"Business as Usual is Unacceptable" David Carpenter, Co-Editor of The BioInitiative Report An important new report on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) -the BioInitiative
Report - is an international group of researchers'
challenge to the EMF power structure to set much stricter exposure
standards for power lines, cell phones, cell towers and other sources
of electromagnetic radiation. David Carpenter, Co-Editor of the Report and the Director of the Institute for Health and the
Environment at New York's University of Albany, on releasing the
working group's extensive report says "Business as usual is unacceptable."
Cindy Sage, Environmental Consultant and Co-Editor of the Report, gives a very informative interview about the Report, well worth viewing. She was recently quoted:
"Cell and cordless phones both present health risks. The increase risk for
children who start using cell phones before they are 20 is more than a five-fold
(more than a 500%) increased risk for malignant glioma by the time these
children are in the 20-29 age group. See Hardell and Carlberg, 2009, Int J
Oncology 35: 5-17. The annual age-adjusted incidence of astrocytoma for the
age group >19 years increased significantly by +2.16%, during 2000-2007 in
Sweden."
The report concludes EMFs produce many biological effects at levels well below current standards and that the "existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health." The BioInitiative Working Group's key recommendations are: a 1mG limit for homes where children and/or pregnant women live; a "precautionary limit" of 0.1μW/cm² (0.6V/m) for RF exposures where "people live, work and go to school." These proposed levels are on the order of 1,000 times more stringent than current limits adopted by ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) and the IEEE's ICES (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety).
VitalVibesUSA.com
has intervention devices available that you can use in your home,
school, office, car and on your phone to transmute detrimental radiation
from cell phone radiation, power lines and many other sources
of electromagnetic radiation. We use excellent cutting-edge tested technology developed to intervene and help mitigate the damage being done by wireless connections. Call today 1-772-882-7911 or email vitalvibesweb@gmail.com.
Like other EMF protection products on the market today, Aegis sells Wave Shield cell phone protection that "blocks 50-99% of the radiation coming through the
ear piece of the phones depending on model of the phone." Aegis does
not address detrimental radiation from the phone's antenna, circuitry,
battery or what circulates through the phone. Aegis claims Wave Shield blocks 50%-99% of radiation through the earpiece. I don't know about you but I want my brain and all my body parts protected 100%!
Summary and Introduction
You cannot see it, taste it or smell it, but it is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in industrialized countries today. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are the terms that broadly describe exposures created by the vast array of wired and wireless technologies that have altered the landscape of our lives in countless beneficial ways. However, these technologies were designed to maximize energy efficiency and convenience; not with biological effects on people in mind. Based on new studies, there is growing evidence among scientists and the public about possible health risks associated with these technologies.
Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal
bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this can cause discomfort and disease. Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially, most recently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones (two billion and counting in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI and WI-MAX networks. Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in humans, which could have major public health consequences.
In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers. In this report we will use the term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF and RF when referring to the specific type of exposure. They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing radiation.
Main Reasons for Disagreement among Experts
1) Scientists and public health policy experts use very different definitions of the standard of evidence used to judge the science, so they come to different conclusions about what to do. Scientists do have a role, but it is not exclusive and other opinions matter.
2) We are all talking about essentially the same scientific studies, but use a different
way of measuring when “enough is enough” or “proof exists”.
3) Some experts keep saying that all studies have to be consistent (turn out the same way every time) before they are comfortable saying an effect exists.
4) Some experts think that it is enough to look only at short-term, acute effects.
5) Other experts say that it is imperative we have studies over longer time (showing the
effects of chronic exposures) since that is what kind of world we live in.
6) Some experts say that everyone, including the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with illnesses have to be considered – others say only the average person (or in the case of RF, a six-foot tall man) matter.
7) There is no unexposed population, making it harder to see increased risk of diseases.
8) The lack of consensus about a single biological mechanism of action.
9) The strength of human epidemiological studies reporting risks from ELF and RF
exposures, but animal studies don’t show a strong toxic effect.
10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate.
These proposals reflect the evidence that a positive assertion of safety with respect to
chronic exposure to low-intensity levels of ELF and RF cannot be made. As with many
other standards for environmental exposures, these proposed limits may not be totally
protective, but more stringent standards are not realistic at the present time. Even a
small increased risk for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases translates into an enormous public health consequence. Regulatory action for ELF and preventative actions for RF are warranted at this time to reduce exposures and inform the public of the potential for increased risk; at what levels of chronic exposure these risks may be present; and what measures may be taken to reduce risks.
Problems with Existing Public Health Standards (Safety Limits)
Today’s public exposure limits for telecommunications are based on the presumption that heating of tissue (for RF) or induced electric currents in the body (for ELF) are the only concerns when living organisms are exposed to RF. These exposures can create tissue heating that is well known to be harmful in even very short-term doses. As such, thermal limits do serve a purpose. For example, for people whose occupations require them to work around radar facilities or RF heatsealers, or for people who install and service wireless antenna tower, thermally-based limits are necessary to prevent damage from heating (or, in the case of power-frequency ELF from induced current flow in tissues).
In the past, scientists and engineers developed exposure standards for electromagnetic radiation based what we now believe are faulty assumptions that the right way to
measure how much non-ionizing energy humans can tolerate (how much exposure) without harm is to measure only the heating of tissue (RF) or induced currents in the body (ELF). In the last few decades, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that bioeffects and some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating (or induced currents) occurs at all; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits where heating is an impossibility.
It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than
heat) that causes biological changes - some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death. Effects occur at non-thermal or low-intensity exposure levels thousands of times below the levels that federal agencies say should keep the public safe.
For many new devices operating with wireless technologies, the devices are exempt from any regulatory standards. The existing standards have been proven to be inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures, based on any reasonable, independent assessment of the scientific literature. It means that an entirely new basis (a biological basis) for new exposure standards is needed. New standards need to take into account what we have learned about the effects of ELF and RF (all non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and to design new limits based on biologically demonstrated effects that are important to proper biological function in living organisms. It is vital to do so because the explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on earth. Midcourse corrections are needed in the way we accept, test and deploy new technologies that expose us to ELF and RF in order to avert public health problems of a global nature.
Recent opinions by experts have documented deficiencies in current exposure standards. There is widespread discussion that thermal limits are outdated, and that biologically-based exposure standards are needed. Section 4 describes concerns expressed by WHO, 2007 in its ELF Health Criteria Monograph; the SCENIHR Report, 2006 prepared for the European Commission; the UK SAGE Report, 2007; the Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom in 2005; the NATO Advanced Research Workshop in 2005; the US Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group in 1999; the US Food and Drug Administration in 2000 and 2007; the World Health Organization in 2002; the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC, 2001), the United Kingdom Parliament ndependent Expert Group Report on Mobile Phones – Stewart Report, 2000) and others.
A pioneer researcher, the late Dr. Ross Adey, in his last publication in Bioelectromagnetic Medicine (P. Roche and M. Markov, eds. 2004) concluded: “There are major unanswered questions about possible health risks that may arise from exposures to various man-made electromagnetic fields where these human exposures are intermittent, recurrent, and may extend over a significant portion of the lifetime of the individual.”
“Epidemiological studies have evaluated ELF and radiofrequency fields as possible risk factors for human health, with historical evidence relating rising risks of such factors as progressive rural electrification, and more recently, to methods of electrical power distribution and utilization in commercial buildings. Appropriate models describing these bioeffects are based in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, with nonlinear electrodynamics as an integral feature. Heating models, based in equilibrium thermodynamics, fail to explain an impressive new frontier of much greater significance. Though incompletely understood, tissue free radical interactions with magnetic fields may extend to zero field levels.”(2)
There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.
See the rest of the Bioinitiative report for more detail information concerning the following:
SECTION 5: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON GENE AND PROTEIN EXPRESSION (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research) Dr. Xu and Dr. Chen
SECTION 6: EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS – RFR AND ELF DNA DAMAGE Dr. Lai
SECTION 7: EVIDENCE FOR STRESS RESPONSE (STRESS PROTEINS) Dr. Blank
SECTION 8: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON IMMUNE FUNCTION Dr. Johansson
SECTION 9: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON NEUROLOGY AND BEHAVIOR Dr. Lai
SECTION 10: EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN TUMORS AND ACOUSTIC NEUROMAS
Dr. Hardell, Dr.Mild and Dr. Kundi
SECTION 11: EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA) Dr. Kundi
SECTION 12: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE: MELATONIN PRODUCTION; ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE; BREAST CANCER Dr. Davanipour and Dr. Sobel
SECTION 13: EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCER PROMOTION (Melatonin links in laboratory and cell studies) Ms. Sage
SECTION 14: EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION BY THE MODULATING SIGNAL Dr. Blackman
SECTION 15 EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF MEDICAL THERAPEUTICS Ms. Sage
SECTION 16: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE Mr. Gee
SECTION 17: KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Carpenter and Ms. Sage
FOLLOW-UP LETTER
In December 2008, the participants of the Bioinitiative Report sent a letter to the Principle Investigators of the Interphone Study Group asking them to provide them with the four year old unpublished results/research.
"We ask for your cooperation in publishing your study results in the very near future. We have been in recent contact with Dr. Elizabeth Cardis. She has provided contact information for each of you so we can directly obtain these results through your publication of them in the peer-reviewed literature. This will enable scientists and other experts not directly involved in the Interphone studies to get the whole pattern of results without further delay."
Exhibit 1 to the Letter - Interphone studies from 13 different countries
No = results have not been published, Yes = results have been published
Country Glioma Acoustic neuroma Meningioma
Australia No No No
Canada No No No
Japan Yes Yes Yes
New Zealand No No No
Israel No No No
Italy No No No
France Yes Yes Yes
Germany Yes Yes Yes
UK Yes Yes Yes
Denmark Yes Yes Yes
Finland Yes Yes Yes
Norway Yes Yes Yes
Sweden Yes Yes Yes
References:
S. Lönn, A. Ahlbom, P. Hall, M. Feychting, Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk, Am. J. Epidemiol. 161 (2005) 526-535. Sweden
H. Christensen, J. Schüz, M. Kosteljanetz, H. Poulsen, J. Boice Jr, J. McLaughlin, et al, Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: a population-based, incident case-control study, Neurology 64 (2005) 1189-1195. Denmark
S. Hepworth, M. Schoemaker, K. Muir, A. Swerdlow, MJA. van Tongeren, PA. McKinney, Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study, BMJ 332 (2006) 883-887 UK
J. Schüz, E. Böhler, G. Berg, B. Schlehofer, I. Hettinger, K. Schlaefer, et al.,Cellular phones, cordless phones, the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany), Am. J. Epidemiol. 163 (2006) 512-520.
VitalVibesUSA.com has intervention devices available that you can use in your home, school, office and on your phone to transmute detrimental radiation from cell phone radiation, power lines and many other sources of electromagnetic radiation. We use excellent cutting-edge tested technology developed to intervene and help mitigate the damage being done by wireless connections. Call today 1-772-882-7911 or email vitalvibesweb@gmail.com.
Like other EMF protection products on the market today, Aegis sells Wave Shield cell phone protection that "blocks 50-99% of the radiation coming through the ear piece of the phones depending on model of the phone." Aegis does not address detrimental radiation from the phone's antenna, circuitry, battery or what circulates through the phone. Aegis claims Wave Shield blocks 50%-99% of radiation through the earpiece. I don't know about you but 50%-99% are very definitive or reassuring. I want my brain and all my body parts protected 100%!
Call today 1-772-882-7911 or email vitalvibesweb@gmail.com. Visit us on the web VitalVibesUSA.com
