Adaptive response in mice exposed to 900 MHz radiofrequency fields: primary DNA damage.

36. Abu Khadra et al, 2014, Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 Feb 5.
Evaluation of selected biochemical parameters in the saliva of young males using mobile phones.

37. Marinelli et al, 2004, J Cell Physiol. 2004 Feb;198(2):324-32. (Erratum in J Cell Physiol. 2004 Mar;198(3):479-80.)
Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic field induces an unbalance between pro-apoptotic and pro-survival signals in T-lymphoblastoid leukemia CCRF-CEM cells.

38. Chavdoula et al, 2010, Mutat Res. 2010 Jul 19;700(1-2):51-61.
Comparison of biological effects between continuous and intermittent exposure to GSM-900-MHz mobile phone radiation: Detection of apoptotic cell-death features.

39. Elhag et al, 2007, Pak J Biol Sci. 2007 Dec 1;10(23):4271-4.
Effects of electromagnetic field produced by mobile phones on the oxidant and antioxidant status of rats.

40. Ozgur et al, 2010, Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Nov;86(11):935-45.
Mobile phone radiation-induced free radical damage in the liver is inhibited by the antioxidants N-acetyl cysteine and epigallocatechin-gallate.

41. Pyrpasopoulou et al, 2004, Bioelectromagnetics. 2004 Apr;25(3):216-27.
Bone morphogenetic protein expression in newborn rat kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

42. Rezk et al, 2008, Saudi Med J. 2008 Feb;29(2):218-23.
Fetal and neonatal responses following maternal exposure to mobile phones.

43. Panagopoulos et al, 2007, Mutat Res. 2007 Jan 10;626(1-2):69-78. Epub 2006 Oct 11.
Cell death induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz mobile telephony radiation.

44. Burch et al, 2002, International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2002, Vol. 78, No. 11 : Pages 1029-1036. Melatonin metabolite excretion among cellular telephone users

45. Seletun Panel, 2009 . 

46. Liu et al, 2014, Toxicol Lett. 2014 May 8. pii: S0378-4274(14)00195-7.
The protective effect of autophagy on mouse spermatocyte derived cells exposure to 1800MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.

47. Carballo-Quintás et al, 2011, Neurotoxicology. 2011 Aug;32(4):478-94.
A study of neurotoxic biomarkers, c-fos and GFAP after acute exposure to GSM radiation at 900 MHz in the picrotoxin model of rat brains.

48. Dr Isaac Jamieson, 2015
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity & Human RightsCommentary to the European Economic and Social Committee

49. Commission of the European Communities, 2000
Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle (Brussels, 2.2.2000, COM(2000) 1 final)

50. Benevento Resolution, 2006, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).

51. Canadian Human Rights Commission, May 2007
The Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities

52. Catania Resolution Catania Resolution, Italy 2002 

53. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1815 (2011)

54. Swiss Physicians for the Environment (MfE), 2012 (Basel, March 16, 2012)
Non-ionizing radiation (NIR): As much as necessary and as little as possible

55. Swiss Government Information Document, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscapes SAEFL
Electrosmog in the environment, 2012

56. Vienna Resolution, Austria 1998, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety)

57. Kheifets et al, 2005, Pediatrics. 2005 Aug;116(2):e303-13.
The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields.

58. BioInitiative Report 2012

59. French National Assembly, January 29 2015
Draft law on sobriety, transparency, information and consultation for exposure to electromagnetic waves. (Final text)

60. Dr Isaac Jamieson, Jan 2012
Smart Meters – Smarter Practices Document. Solving emerging problems, A review.
(Commissioned by the Radiation Research Trust)

61. Devra Lee Davis et al, 2013, Pathophysiology Volume 20, Issue 2, April 2013 P 123-129
Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen

62. Canadian Human Rights Commission, May 2007
The Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities

63. ANSES (French Government Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health)
Radiofrequencies, mobile telecommunications and wireless technology (updated 16/4/2013)
Health effects of wireless communication technologies and other radiofrequency applications

64. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1815 (2011)

65. Swiss Government Information Document, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscapes SAEFL
Electrosmog in the environment, 2012

[/vc_column_text]

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.