Research

Many scientific studies have found that the type of radiation emitted from wireless technologies has biological (non-thermal) effects.

Not all studies are independent. Sometimes, conflicts of interest are concealed..This unfortunately is not new.  Other scientists who have made discoveries that document the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation are threatened, their labs or offices are taken away; their funding is cut; they are threatened with legal action; and some are fired. The playing field is not level and the rules change depending on who has the most money.

Don’t rely on what you read in the papers. Science is complex and studies are not always easy to interpret. Sometimes the media misunderstands. Click here for an example of the media misunderstanding the science.

• The BioInitiative Report 2012was prepared by 29 authors from ten countries to document the scientific evidence on electromagnetic fields. The purpose of this report is to assess scientific evidence on health impacts from electromagnetic radiation below current public exposure limits and evaluate what changes in these limits are warranted now to reduce possible public health risks in the future. The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards. Precisely because of this, the BioInitiative Report presents a solid scientific and public health policy assessment that is evidence-based.
  

• The European Parliamentvoted in September 2008 by a very large majority to recommend tighter safety standards for mobile phones and other wireless technology (including the proposed smart meter network, Wi-Fi and DECT cordless phones) particularly to protect vulnerable groups like children. It points out in particular the need to “address vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children” The Parliament commented on the earlierBio-Initiative international reportand stated that:

 “the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete” and called upon the Council to “set stricter exposure limits for all equipment which emits electromagnetic waves …”

• Radiation Research Trust have published a scientific report for UK smart meters here, and have a sumary of recent articles on their website here.

• The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS)

ICEMS is made up of scientists, medical doctors and engineers from around the world. In their Beneveto Resolution (2006) and Venice Resolution (June 2008), they stated their concern for the effects of human exposure to electromagnetic fields on health. They state:

“We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there is a risk.  Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards…”

“We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against, not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms.”

• World Health Organisation and International Agency for Research on Cancerreclassified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a class 2B human carcinogen (possibly carcinogen to humans).  This applies to all forms of radio frequency radiation (May 2011). Download PDF report.

• The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) itself states that their “..guidelines are based only on short-term immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF.” Read article. ICNIRP’s guidelines have been widely criticised and the organisation has been accused of a lack of independence from the industries it regulates, (read more..) yet these are the guidelines used by the UK government and industry.

• The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE)Resolution 1815 (2011). Click here for link. In a document entitled:  The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment, the Assembly makes several recommendations including that the member states of the Council of Europe:

Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours.

Reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations and apply “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation.

• Summary of meeting at the WHO Headquarters Geneva, May 13, 2011 for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and Electro-Sensitivity (ES)  concluded:

The process of these diseases (MCS and ES) is chronic and the patient’s situation is exacerbated if he/she lives in a toxic environment, such as near Tarragona petrochemical industry or subjected to electromagnetic radiation: emissions in the neighborhood, mobile phone antennas , etc. The patient has to avoid re-exposure.

We are facing very high numbers of people already diagnosed . . . For EHS [severe Electro-Hypersensitivity]figures of affected people are between 3 and 6% of the population, but these numbers are growing continuously. The adverse reactions to chemicals or electromagnetic radiation vary in duration according to each patient, and the manifestations differ too. When the patient is again exposed, symptoms usually worsen or result in the appearance of new symptoms.

Click here for report.

Two independent reports on smart meter emissions:

• Smart Meter: What Do We Know”, Smart Meter – What we do Know 9-8-11by Peter Sierck,  Environmental Testing & Technology, Inc.  

• Sage Report on RF emissions, Sage Report Summary on RF Emissions from Smart Metersby Cindy Sage, SAGE EMF Designs. Compares smart meter readings reported by the California Council on Science and Technology (www.ccst.org) to his independent survey and how these readings measure up against the  FCC radiofrequency human exposure guidelines

Doctors’ and Scientists’ Reports

• Dr. Magda Havas, biologist and environmental scientist at Trent University, Ontario Canada:  Letter to the California Public Utilities Commission on smart meters. Havas Report CCST Smart Meters In a videotaped interview in 2009 on Vancouver Island that was recently been placed on You Tube, Dr. Havas discuss cell phones; mobile phones, Wi-Fi in schools, cell phones antennas and FM radio antennas; CFL bulbs; dirty electricity; and electro-magnetic hypersensitivity.
  (30 minutes.)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBkb1WbuzvI

• Dr. Olle Johanssen, prominent neuroscientist and electromagnetic hypersensitivity expert, at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden issues A Global Health Warning against  Wireless Smart Meters. (2 pages) http://www.scribd.com/doc/48148346/Karolinska-Institute-Press-Release.

• Dr. David Carpenter, MD, MPH, describes the potential health risks of wireless smart meters as chronic exposure may cause cancers, nervous system diseases and the ability to reproduce.
  Video Interview: Dr. Carpenter was formerly with the New York Public Health Department and is a Professor, School of Public Health State University of New York, Albany, where he directs the Institute for Health and the Environment (2 minutes).  http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=3946.

• Wireless Smart Meters – why they transmit ONE HUNDRED TIMES more radiation than cell phones. Video Interview: Nuclear Scientist, Daniel Hirsch, (5 minutes).  http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/04/20/daniel-hirsch-on-ccsts-fuzzy-math/

• Public Exposure: DNA, Democracy and the Wireless Revolution” Co-Produced by EON International and Libby Kelley, 2000 (57 minutes).  A film documentary of the early years of the Wireless Revolution, describing the scientific evidence at that time, what the health effects are, why the current FCC and FDA radiofrequency human exposure guidelines are  inadequate, and what the scientific and medical communities, and people worldwide are doing to campaign for more health protection in working with public officials who are willing to sponsor remedial legislation.  This is an award winning film that is still considered useful in spreading the word over a decade later.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJbCa-MZwXM&;feature=player_embedded

Worldwide Concerns:

 UK Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)

In April 2009, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers called for classroom wireless networks to be suspended immediately until research has properly considered the threat to health. Members said they were concerned by scientific reports linking Wi-Fi with impaired concentration, loss of short-term memory, chromosome damage and increased incidence of cancer.

The Austrian Medical Association is lobbying against the deployment of Wi-Fi in schools.

France

In October 2009, the French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (Afsset) reported that they consider the biological effects of exposure to RF radiation are beyond doubt,read more. The French Government has announced that it is introducinglegislation to ban advertising of mobile phones to children under 14. The French Senate is also pressing for a ban on the use of mobile phones in primary and middle schools. French National Libraries (BNF) has imposed a moratorium on Wi-Fi networks in French libraries.

The German Government’s Health Protection Agency recommends the public reduce their exposure to high frequency radiation to minimise health risks. The Frankfurt City Government  and the Bavarian Parliament have recommended against installation of Wi-Fi in schools.

Italy

In Italy there have already been two High Court Judgements supporting claims of adverse health effects caused by wireless transmissions, and one of the largest insurance companies stepped back from liability for health effects from electromagnetic radiation.

Vatican Radio has been ordered to pay compensation to the nearby town of Cesano, because studies in 2001 and 2002 by Michelozzi found RF levels in excess of the allowed level of 6 volts/metre and children in the area were six times more likely to develop leukaemia than youngsters elsewhere, read more. The broadcasting transmitter reduced its signal strength, but the case still went to court, and now Vatican radio is going to have to pay for its mistake, causing misery to some of Italy’s families. The amount of compensation will be decided by Rome’s Court of Appeal.

Canada, Lakehead University, Ontario,

Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada has limited its use of Wi-Fi, due to health concerns.  It has comprehensive fibre-optic computer network throughout the campus.  Its policy on the use of Wi-Fi states:

“There will be no use of Wi-Fi in those areas of the University already served by hard wire connectivity until such time as the potential health effects have been scientifically rebutted or there are adequate protective measures that can be taken”

San Francisco, USA

San Francisco just passed new legislation to require mobile phone dealers to post radiation levels on each phone they sell in that city.

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection,which has the equivalent role of our Health Protection Agency, has expressed concern at the marketing of mobile phones to children and teenagers and has stated that it believes that the risk to children from mobile phones is not much lower than the risk to children’s health from tobacco or alcohol. The Committee explains this high potential risk includes:

• the absorption of electro-magnetic energy in a child’s head is considerably higher than that in the head of an adult (a child’s brain has higher conductivity, smaller size, thin skull bones, smaller distance from the antenna etc.)

• causing disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems among others

Russian children are protected better than young people in the UK.

Blackberry and iPhone admit dangers

Blackberry, iPhone and Nokia print in their information sheets to keep the phone away from the body when using and storing it, and especially away from the abdomens of pregnant women and children. Why would they print those warnings unless they believed that there was an inherent danger in using mobile phones?