Dr Elizabeth Evans
 MA(Cantab), MBBS(Hons), DRCOG

ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS FROM WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY

Dr Elizabeth Evans MA(Cantab), MBBS(Lond), DRCOG

•Wireless technology (mobile phones, WiFi hubs, DECT cordless home telephones, baby monitors, wireless alarms, smart meters etc.) has proliferated at an incredible rate over the last 15-20 years. Our exposure to the microwave/radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted is unprecedented, and the long term implications are, as yet, unknown. Humans have evolved with exposure to low level natural electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which come from space. However, wireless technology uses pulsed EMFs (different to the analogue form of natural EMFs) with information carrying waves. This is a completely novel exposure for all life on earth. RF levels in big cities are now up to 1018 times the natural background levels of this particular electromagnetic frequency.

•There is a growing body of evidence (over 20,000 published studies in peer-reviewed journals) that not only suggests there may be a link between RF radiation and cancer (including childhood leukemia and brain tumours), dementia, neurological damage, fetal damage and infertility, but that, acutely, this radiation could be the cause of a whole host of other symptoms - allergies, insomnia, headaches, lack of attention, immune problems, depression, cardiac arrhythmias, loss of cognitive function, anxiety and behavioural problems. These symptoms are described as Electrical Hypersensitivity (EHS). EHS, recognised by the WHO, is estimated to affect 3-5% of the population significantly and up to 30% mildly.

•The International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) set limits on RF levels in 1998. These safety standards are only based on exposure levels that cause acute adverse health effects as a result of short-term tissue heating (>1°C) or electric shock. They are not designed to protect against the cumulative effects of long-term exposure, or non-thermal, biological effects of RF exposure. The ICNIRP limit allows microwave levels many thousands of times greater than those now being reported as causing the symptoms listed above.

•The Council of Europe Resolution 1815 (from 2011) reviewed all available scientific evidence http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-DocDetails-EN.asp?FileID=17994&lang=EN and calls for schools to give preference to wired internet connections, and for raised awareness on potential health risks of DECT wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, including recommending the use of wired, fixed telephones at home. The Council’s view is that waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof could lead to high health and economic costs, so recommends taking a precautionary approach to this technology, avoiding children’s exposure to RF radiation where possible.

•In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a body connected to the WHO, classified RF radiation as a class 2B (possible) carcinogen. Many leading experts are now calling for an upgrade to 2A (probable) carcinogen, or Class 1 (definite) carcinogen based on the current data, especially following the US National Toxicology Programme preliminary trial results (2018) showing increased incidence of brain and heart tumours in rats exposed to 2G and 3G frequency radiation https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/findings/study_index.html

•In June 2012 the UK Office of National Statistics released data showing that the incidence of frontal and temporal lobe brain tumors increased by >50% from 1999-2009. Brain tumours are now the leading cause of cancer death in children. Data from 1995-2015 shows the incidence of gliobalstoma multiforme (the deadliest brain tumour) has more than doubled in the UK over those 2 decades. Data from other countries shows a similar pattern over the last 20 years.

•The BioInitiative Report 2012 reviewed 1800 new studies on RF. They concluded that there is now sufficient evidence of harm – genotoxicity, DNA strand breakage, decreased melatonin, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, damage to sperm, damage to bone and brain of fetus – for schools to use only wired internet, wired classrooms and wired learning devices, as children are more vulnerable than adults. (See Appendix)

•This technology appears to be here to stay for the time being, and our children are the first generation that will have been exposed to it from birth, or in utero. However, there is a growing body of evidence which suggests we should be using this with extreme caution, particularly when it comes to children. It is likely that in due course, as with smoking, asbestos and leaded petrol, it will be outlawed, but it could take decades for policy to catch up with scientific evidence. In the meantime it is up to individuals and organisations to look at the evidence themselves and to formulate behaviour and policies in the light of that evidence.

USEFUL LINKS AND DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCES

1.International EMF Scientist Appeal 2015 https://www.emfscientist.org/

Signed by 190 scientists from 39 nations, who have collectively published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation. They call upon the United Nations, the WHO, UNEP and the UN Member States to address the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods. They ask the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risks to children and fetal development.

2.Safe Schools 2012http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/safeschools2012.pdf

Medical and scientific experts call for safe technologies in schools. Includes statements from:

•American Academy of Environmental Medicine,

•Swiss Doctors for Environmental Protection,

•Austrian Medical Association,

•Irish Doctors Association,

•Russian National Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection

3.BioInitiative Report 2012 http://www.bioinitiative.org/

A report by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world (ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs) about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields. It updates BioInitiative 2007 and draws on 1800 new studies. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS. One author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency.

4.Freiburg Appeal 2012 http://freiburger-appell-2012.info/en/observations-findings.php

More than 1000 physicians signed the Freiburg Appeal in 2002. 36,000 people from all over the world supported its warning about the dangers of radio-frequency radiation. In 2012 physicians and scientists called again on colleagues, the wider global community and politicians around the world.

5.Safety limits in different countries compared to natural background levels of RF Radiation

Earth’s background microwaves0.000,000,000,000,001 µW/cm2

Salzburg’s limit on RF levels0.001 µW /cm2

Switzerland’s limit9.5 µW/cm2

China’s and Italy’s limits10 µW /cm2

UK’s limit (ICNIRP safety limits)1000 µW/cm2

There is no known safe level of RF radiation exposure for children or fetuses

6.This paper by Martin Pall disproves the popular claim that biological effects from wireless radiation cannot occur, for lack of a plausible mechanism of action. A careful review of twenty-three studies shows that calcium channel activation may be a key mechanism for understanding the biological effects of EMFs. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcmm.12088/full

7.Comprehensive list of studies classified by health effect, also including link to Naval Medical Research Institute Report http://www.justproveit.net/studies