Open Letter to the European Economic and Social Committee Re. Electrohypersensitivity Proceedings
Note: The vote on the EESC EHS opinion and counter-opinion by Richard Adams will be streamed live January 21, 2015, around 4 p.m. UK time, 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Download Letter (PDF)
Sent via email 13th January, 2015
Open letter – please distribute widely.
For the attention of UK and Ireland members representing the European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity,
I am contacting you after receiving a copy of the opinion on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) report recently adopted by the EESC’s TEN section.
English version of the Draft Opinion on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Brussels, 19 December, 2014: https://toad.eesc.europa.eu/ViewDoc.aspx?doc=ces%5cten%5cten559%5cES%5cEESC-2014-05117-00-00-PA-TRA_EN.doc&docid=3040363
English version Opinion on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Brussels, 13 January, 2015:
https://toad.eesc.europa.eu/ViewDoc.aspx?doc=ces%5cten%5cten559%5cEN%5cEESC-2014-05117-00-01-AS-TRA_EN.doc&docid=3046232
The reports main purpose is to protect people suffering with electrosensitivity and your important work will hopefully lead towards suggesting binding EU legislation on EMF. I am grateful to all members for allocating almost five hours towards this important debate on 7th January, 2015 and appreciate the voting has been close in the final text along in the voting on each of the amendments. I understand that the next plenary session is due to take place on 21st January, 2015 to finalise the report and therefore call on all members to review the evidence and information contained within this letter.
I am the founder and Director for the UK EM Radiation Research Trust. I am also founding member and Board member for the International EMF Alliance and member of the EU Commission Stakeholder Dialogue Group on EMF.
I can assure you that EHS is very real. It is a physiological condition, not a psychological one. Some studies have been published by psychologists who are not qualified to establish physiological causality, and funding from the telecommunications industry has also created a literature bias as evidenced in published figures by Henry Lai and Anke Huss.
The number of people suffering from EHS is increasing as the exposure to modern digital wireless technology increases at a fast rate. Wireless technology is currently being widely promoted and will greatly increase the number of pulsing RF sources close to people. Many homes, schools and offices now have DECT RF phone systems and WiFi. We believe that already the economic costs of people working less well due to EHS symptoms outweighs the apparent benefits of having everyone wirelessly connected. In most cases it is better, faster and certainly more secure to have properly Ethernet wired systems in homes and offices. The EESC should ensure that they are able to properly quantify these factors so that you can make a balanced judgment.
I am shocked to hear that UK EESC member Sir Richard Adams argued against the precautionary approach and apparently used denial arguments that are clearly modelled on telecommunications enterprise lobbies. I hear that Sir Richard Adams publicly announced his intention to meet with opponents to the report to develop alternative text for the next EESC plenary meeting on 21st January, 2015. This is in total contrast to his public image as the founder of several social enterprises that allow people to express ethical values with a focus on fair trade, the problems of social exclusion and sustainability and I am therefore 2 struggling to believe that he would argue against supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society with regards to people suffering with electrosensitivity.
In addition Sir Richard Adams is known for encouraging public opinion. ‘According to Sir Richard Adams, another EESC member who has drafted numerous opinions on nuclear energy, “the public must be positively engaged in open ended decision-making on nuclear energy related issues that have long term consequences.” Please read the following text under section 23. http://www.bne.eu/content/file/dispatch-pdf/2012-12-10/237c-11.pdf
I have written to Sir Richard on 6th January, 2015 in the hope of providing supportive evidence for the meeting on 7th January and included a request to meet with him as his earliest convenience. I await his response.
I have no doubt that EESC members are honest and full of integrity, however, I am sure you will all agree that total transparency and openness is essential in decision making. EESC members voting on the lives and human rights of electrosensitive people have a duty of care and responsibility and should be called to report any conflicts of interest. It would be unfair to allow any member of the EESC to vote if influenced by primary or secondary interests which may affect professional judgement. Protection of public health is priority. I am therefore requesting a report highlighting any conflicts of interest of members under the freedom of information act and I encourage all citizens throughout Europe to engage with their Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament to call for a thorough and open investigation. I also call for a report detailing the reasons for deleting sections contained within the original report.
This issue is an emergency situation that could have far reaching impacts for society and the environment. Many people currently suffering with EHS feel abandoned due to the detrimental impacts to their health as a result of exposure to man-made radiation. RF radiation can adversely affect the immune system and the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as the endocrine system, causing a host of conditions and diseases that make routine tasks in life such as going to school, work, the shop, and seeking medical care not only difficult but often impossible. For these people to face further ridicule due to the ignorance of some members in authority who wrongly believe that EHS is psychological is blatantly unjust. The telecommunications industry is pushing this message that EHS is a psychological condition, and they are paying scientists to generate science that gives an “all clear” to WiFi in some instances, and in other studies, to insist EHS is psychosomatic. Yet when these studies are closely examined, it becomes clear they have been skewed to come out with a predictable message that suits the industry’s agenda. This is the time to establish sound policy to protect human rights. I am talking about the human rights of millions of people throughout the whole of Europe who are suffering with EHS today. To turn your backs on them would be inhumane. They have no voice. Most are housebound and cannot attend public forum meetings to voice their concerns.
I would like to highlight a very important quote from Professor Yuri Grigoriev, Honorary Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Advisory Committee member of WHO on EMF and Health. Professor Grigoriev has also worked actively for the state governmental program on creation of nuclear protection since 1949. His expertise was called upon to help contain the Chernobyl disaster after accumulating 40 years experience before the failure in Chernobyl. I directly asked Professor Grigoriev a question with respect to comparing the severity of non-ionizing radiation compared to ionizing radiation. He said, “Ionizing radiation is monitored with safety systems in place to contain and control and prevent overexposure. The current proliferation of wireless frequencies is worse as levels of non-ionizing radiation are constantly increasing and ubiquitous; it is out of control. The world-wide dissemination of mobile telecommunications has resulted in new sources of large-scale population exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevention of childhood and juvenile diseases from exposure to EMF sources is of paramount social and economic importance. It is one of the bases for public health policy in the near and long-term future. The human brain and the nervous system tissues directly perceive EMF and react irrespective of its intensity, and in certain cases it depends on EMF modulation. This feature distinguishes EMF from all other environmental factors and complicates 3 human health risk assessment for EMF exposure. A situation has emerged that cumulative EMF exposure of children may be comparable to adult exposure and may be equal to the levels of occupational exposure of workers. The current standards are outdated and inadequate. Urgent action is needed to curb the negative impact from this physical agent.”
I hope you will listen to the voice of experts in this field such as Professor Yuri Grigoriev, independent doctors, scientists and to members of the public especially those who suffer with electrosensitivity as your decisions will carry long term consequences and I am therefore appealing with you to follow the precautionary approach. People suffering with EHS are sounding the warning bells for society and need to be taken seriously. Millions of European citizens are relying on officials for protection of their lives and freedom. There is a potential for discrimination to ignore human rights. Allowing the proliferation of technology to continue without any due care and attention will result in subjecting the public and the environment to long term irreversible consequences.
Many doctors and scientists worldwide believe there is a very real and significant risk to the general health of the public, wildlife and the environment. Including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) an agency forming part of the World Health Organisation have categorised RF as a Group 2b carcinogen for the entire spectrum, some members of which are publicly vocal that the classification must be increased as rapidly as possible to Group 1.
Please find enclosed a recent document on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity by Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe. This is the first draft working document with more sections to follow. The first 5 pages of the report are bullet points and we feel it essential in your decision making. The remaining pages are abstracts to corroborate her points.
http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Mallery-Blythe-v1-EESC.pdf
This document will site evidence supporting our claim that EHS is physiological and highlight literature which demonstrates the irrelevance of the nocebo effect. In particular we would like to draw your attention to the multitude of studies which show EHS symptom constellation in the general population manifesting in a dose response fashion from exposure to RF emitting devices such as mobile phone base stations and telephones. This work cannot be ignored, as it is part of a growing body of evidence proving the existence of EHS. Additionally of course there are positive provocation studies which demonstrate that EMF exposure is instigating the symptoms.
Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe is the founder of PHIRE (Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment), Trustee Radiation Research Trust (RRT), Medical Advisor ES-UK and Board Member CPTF. The following links are to presentations that she has given on use of RF in schools and also to the British Society of Ecological Medicine on EHS:
https://www.vimeo.com/100623585 &
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNFdZVeXw7M
I suggest calling on Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe to speak as an advocate and medical doctor to support the debate in favour of people suffering with EHS.
In addition please download the following paper by Professor Henry Lai and Blake Levitt: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Levit-Henry_Lai.pdf
EHS is recognised in Sweden as a disability/functional impairment and the Government provides benefits directly to their handicap organization “Elöverkänsligas Riksförbund” for these victims to gain accessibility measures with benefits to shield their homes etc.
Furthermore, it is not just humans that are suffering from EMFs. Many animal studies have also shown biological effects. The effects of EMR are being felt by wildlife and the environment as a whole and many other species. The animal kingdom and the environment 4 cannot be labeled as suffering from psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects. Please review the following paper on functionality Disorders in Bees, Birds and Humans by Dr Ulrich Warnke, Biosciences, University of Saarland. http://archive.radiationresearch.org/conference/downloads/021500_warnke.pdf
Finally, I would like to end with a quote from Dr. Gro Harlem Bruntland, a medical doctor, former Prime Minster of Norway, former Director-General of the World Health Organization and now a member of the Elders – an independent group of global leaders brought together by Nelson Mandela. Professor Magda Havas directly asked Dr Gro Harlem Bruntland to responded to a question asking for her opinion saying “In this age of growing exposure to wireless technology and constantly increasing levels of exposure to radiofrequency radiation, what advice?” Dr Bruntland said: “This is important. We are exposed to different technologies of a new nature. I am frustrated that I was unable to sound the alarm fully. A sentence in an instruction book—where you do not explain the danger of radiofrequency—is not good public health and consumer policy. I became electrically sensitive and have been criticized because I can scare the public. We know they are not inert and there are potential consequences. People who have electrical sensitivity show that we do take some risk. Until we know more, we cannot say this is no problem.”
Download here: http://www.magdahavas.com/gro-harlem-brundtland-talks-at-the-university-of-waterloo
The number of people suffering from EHS is increasing as the exposure to wireless technology increases in all facets of home, school, business and commerce. There are costs beyond human suffering that must be considered by those in authority, and you have the power to attempt to control these costs and losses in the policy you are about to address. The medical costs for EHS and RF radiation-initiated diseases will overload an already burdened health care system. Additionally, there is an unquantifiable cost to society in terms of lost education and lost productivity. Every life is precious, but without doubt some of our best and brightest will fall through the cracks, unable to function in today’s world unless EHS suffers are fully recognised and accommodated.
With all this in mind I respectfully request that the issues contained in this letter are taken on board. I hope that you follow the precautionary approach and vote in favour to support the health and well-being of people suffering with EHS today and protect the health of future generations.
I have included Radiation Research Trust trustees and Patrons in this open letter along with other interested parties.
Yours faithfully,
Eileen O’Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
www.radiationresearch.org
Download Letter (PDF)
———
Counter opinion submitted by Sir Richard Adams
Download (PDF)
European Economic and Social Committee
AMENDMENT 1
COUNTER-OPINION
504th PLENARY SESSION
21-22 January 2015
DOSSIER: TEN/559
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
(own initiative opinion)
RAPPORTEUR: Hernández Bataller
Richard Adams
Replace the whole opinion with the following text:
”
1. Conclusions and recommendations
1.1 The EESC acknowledges and is concerned about the prevalence of EHS. It is encouraged to note that further substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its causes. It also notes that SCENIHR has been extensively analysing this issue in recent years and will shortly be completing its latest Opinion, having engaged extensively in public consultation.
1.2 The EESC understands that the main conclusions of this report will not differ substantially from the preliminary Opinion of 2013 which stated “Overall, there is evidence that exposure to radio-frequency fields does not cause symptoms or affect cognitive function in humans. The previous Scientific Committee’s opinion concluded that there were no adverse effects on reproduction and development from radiofrequency fields at exposure levels below existing limits. The inclusion of more recent human and animal data does not change that assessment.”
1.3 However, to allay continuing public concern and to uphold the precautionary principle the EESC urges the Commission to continue its work in this area particularly as further research is still needed to accumulate evidence concerning any potential health impact from long-term exposure, for example using a mobile phone for more than 20 years.
1.4 There remains the issue of public perception. For some individuals the prevalence of EMF is seen as a threat – in the workplace, to their families and in public spaces. Similar groups are equally concerned over multiple chemical exposure, widespread food intolerance or exposure to particles, fibres or bacteria in the environment. Such individuals need support, not only in dealing with actual illness symptoms but with the concerns they express about modern society.
2. Introduction
2.1 The purpose of this Opinion is to explore the concerns expressed by groups in civil society about the use and impact of radio-frequency emitting devices used in industrial and domestic equipment and services which depend on wireless communication. This is seen as relevant by those who both suffer from a non-specific range of health problems and have also adopted the term ‘Electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome’ (EHS) as a definition and implied cause of their symptoms.
3. General comments
3.1 Unfortunately, from their point of view, the overwhelming medical and scientific opinion is that there is no conclusive evidence to link the wide range of symptoms described as EHS to electromagnetic or radiofrequency exposure (EMF). Thus the World Health Organisation (WHO) states, “All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect.” Nevertheless campaigns by activist bodies in several countries continue to demand greater recognition of the perceived problem and more preventive and remedial action on the intensity and prevalence of sources of EMF. Such bodies regard the lack of action by authorities as being at best complacent or worse as part of a wider conspiracy influenced by government, commercial or foreign interests, who are unwilling to face up to the extensive adjustments required were ‘wifi’ (or other electrically powered devices) to be moderated or curtailed.
3.2 The EU, both before and since the Council Recommendation on the limitation of the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz – 300 GHz) in 1999 has maintained an active engagement with this topic and has sought the best scientific and medical advice – presented through a series of working groups and the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging Newly Identified Health Risks.(SCENIHR) This has resulted in a steady flow of analysis, position papers and opinions which reflect the seriousness with which this is regarded by the authorities, the medical, research, and scientific communities.
3.3 This is not just a European issue. In November 2014 the European Commission hosted the 18th annual Global Coordination of RF Communications on Research and Health Policy Conference which reviewed the extensive global research on this topic. To date, these scientific opinions have not led to a scientific rationale justifying a revision of the exposure limits (basic restrictions and reference levels) of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC. However, the Commission acknowledges that basic data for evaluating some risks is still limited, especially for long-term, low-level exposure, justifying the need for more research.
3.4 EMS sufferers continue to argue that action on their problem, both by Member States and the EU, falls far short of what they believe is necessary. Most public health authorities, however, do not agree. The great majority of independent trials to date have found that self-described sufferers from EHS cannot distinguish between exposure to real and false (meaning zero) electromagnetic fields. “Double-blind” experiments suggest that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a zero exposure, as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields.
3.5 However, this is not to deny the reality of EHS-attributed symptoms; clearly many people self-diagnose as suffering from a range of disconnected health problems which they link with electromagnetic fields. The proportion of the population claiming this diagnosis varies considerably between Member States. The World Health Organisation notes that ”EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.”
3.6 By contrast the thermal impact on the human body of electromagnetic fields has been established for over 100 years and, as noted, EU Council recommendations for electromagnetic fields and international radiation safety standards are in place and under regular review. At the EU level, the following legal instruments have been adopted in the area of electromagnetic fields:
– Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields is designed to complement national policies for improving health. Its purpose is to create a framework for limiting the general public’s exposure to electromagnetic fields, based on the best scientific evidence available and to provide a basis for monitoring the situation.
– Directive 1999/5/EC .
– Directive 2013/35/EU .
– Directive 2006/95/EC ensures that the public, including workers, are not exposed to levels beyond those set by the 1999 recommendation.
– Decision No 243/2012/EU establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme (RSPP).
3.7 With regard to research, the EU Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI) integrates existing programmes with general objectives that are geared to promoting compliance with EU objectives for employment, social and labour conditions and to supporting the development of social protection and suitable, accessible and efficient labour markets.
3.8 This is without prejudice to the Eighth Research Framework Programme’s instruments for research into electromagnetic fields, or the Horizon 2020 Programme. However, research should be encouraged and facilitated, so that both research centres and businesses can create high-quality jobs.
3.9 The EESC has stated its concerns regarding these issues and expressed its support for reducing exposure to non-ionising radiation in opinions published on these rules while they were being prepared. However, sufferers from EHS are characterised by attributing their symptoms to EMF at intensities well below the limits permitted. “
Reasons
The Opinion incorrectly presents a number of assertions as facts; these are listed below. The counter opinion seeks to correct this and balance the views of the scientific community with those of activist organisations:
1. That an increasing number of people suffer from EHS caused by the expansion of electromagnetic fields (1.1 and throughout the document). The counter opinion notes that this is not accepted by the scientific community.
2. That the medical profession does not deal with this syndrome professionally (1.2). The counter opinion notes that the overwhelming view of the medical profession is that this is a self-diagnosed syndrome.
3. That conflicts of interest adversely affect the independence of advisory scientific bodies on this issue (1.3).
4. That EHS is comparable to the health issues caused by asbestos (2.1).
5. That symptoms connected to EHS are made worse by exposure to radiofrequency waves (3.2). The counter opinion notes the findings that a simulation using zero emissions can have a similar effect.
6. That EHS sufferers are having their fundamental human rights breached (3.3).
7. That we are subject to “high levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields at all times” (4.1.1).
8. Incorrect attribution of EESC views – possibly a mistaken reference as no Plenary Session was held on 8th November 2011 (5.5).
—
Endnotes
[1] Preliminary opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) SCENIHR 29.11.2013 – http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf
[2 ] WHO: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/en/.
[3] Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC.
[4] For example the UK National Health Service – see http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Mobile-phone-safety/Pages/QA.aspx#biological-reasons.
[5] British Medical Journal 332 (7546): 886–889.
[6] WHO: Electromagnetic fields and public health http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/.
[7] OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59-70.
[8] Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999, OJ L 91, 7.3.1999, p. 10.
[9] Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 1.
[10] Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, OJ L 374, 27.12.2006, p. 10.
[11] Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012, OJ L 81, 21.3.2012, p. 7.
——-
Counter opinion submitted by Eileen O’ Connor in response to the opinion submitted by Sir Richard Adams
Download (PDF)
RRT counter opinion on electrohypersensitivity to the opinion submitted by Sir Richard Adams
Members of the Radiation Research Trust are shocked to read the counter opinion on electrohypersensitivity submitted by Sir Richard Adams ahead of the next 504th PLENARY SESSION 21-22 January 2015. Such a late submission with a view to overturning the democratically voted current opinion is astounding.
I would like to take this opportunity to respond to conclusions and recommendations contained within Sir Richard Adams counter opinion on behalf of the UK Radiation Research Trust.
Point 1.1 I’m sure we will all agree with the call for more research while protecting the health and well-being of people who are currently suffering with electrohypersensitivity. This condition cannot be ignored, neglected or dismissed. We call for research to be carried out by independent scientists and medical doctors who are experts in this field to help with study design.
SCENIHR rely on evidence that calls for beyond reasonable doubt. Failing to take action at this point in time will be at the detriment of millions of people suffering with EHS, causing serious harm to health and will be a serious violation to human rights. A risk of this magnitude cannot be taken with so many lives at risk. I draw your attention to the report by Dr Isaac Jamieson on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and Human Rights. This report was provided as commentary to the European Economic and Social Committee:
http://www.radiationresearch.org/images/rrt_articles/IAJ_EHS__Human_Rights_0141204.pdf
Point 1.2 The precautionary principle should be applied on the basis of early warnings which are justified by reasonable grounds for concern. SCENIHR’s independence on this issue has been questioned by members of the European Parliament and by many independent doctors, scientists and by members of the public. Read enclosed Parliamentary questions by Christel Schaldemose to the EU Commission
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2009-1843&language=EN
I would like to draw your attention to the independent work of the BioInitiative Working Group consisting of 29 authors from ten countries; ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and five full members of BEMS. This team of doctors and scientists are offering an alternative review and report to the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). I urge all EESC members to review the highly respected work of the BioInitiative group. This group of researchers have reviewed over 5000 peer reviewed scientific papers and highlights the fact that bioeffects are clearly established to occur with very low exposure levels of (non-thermal levels) to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation exposures. The report calls for the precautionary approach and urgent action due to chronic EMF-related diseases that are a potential risk for everyone. These diseases include adverse effects on the central nervous system, cancer initiating and promoting effects, impairments of certain brain functions, loss of memory and cognitive function and infertility and immune dysfunction. Views from this group of professionals need to be taken seriously.
The BioInitiative Working Group offer comments on SCENIHR’s Preliminary Opinion on potential Health Effects of EMF and suggest that their report should be sent back for major revisions. The BioInitiative Working Group stated that the conclusions drawn from the data presented are unreliable for judging possible health risks. The SCENIHR report consistently ignores or dismisses published scientific studies that report positive findings at exposure levels below ICNIRP standard. I invite you to draw your own conclusion after reading the following review of work from both SCENIHR and the BioInitiative Working Group: http://www.bioinitiative.org/potential-health-effects-emf
The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014. This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012. Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014. Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies. Many of these current studies were not considered by SCENIHR’s draft Opinion: http://www.bioinitiative.org/new-studies-show-health-risks-from-wireless-tech
The deficiency of the SCENIHR opinion document in 2014 was reported by many including former New York Times science writer Blake Levitt and University of Washington Professor Henry Lai as failing to do a thorough review of recent literature on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biological health effects. Only selected papers were evaluated using ambiguous criteria. Lai and Levitt said, “It is outrageous to ignore any effect of EMF exposure on human health and a crime to humanity not to recommend any action to curtail the exposure.”
Point 1.3 Sir Richard Adams is also calling for research demonstrating potential health impacts from long-term exposure, for example using a mobile phone for more than 20 years. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Hardell Group published five ground breaking studies in 2013. The Hardell studies are the first to correlate mobile phone usage with incidences of brain tumours over a 20+year period of time, longer than any other epidemiological studies. They found a clear correlation between cell phone usage and two types of brain tumours, acoustic neuromas and the deadliest of all brain cancers, gliomas. IARC the World Health Organization’s cancer committee accepted Hardell’s science prior to 2013 for consideration when the IARC scientists almost unanimously voted for the 2B “possible carcinogen to humans” classification for the entire RF – EMF Spectrum. The Hardell group based their conclusion on Hill’s viewpoints and are now calling for an upgrade in the IARC classification to group 1, i.e., “the agent is carcinogenic to humans, and urgent revision of current guidelines for exposure is needed.
The highest court in Italy favoured Hardell’s study over the 2010 Interphone Studies, which had failed to find a similar correlation. The court considered Hardell’s studies more reliable and independent than the Interphone study which had been part funded by the mobile phone industry.
Point 3.2 Cannot dismiss the call from campaigns by activist bodies and claim they are accusing the authorities of being part of a wider conspiracy influenced by Government, commercial or foreign interests. Many of these people are esteemed professionals, politicians, doctors and scientists including the voices of ordinary people which should be respected and taken into account. Every member of society has a right to call for protection and especially the protection of the child whom many are currently forced to attend school with classrooms full of microwave radiation or forced to use wireless tablets and devices. This is a total contradiction to the current advice from the UK Chief Medical Officers advice saying that children and young people under 16 should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only, and to keep calls short.” Download here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215711/dh_124899.pdf
Marian Harkin MEP is one of the many political voices who have joined the ranks to express the need for a review from up to date evidence and the need for accountability. Speaking at the EU Commission meeting held in collaboration with the Greek Atomic Energy Commission Athens in March, 2014, she stressed importance of openness towards lobbying and diverse opinions and the need for transparency and inclusion of all stakeholders. She reminded the EU Commission and SCENIHR that public consultation should not simply be a box ticking exercise and that consultation is only meaningful if addressing negative outcomes along with reports that have positive outcomes. Furthermore and perhaps most profoundly, she gave the stark reminder that 500 million citizens are relying on SCENIHR’s review.
Point 3.5 Doctors are uneducated with regards to offering diagnosis for EHS patients due to lack of training in this area of concern and they not aware of any diagnostic codes leaving the only option for self-diagnosis for EHS patients. Doctors require coding categorised on paper to offer an opportunity for proper diagnosis. This will allow appropriate epidemiology and public health analysis to assess the progression of this condition.
Finally, I would like to remind you that the current WHO handbook on fields and public health does not offer any guarantees of safety for public health and clearly states the given the widespread use of technology, the degree of scientific uncertainty, and the levels of public apprehension, rigorous scientific studies and clear communication with the public are needed.
Failing to take action now while awaiting new research that may take decades to finish simply allows RF exposure levels to continue to rise, ignoring the lives of millions of EHS people who need emergency support and help now. There are reasonable grounds for concern to justify taking action to prevent serious harm to public health and the environment. The precautionary principle is justified. We do not want this issue to be remembered in history of a period of neglect and ignorance. Please read Chapter 21 by David Gee: Late lessons from early warnings.
I respectfully submit the information contained in this letter for your attention on behalf of the UK Radiation Research Trust.
Eileen O’Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
www.radiationresearch.org
Download (PDF)
————-
Final letter submitted by Eileen O’ Connor to Sir Richard Adams
Download (PDF)
18th January, 2015
Thank you for responding to my email and for reviewing the material enclosed.
I invited the BioInitiative Working Group to submit technical information on wireless health risks, please see attached. Also find attached letter defending their professional reputation and the value of the BioIniative Report and Working Group.
You appear to have mistakenly used misguided and baseless arguments provided repeatedly by the telecommunications industry. I’ve no doubt that your accusations are unintentionally tort given the factual inaccuracy of your claims regarding the reputation of the Hardell Group and the BioInitative Working Group.
On what basis do you contend the BioInitiative and Hardell Group science to have no academic or scientific support or credibility?
Your misguided criticism of Hardell cannot be supported, given that IARC, The World Health Organisation’s esteemed cancer committee, concluded in May 2011 that RF – EMF is a 2B “possibly human” carcinogen. This decision was based on reviewing myriad studies but clearly biased science and inadequate science was dismissed, leaving IARC to use, as the basis for its decision, two studies — the Interphone Study and the epidemiology of Dr. Lennart Hardell. If Hardell’s science is good enough for IARC, why is it considered to have no academic or scientific support or credibility?
The Italian Supreme Court, in October 2012, upheld a ruling that said there was a link between a business executive’s brain tumour and his heavy mobile phone usage. The evidence was based on studies conducted by the Hardell Group between 2005-2009 (prior to his even stronger studies published in 2013 – 2014). The court said the research was independent and “unlike some others, was not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones”. If Hardell’s science is the only science good enough for the Italian Supreme Court, why is it considered to have no academic or scientific support or credibility?
Conflict of interest is of serious concern, especially for those in positions of power and influence. Time and time again we find the influence from industry creeping into the scientific arena. You may be interested to hear that the International Agency for Research on Cancer was forced to remove Anders Ahlom of the Karolinska Institute from its panel of experts just a week before they were about to evaluate the cancer risks posed by mobile phones. Ahlbom’s conflict of interest was reported by a Swedish Journalist Mona Nilsson after she discovered that Ahlbom was a director for a consulting firm, Gunnar Ahlbom AB. The company was established to help clients on telecom issues, with an emphasis on environmental and energy regulations. The full report is available via Microwave News: http://microwavenews.com/Ahlbom.html
This needs to stop. Why are we relying on journalists, independent scientists and ordinary members of the public to alert policy makers to conflicts of interests within official groups such as IARC, WHO and SCENIHR.
We are concerned that you are providing an unbalanced opinion due to your reliance on industry funded experts, while dismissing a group of independent experts who have reviewed over 5000 peer reviewed published studies. You have made your position clear that you have no interest whatsoever in supporting any particular lobby or commercial organisation. I therefore question why you are providing information and reports that are representing interests of industry 2 lobbyists? See attached email on conflict of interests disclosure sent to you yesterday from Iris Atzmon. Were you previously aware of this before writing your counter opinion paper on electrohypersensitity?
You responded to Iris Atzmon via email yesterday sending an industry funded article that dismisses the Bioinitiative Report. This article was co-authored by an industry consultant and a billionaire who had made his money off the very technology you are dismissing as having an adverse health impact on citizens. Kenneth Foster is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and has been a paid industry consultant for decades; Lorne Trottier is a Canadian entrepreneur who has made his fortune in electronics and telecommunications. Trottier is a businessman without medical expertise, yet he has made it his mission to tell the world that people suffering from electrohypersensitivity are suffering from a psyhosomatic condition. You offered an article by these two men as your basis for discrediting the esteemed BioInitiative Report. Ordinary members of the public and especially our children and those who are suffering with electrosensitivity are counting on you for fairness and caution in a world where citizens are becoming increasingly electrosensitive, we deserve far better than this, Mr. Adams. You have staunchly taken a very dangerous position that will affect every individual in Europe, a supposed 14,000,000 ES million of whom are already disabled to varying degrees by RF radiation. You relied on the opinion of Loren Trottier with respect to the BioInitiative Report, the man who funded 40 Canadian academics to write a letter to the media, telling that smart meters are safe. The truth is no non-industry funded study has proven that this technology is safe, including smart meters; reports continue to come in about EHS developing in residents following installations of smart meters on their homes in those countries where smart meters have been introduced. It appears your private investigation of this issue is influenced by external economic interests whether you are aware of it or not Trottier advances the smart meters. Why? Lorne Trottier is the owner of Matrox, a large manufacturer of Wifi-enabled motherboards and graphic chips for mobile internet devices. Trottier has set up multiple websites, including emfandhealth.com which serve to suppress the science pointing to the adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation.
My question to you is – are you promoting wireless smart meters, too? I read the EESC energy Opinion reports and understand and appreciate concerns for climate change and clean energy, but shouldn’t the concern truly be as follows: How can we save energy and at the same time not threaten the health of citizens who are directly affected by energy conservation policies? The smart grid currently runs on a wireless system, this grid has been initiating EHS in many residents wherever it is installed, and the Precautionary Principle must be followed to avoid adding to the multi-millions of EHS citizens already unable to live in today’s wireless world. Why the drive to install the ‘smart grid,’ forcing every home in the UK and throughout countries in Europe to use a wireless system, especially when there are safer options to follow? Please download a copy of the smart meter, smarter practices report by Dr Isaac Jamieson. My colleagues and I hand delivered a copy of this report to Number 10 Downing Street with Joe Benton MP and Bill Esterson MP. Download report here: http://www.radiationresearch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=173
As to the Hardell studies, I took SCENIHR on regarding their refusal to include the 2013 Hardell studies. I publicly challenged Dr. Schüz regarding the suppression of Hardell’s five papers. I held up the five brilliant, omitted studies for all to see at the EU event in Athens last year and demanded to know why they were not included in the SCENIHR preliminary report. Dr. Schüz claimed that he had not seen them, yet I knew full well from Kjell Hansson Mild, a member of SCENIHR, that Joachim Schüz purposefully kept the 2013 compelling studies by Hardell out of the SCHENIR report; among those five studies includes research in which Hardell calls for RF to be urgently upgraded to a Group 1 carcinogen which would put it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos. The BioInitiative Working Group, Kjell Hansson Mild, and my colleague Susan Foster all demanded that the five Hardell Group papers needed to be included within the SCENIHR review; to omit and ignore them is to cater to industry wishes and ignore not only the elephant in the room, but also the health and wellbeing of over 500 million citizens. With the deceit I just described, the review carried out by SCENIHR is false. It is a whitewash and will not hold any value or weight with concerned citizens due to the industry ties connected to the group. 3 To further illustrate the depth of the conflict of interest that renders the SCENIHR report meaningless, please see the following declared conflicts of interest among the SCENIHR external committee:
• Dr. Maria Rosaria Scarfi declared connection to Telecom Italia and CTIA (wireless industry).
• Dr. Olga Zeni declared connection to Telecom Italia and CTIA.
• Prof’ Mats-Olof Mattsson declared connection to TeliaSonera, (Swedish mobile industry).
• Prof. Anssi Auvinen represents Finland in the COSMOS study. The Finnish part of COSMOS is funded by the Finnish Agency for Technology and Innovation (WIRECOM research program) and Yrjö Jahnsson foundation. The WIRECOM program received funding from Nokia, TeliaSonera and Elisa. He wrote in his declaration to SCENIHR, that he receives funding from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum.
• Dr. Joachim Schüz declared connection to Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the US power industry research arm. Dr. Schüz is listed in an Austrian mobile phone advisory group that has received funding from the telecom companies. http://www.wbf.or.at/wbf-expertenforum/expertenforum-2009/expertenliste/Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk: Expertenliste
My final question is directed towards you under the Freedom of Information Act. I call for you to clearly state any first or secondary connections to the telecommunications industry as well as any and all utilities. I call on you to reveal any conflict of interest before using your influence to encourage your colleagues to vote on your counter Opinion on electrohypersensitivity which is based on industry values.
I’ve no doubt that you do not wish to commit yourself to an unsubstantiated and to a truly false position and therefore invite you to respond with an apology to Dr Lennart Hardell and the BioIniative Working Group and offer them the respect they deserve along with an equal opportunity to voice concerns and present information and research to be included for review by the EESC rather than calling on a group of industry funded scientists to carry out the review.
Yours sincerely,
Eileen O’Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
www.radiationresearch.org
Download (PDF)
————
Defense of the BioInitiative Report
Download (PDF)
The BioInitiative Report is an internationally acclaimed scientific and public health report on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency/microwave radiation.
In 2007, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international collaboration of prestigious scientists and public health experts from Columbia University and the University at Albany (New York), University of Washington (Seattle), the Karolinska Institute, Umea University and Orebro University Hospital (Sweden), the European Environmental Agency (Denmark) Medical University of Vienna (Austria) and Zhejiang University School of Medicine, (China) released a 650-page report citing more than 2000 studies that document health effects of EMFs from all sources.
The BioInitiative Report was written in 2007 for publication to the broadest possible audience, hence placed on the Web. Much of the BioInitiative Report content, including updated chapters and new chapters is now published in the journal Pathophysiology (2009).
Chronic exposure to even low-level EMF from cell and cordless phones, cell towers and wireless internet may cause health effects that vary from impaired learning, headaches, mental confusion, skin rashes, tinnitus and
disorientation to a variety of cancers, and neurological diseases like ALS and Alzheimer’s.
Cindy Sage, MA and David Carpenter, MD, Director, Center for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, New York were co-editors, and were contributing authors to the Report.
As a result, the European Parliament and its member countries unanimously adopted a resolution to address public health risks from EMF and wireless technologies, in line with the BioInitiative Report. The European Environmental Agency director has given high visibility to the issue and recommended health agencies review and act to implement precautionary measures, particularly for children. The Report has received high praise from many international groups, with limited exceptions from some industry-dominated committees and groups who continue to support obsolete public safety standards. There is more than sufficient scientific evidence documented now to warrant public health actions.
———
BioInitiative Working Group comments in support of EESC draft opinion on electrosensitivity as amended, January 13, 2015
Download (PDF)
January 15, 2015
To: European Economic and Social Committee TEN 559 Section Draft Opinion on Electrosensitivity dated January 13, 2015
Re: BioInitiative Working Group Comments in Support of EESC Draft Opinion on Electrosensitivity as amended, January 13, 2015
The BioInitiative Working Group has been requested by the Radiation Research Trust to submit technical materials for your further consideration on wireless health risks. The BioInitiative 2007 Report and the five-year update BioInitiative 2012 Report both document studies reporting disruption of immune function and electrohypersensitivity (EHS). Electrosensitivity is a growing problem and will have significant global public health consequences. The Draft EESC Opinion on Electrosensitivity should be adopted and should lead to precautionary actions by governments in line with this evidence.
We are providing foundational materials that address the science and public health issues
with recommendations on application of the precautionary principle. This submittal is based on recent BioInitiative Working Group publications (1, 2) a scientific review (3) of the international, peer-reviewed published literature on electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (wireless) and recent publications by BioInitiative Working Group authors (4, 5). It is also keyed to the Human Health Rights Declaration published in 2012 (6) and a recent paper on EHS by David O. Carpenter, MD (7)
The scientific evidence for potential health risk from wireless technologies is sufficient to implement strong and immediate precautionary measures at once, especially for children.
There is no informed consent among global populations. Chronic exposure to everyday use of, or proximity to wireless devices and emissions from voice and data communications networks face potential health risks, including electrohypersensitivity.
Such emissions at very low intensities can produce biologically active and ultimately harmful health impacts from pulsed radiofrequency and microwave radiation, as well as extremely low-frequency modulation of such wireless transmissions (ELF-EMF).
Children are more vulnerable and require special protections from chronic wireless emissions, during fetal development and throughout childhood growth and development.
Pregnant women are at risk for altered fetal neurological development with exposure to wireless emissions at common, everyday levels in the home and workplace.
The 2007 BioInitiative Report summarized public policy findings and recommendations based on thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. They are:
1) Bioeffects and adverse health effects of chronic exposure to low–?intensity (non–?thermal) non–?ionizing radiation are established.
2) Existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits are not sufficiently protective of public health.
3) 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 WHO IARC is the highest health body in the world, and it’s mission is to study and classify what is, and what is
Not a carcinogen, the evidence supporting assessments, and the level of uncertainty. We Must listen and take precautionary action now.
4) The continued rollout of wireless technologies and devices imperils public health.
5) New, biologically–?based public exposure standards are critically needed.
6) The industry is in control of standards for public safety, and adhere only to limits that permit new and nearly unrestricted wireless commerce.
6) It is not in the public interest to wait.
The evidence is sufficient to provide warnings to governments and institutions that are charged with protecting public health and safety, particularly with respect to children.
We urge the EESC to work with the BioInitiative Working Group on the critical need for new, biologically-based public exposure standards for electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (wireless), and toward the adoption of a UN Resolution on Human Health Rights addressing wireless technology health risks.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group by:
Co-Editors, BioInitiative 2007 and 2012 Reports
Cindy Sage, MA
Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA USA
David O. Carpenter, M.D.
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment University at Albany
Albany, New York, USA
Contributing Authors of the the 2007 and 2012 BioInitiative Working Groups
Jitendra Behari, PhD, India
Carlo V. Bellieni, MD, Italy
Igor Belyaev, Dr.Sc., Slovak Republic
Carl F. Blackman, PhD, USA
Martin Blank, PhD, USA
Michael Carlberg, MSc, Sweden
David O Carpenter, MD, USA
Zoreh Davanipour, DVM, PhD USA
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, PhD, Greece
David Gee, Denmark
Yuri Grigoriev, MD, Russia
Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD, Sweden
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Sweden
Martha Herbert, PhD, MD, USA
Paul Héroux, PhD, Canada
Michael Kundi, PhD, Austria
Henry Lai, PhD, USA
Ying Li, PhD, Canada
Abraham R. Liboff, PhD, USA
Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Greece
Henrietta Nittby, MD, PhD, Sweden
Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Austria
Bertil R. Persson, PhD, MD, Sweden
Iole Pinto, PhD, Italy
Paulraj Rajamani, PhD, India
Cindy Sage, MA, USA
Leif Salford, MD, PhD, Sweden
Eugene Sobel, PhD, USA
Amy Thomsen, MPH, MSPAS, USA
References
1) BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Radiation at www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012 at www.bioinitiative.org BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) at www.bioinitiative.org, August 31, 2007. (2007 chapters contained now in the 2012 Report online)
2) Research summaries of radiofrequency radiation publications at http://www.bioinitiative.org/researchsummaries/
(3) BioInitiative Working Group to SCENIHR Committee, Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) dated April 16, 2014.
(4) Herbert M, Sage C (2013) Autism and EMF/RFR? Plausibility of a Pathophysiological Link-Part I. Pathophysiology Volume 20, Issue 3, 191-209, June 2013.
(5) Herbert M, Sage C (2013) Autism and EMF/RFR? Plausibility of a Pathophysiological Link-Part II. Pathophysiology Volume 20, Issue 3, 211-234, June 2013.
(6) Sage C, Huttunen P (2012) Guest Editorial. WHO recognizes electromagnetic dangers: let us declare human health rights. Pathophysiology 19 (2012) 1–3
(7) Carpenter, DO. Excessive Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields May Cause
the Development of Electrohypersensitivity. ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, NOV/DEC 2014 VOL. 20, 6
Human Health Rights Declaration
Fundamental Human Health Rights
The right to homeostasis in our own bodies
The right to normal central nervous system function
The right to natural environmental cues that synchronize our circadian rhythms
The right to sleep
The right to heal
The right to hear
The right to reproduce
The right to learn and retain memories
The right to an intact genome
If even ONE of these rights is compromised – placed at risk from involuntary wireless exposures in daily life, it is a breach of human health rights. When many of these human health rights are compromised without the consent of the individual, then the deployment of wireless technologies should be halted and existing exposures reduced or eliminated, in accord with the scientific and public health findings on chronic. exposure to low-intensity radiofrequency radiation, and other forms of potentially harmful electromagnetic fields.
Exhibit 1
State of the Science and Public Health on Electromagnetic Fields
And Radiofrequency Radiation (Wireless Technology Risks)
The 2012 BioInitiative Report summarizes the state of the science and
public health consequences to date as follows:
The BioInitiative Working Group concluded in 2007 that existing public safety limits were inadequate to protect public health, and agreed that new, biologically-based public safety limits were needed five years ago. The BioInitiative Report was been prepared by more than a dozen world-recognized experts in science and public health policy; and outside reviewers also contributed valuable content and perspective.
From a public health standpoint, experts reasoned that it was not in the public interest to wait. In 2007, the evidence at hand coupled with the enormous populations placed at possible risk was argued as sufficient to warrant strong precautionary measures for RFR, and lowered safety limits for ELF-EMF. The ELF recommendations were biologically-based and reflected the ELF levels consistently associated with increased risk of childhood cancer, and further incorporated a safety factor that is proportionate to others used in similar circumstances. The public health cost of doing nothing was judged to be unacceptable in 2007.
What has changed in 2012? In twenty-four technical chapters, the contributing authors discuss the content and implications of about 1800 new studies.
Overall, these new studies reported in the 2012 BioInitiative Report document abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9); carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section 18); effects on the fetus, neonate and offspring (Section 18 and 19); effects on brain and cranial bone development in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5 and 18); and findings in autism spectrum disorders consistent with EMF/RFR exposure. This is only a snapshot of the evidence presented in the BioInitiative 2012 updated report.
There is reinforced scientific evidence of risk from chronic exposure to low-intensity electromagnetic fields and to wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation including microwave radiation). The levels at which effects are reported to occur is lower by hundreds of times in comparison to 2007. The range of possible health effects that are adverse with chronic exposures has broadened. There has been a big increase in the number of studies looking at the effects of cell phones (on the belt, or in the pocket of men radiating only on standby mode) and from wireless laptops on impacts to sperm quality and motility; and sperm death (fertility and reproduction). In other new studies of the fetus, infant and young child, and child-in-school – there are a dozen or more new studies of importance. There is more evidence that such exposures damage DNA, interfere with DNA repair, evidence of toxicity to the human genome (genes), more worrisome effects on the nervous system (neurology) and more and better studies on the effects of mobile phone base stations (wireless antenna facilities or cell towers) that report lower RFR levels over time can result in adverse health impacts.
Importantly, some very large studies were completed on brain tumor risk from cell phone use. The 13-country World Health Organization Interphone Final study (2010) produced evidence (although highly debated among fractious members of the research committee) that cell phone use at 10 years or longer, with approximately 1,640 hours of cumulative use of a cell and/or cordless phone approximately doubles glioma risk in adults. Gliomas are aggressive, malignant tumors where the average life-span following diagnosis is about 400 days. That brain tumors should be revealed in epidemiological studies at ONLY 10 or more years is significant; x-ray and other ionizing radiation exposures that can also cause brain tumors take nearly 15-20 years to appear making radiofrequency/microwave radiation from cell phones a very effective cancer causing agent. Studies by Lennart Hardell and his research team at Orebro University in Sweden later showed that children who start using a mobile phone in early years have more than a 5-fold (more than a 500%) risk for developing a glioma by the time they are in the 20-29 year age group. This has significant ramifications for public health intervention.
In short order, in 2011 the World Health Organization International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen, joining the IARC classification of ELF-EMF that occurred in 2001. The evidence for carcinogenicity for RFR was primarily from cell phone/brain tumor studies but by IARC rules, applies to all RFR exposures (it applies to the exposure, not just to devices like cell phones or cordless phones that emit RFR).
The stakes are very high. Exposure to electromagnetic fields (both extremely low-frequency ELF-EMF from power frequency sources like power lines and appliances; and radiofrequency radiation or RFR) has been linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes that may have significant public health consequences. The most serious health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with extremely low frequency (ELF) and/or radiofrequency radiation (RFR) include childhood and adult leukemia, childhood and adult brain tumors, and increased risk of the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). In addition, there are reports of increased risk of breast cancer in both men and women, genotoxic effects (DNA damage, chromatin condensation, micronucleation, impaired repair of DNA damage in human stem cells), pathological leakage of the blood–brain barrier, altered immune function including increased allergic and inflammatory responses, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects. Insomnia (sleep disruption) is reported in studies of people living in very low-intensity RF environments with WI-FI and cell tower-level exposures. Short-term effects on cognition, memory and learning, behavior, reaction time, attention and concentration, and altered brainwave activity (altered EEG) are also reported in the scientific literature. Biophysical mechanisms that may account for such effects can be found in various articles and reviews (Sage, 2012).
Traditional scientific consensus and scientific method is but one contributor to deciding when to take public health action; rather, it is one of several voices that are important in determining when new actions are warranted to protect public health. Certainly it is important, but not the exclusive purview of scientists alone to determine for all of society when changes are in the public health interest and welfare of children. 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 may cause discomfort, or sleep disruption, or loss of well-being (impaired mental functioning and impaired metabolism) or sometimes, maybe it is a dread disease like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. It may be interfering with one’s ability to become pregnant, or to carry a child to full term, or result in brain development changes that are bad for the child. It may be these exposures play a role in causing long-term impairments to normal growth and development of children, tipping the scales away from becoming productive adults. The use of common wireless devices like wireless laptops and mobile phones requires urgent action simply because the exposures are everywhere in daily life; we need to define whether and when these exposures can damage health, or the children of the future who will be born to parents now immersed in wireless exposures.
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 (six billion in 2011-12, up from two billion in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI , WI-MAX and LTE networks. Some countries are moving from telephone landlines (wired) to wireless phones exclusively, forcing wireless exposures on uninformed populations around the world. These wireless exposures at the same time are now classified by the world’s highest authority on cancer assessment, the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. to be a possible risk to health. Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in humans. Now, the balance has clearly shifted to one of ‘presumption of possible adverse effects’ from chronic exposure. It is difficult to conclude otherwise, when the bioeffects that are clearly now occurring lead to such conditions as pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier (allowing toxins into the brain tissues); oxidative damage to DNA and the human genome, preventing normal DNA repair in human stem cells; interfering with health sperm production; producing poor quality sperm or low numbers of healthy sperm, altering fetal brain development that may be fundamentally tied to epidemic rates of autism and problems in school children with memory, attention, concentration, and behavior; and leading to sleep disruptions that undercut health and healing in numerous ways.
A. Evidence for Damage to Sperm and Reproduction
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 (See Section 18 for references – 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) reported rats exposed to stand-by level RFR (phones on but not transmitting calls) had a 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 (?W/cm2). See Section 18 at www.bioinitiative.org for references.
B. Evidence that Children are More Vulnerable: Many studies demonstrate that children are more sensitive to environmental toxins of various kinds (See Section 24 for references – Barouki et al, 2012; Preston, 2004; WHO, 2002; Gee, 2009; Sly and Carpenter, 2012). Some studies report that the fetus and young children are at greater risk than are adults from exposure to environmental toxins. This is consistent with a large body of information showing that the fetus and young child are more vulnerable than older persons are to chemicals and ionizing radiation. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a 10-fold risk adjustment for the first 2 years of life exposure to carcinogens and a 3-fold adjustment for years 3 to 5. These adjustments do not deal with fetal risk, and the possibility of extending this protection to the fetus should be examined because of fetus’ rapid organ development. The issue around exposure of children to RFR is of critical importance. There is overwhelming evidence that children are more vulnerable than adults to many different exposures (Sly and Carpenter, 2012), including RFR, and that the diseases of greatest concern are cancer and effects on neurodevelopment. Yet parents place RFR-emitting baby monitors in cribs, provide very young children with wireless toys, and give cell phones to young children, usually without any knowledge of the potential dangers. A growing concern is the movement to make all student computer laboratories in schools wireless. A wired computer laboratory will not increase RFR exposure, and will provide safe access to the internet (Section, Sage and Carpenter, BioInitiative 2012 Report).
C. Evidence for Fetal and Neonatal Effects: Effects on the developing fetus from in-utero exposure to cell phone radiation have been observed in both human and animal studies since 2006. 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). Sources include 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. Divan et al (2008) found that children born to 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). Aldad et al (2012) showed that cell phone radiation significantly altered fetal brain development and produced ADHD-like behavior in the offspring of pregnant mice. Exposed mice had a dose-dependent impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission onto Layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal cortex. The authors conclude the behavioral changes were the result of altered neuronal developmental programming in utero. Offspring mice were hyperactive and had impaired memory function and behavior problems, much like the human children in Divan et al (2008). See Sections 19 and 20 at www.bioinitiative.org for references.
D. Evidence for Effects on Autism (Autism Spectrum Disorders)
Physicians and health care practitioners should raise the visibility of EMF/RFR as a plausible environmental factor in ASD clinical evaluations and treatment protocols. Reducing or removing EMF and wireless RFR stressors from the environment is a reasonable precautionary action given the overall weight of evidence for a link to ASDs.
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 ADHD-like behavior in the offspring of pregnant mice.
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. At the cellular and molecular level many studies of people with ASDs have identified oxidative stress and evidence of free-radical damage, as well as deficiencies of antioxidants such as glutathione. Elevated intracellular calcium in ASDs can be associated with genetic mutations but more often may be downstream of inflammation or chemical exposures. Lipid peroxidation of cell membranes, disruption of calcium metabolism, altered brain wave activity and consequent sleep, behavior and immune disfunction, pathological leakage of critical barriers between gut and blood or blood and brain may also occur. Mitochondria may function poorly, and immune system disturbances of various kinds are common. Changes in brain and autonomic nervous system electrophysiology can be measured and seizures are far more common than in the population at large. Sleep disruption and high levels of stress are close to universal. All of these phenomena have also been documented to result from or be modulated by EMF/RFR exposure. 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.
Broader recommendations also apply, related to reducing the physiological vulnerability to exposures, reduce allostatic load and build physiological resiliency through high quality nutrition, reducing exposure to toxicants and infectious agents, and reducing stress, all of which can be implemented safely based upon presently available knowledge.
In line with the 1990 UN Rights of the Child consensus, the fetus and the developing child should enjoy protections that are scaled to their heightened vulnerability to environmental toxins and the environment in which they develop and grow. The 2012 BioInitiative Report, Section 20 (3) and Herbert and Sage, 2013 (4, 5) address protections needed for learning environments for children:
• 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 healthharming commitment to wireless devices that may have to be substituted out later.
• Wired classrooms should reasonably be provided to all students who opt-out of wireless
environments. (Herbert and Sage, 2012 – Section 20)
E. Evidence for Electrohypersensitivity: The contentious question of whether electrohypersensitivity exists as a medical condition and what kinds of testing might reveal biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment has been furthered by several new studies presented in Section 24 – Key Scientific Evidence and Public Health Policy Recommendations. What is evident is that a growing number of people world-wide have serious and debilitating symptoms that key to various types of EMF and RFR exposure. Of this there is little doubt. The continued massive rollout of wireless technologies, in particular the wireless ‘smart’ utility meter, has triggered thousands of complaints of ill-health and disabling symptoms when the installation of these meters is in close proximity to family home living spaces.
McCarty et al (2011) studied electrohypersensitivity in a patient (a female physician). The patient was unable to detect the presence or absence of EMF exposure, largely ruling out the possibility of bias. In multiple trials with the fields either on or not on, the subject experienced and reported temporal pain, feeling of unease, skipped heartbeats, muscle twitches and/or strong headache when the pulsed field (100 ms, duration at 10 Hz) was on, but no or mild symptoms when it was off. Symptoms from continuous fields were less severe than with pulsed fields. The differences between field on and sham exposure were significant at the p < 0.05 level. The authors conclude that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a neurological syndrome, and statistically reliable somatic reactions can be provoked in this patient by exposure to 60-Hz electric fields at 300 volts per meter (V/m). Marino et al (2012) responded to comments on his study with McCarty saying “EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome. We followed an empirical approach and demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship (p < 0.05) under conditions that permitted us to infer the existence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a novel neurological syndrome.”
The team of Sandstrom, Hansson Mild and Lyskov produced numerous papers between 1994 and 2003 involving people who are electrosensitive (See Section 24 – Lyskov et al, 1995; Lyskov et al, 1998; Sandstrom et al, 1994; Sandstrom et al, 1995; Sandstrom et al, 1997; Sandstrom et al, 2003). Sandstrom et al (2003) presented evidence that heart rate variability is impaired in people with electrical hypersensitivity and showed a dysbalance of the autonomic nervous system.
“EHS patients had a disturbed pattern of circadian rhythms of HRF and showed a relatively ‘flat’ representation of hourly-recorded spectral power of the HF component of HRV”. This research team also found that “EHS patients have a dysbalance of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation with a trend to hyper-sympathotonia, as measured by heart rate (HR) and electrodermal activity, and a hyperreactivity to different external physical factors, as measured by brain evoked potentials and sympathetic skin responses to visual and audio stimulation.”
(Lyskov et al, 2001 a,b; Sandstrom et al, 1997).
The reports referenced above provide evidence that persons who report being electrosensitive differ from others in having some abnormalities in the autonomic nervous system, reflected in measures such as heart rate variability.
F. Evidence for Effects from Cell Tower-Level RFR Exposures
Very low exposure RFR levels are associated with bioeffects and adverse health effects. At least five new cell tower studies are reporting bioeffects in the range of 0.001 to 0.05 ?W/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.
Exhibit 2
BioInitiative Working Group
Comment on the European Commission’s
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)
Preliminary Opinion on Potential Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
The BioInitiative Working Group provided expert review and comment on the Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields by the SCENIHR in April of 2014.
The letter and attached exhibits form a current record of the scientific and public health issues regarding chronic exposure to low-intensity wireless technology emissions, and the wider issues of health risks from electromagnetic fields.
These materials are incorporated by reference in this submittal, and available at:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/potential-health-effects-emf/
BioInitiative Working Group Letter to SCENIHR
Exhibit A – Consistent Failure to Identify the Potential for Health Effects
Exhibit B: Comment by Drs. Lennart Hardell, Fredrik Soderqvist, PhD and Michael Carlberg, MSc. on brain tumor epidemiology
Exhibit C: Reference List for Important Fertility and Reproduction Papers and Misrepresentation of Key Study Findings on Effects on Sperm
Exhibit D: An Update on Neurological Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields by Prof. Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, Emeritus
Exhibit E: An Update on the Genetic Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields by Prof. Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, Emeritus
Exhibit F: An Update on Physical and Biological Variables, Cancer and Safety Standards Prof. Igor Belyaev, Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic
Exhibit G: Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Disruption of Electrophysiology
Download (PDF)
———-
The vote on the EESC EHS opinion and counter-opinion by Richard Adams will be streamed live January 21, 2015, around 4 p.m. UK time, 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Please support our work by making
a tax-deductible donation.
We are 100% donation-based
and need your support
to educate, communicate and analyze
critical developments in this field.
Thanks so much for your help!
Please give generously.
We depend on you.