Commentary on the Government's $4.5 million EME program.

The Federal Government has taken a very positive step in this issue by implementing this program and is to be commended for this initiative.

However I have some concerns about certain aspects of this program which government members may not be aware of. If these concerns are not addressed soon there is the danger that much of this money will be wasted in areas that will give no real answers.

As I see it, there are several major questions this program must answer in relation to mobile phone transmitter base stations (towers) which are a major area of concern in Australia today.

1) Have adequate population health studies been carried out to give a fair indication that mobile phone base station transmissions are not harmful to nearby residents health? (eg. Workers and military personnel occupationally exposed to RF/MW radiation.)

2) Is there sufficient scientific evidence, to warrant caution, that long term exposure to the low level microwave transmissions from mobile phone base stations may be hazardous to health?

3) Will the World Health Organization's International EMF Project be able to answer the above questions after its 5 year study?

The Department of Communications and the Arts' (DOCA) Committee on EME and public Health mentioned in our other editorial article, "DOCA Committee not serious about consultative process", is the same committee which will be coordinating the governments $4.5 milliom dollar RF EME Program.

They will also have much influence in:- a) Contracting out various Program functions, including research projects. b) Advising the Government on RF/MW health related matters. c) Drafting and disseminating to the public,"up-to-date" information about RF/MW public health issues.This includes "factual information about the use of mobile phones and about exposure levels".

If the German information sheet Radio Signals, mentioned in the DOCA article (and which has been sent out by the EME Committee chair) is an example of their idea of "factual, up-to-date" information then we may see a monumental waste of government money.

What sort of public information sheets will this committee produce? Will there be a balanced presentation, or will it be as biased as the German Paper? It is hoped that there will be liaison with the CSIRO's Division of Radiophysics before sending out further information.

By the EME Committee's actions, in its apparent dismissal all evidence of possible health hazards in its pubic hearings, its competence to coordinate the RF EME Program is severely in doubt.

Now lets consider question no.1: (The adequacy of existing population studies.)

In determining an answer to this question, one obviously starts by looking at what international expert groups say.

The International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), chaired by Dr. Michael Repacholi, looked at this question in 1995 in its statement, Health Issues Related To The Use Of Hand Held Radiotelephones And Base Transmitters. This statement has been widely circulated by the South Australian Health Commission (SAHC) as evidence that there are no health risks associated with placement of mobile phone towers in schoolgrounds.

The SAHC has advised the SA Minister of Education to this effect. The SA Minister for Education has given permission to all state schools in SA that it is safe to allow the towers on school property. All this is largely based on the conclusions of the ICNIRP Statement.

The ICNIRP statement mentions three epidemiological studies which it relies upon for its conclusions:

1) Robinette et al, 1980. "A large scale study of radar workers involving over 40,000 people exposed for two years and followed up for twenty years failed to identify any increased incidence of illness or mortality associated with exposure."

2) Lilienfeld et al, 1978, "studied 1,800 employees and 3,000 dependents of the United States embassy in Moscow who were exposed to low level RF radiation in the embassy. They did not find significant adverse health effects in that population."

3) Szmigielski et al, 1988 " reported an increased risk of cancer in military personnel. However, the results of this study are difficult to interpret because neither the size of the population nor the exposure levels are clearly stated."

So out of three studies we have two negatives and a questionable positive. Largely on this basis the ICNIRP concludes :

"There is no substantive evidence that adverse health effects, including cancer, can occur in people exposed to levels at or below the limits on whole body average SAR recommended by INIRC (IRPA/INIRC 1988), or at or below the ICNIRP limits for localized SAR set out in this document."

If both the Robinette and Lilienfeld studies are indeed accurate then the ICNIRP statement would appear not to be unreasonable, however both these studies have been found to be severely flawed and are considered in non-industry scientific circles to be largely discredited. Investigations by Dr. John Goldsmith, Professor of Epidemiology, Ben Gurion University, Israel, illustrates this very well.

Dr. Goldsmith has undertaken a critical re-evaluation of the data from these two studies. Part of his research has been published in his paper Epidemiologic Evidence of Radiofrequency Radiation (Microwave) Effects on Health in Military, Broadcasting, and Occupational Studies. To briefly mention what he found:

1) Robinette et al 1980: A significant increase in leukemia in the most exposed group was diluted with a group with no increase with leukemia to give the combined group a small , but not significant increase. The abstract reports "No adverse effects....could be attributed to potential microwave exposure..."

According to Goldsmith, "The correct interpretation of this report is that among the group expected to have highest exposure there is a significant excess of hematological and lymphatic cancers'... "The negative statement in the summary is a misrepresentation of the findings. All reviews which cite it are biassed."

2) Lilienfeld et al, 1978: (Obtained from the US State Department under the Freedom of Information Act). Quoting Goldsmith: "A study was done and reported Sept. 1967 of a group of 43 workers, (37 exposed and 7 not exposed) tested for abnormalities in chromosomes on stimulated division. 20 out of the 37 were above the normal range among the exposed, compared to 2/7 among the non-exposed. In a final report, the scientists urged repeat and follow-up which was clinically indicated for 18 persons, but was not undertaken by the end of the contract period,"

"A study of blood counts among exposed persons in Moscow, compared to comparable persons in Washington, reported to the State Department on October 7, 1976, and showed the statistical information was significantly different for Moscow subjects in almost every comparison."

"Data on exposure and occurrence of some cases of cancer were withheld from Prof. Lilienfeld until the report was complete, and it was too late to include in the results."

"The views of Prof. Lilienfeld were altered or deleted at the request of the contract officer..."

"Lilienfeld had urged that follow-up studies be done, since the latency period for some possible types of cancer had not yet been sufficient at the time of his survey."

"Reviews of the work done by the contract investigators were interpreted by consultants as inconclusive because the State Department had failed to complete the follow-up work recommended by its contractors."

Prof. Goldsmith concludes about the Moscow study that evidence was suggestive for four health effects:-

a) chromosomal changes,

b) hematological changes,

c) reproductive effects, and

d) increased cancer incidence from the microwave irradiation in Moscow. All four of these effects had been found independently in other studies as well.

So where does this leave us now, by no stretch of the imagination can you say the Robinette and Lilienfeld studies gives any assurance of safety of microwave transmissions from mobile phone towers, quite the opposite.

The ICNIRP statement Health Issues Related To The Use Of Hand- Held Radiotelephones And Base Stations makes conclusions on the safety of mobile phone base stations based largely on these two flawed studies.

Based on this information the answer to question no. 1) would have to be 'no'.

Question no. 2 : (Is caution warranted? )

In the Governments media release, announcing the $4.5 million project, the Minister for Health and Family Services, Dr. Michael Wooldridge states: "While there is no substantiated evidence available to date of adverse health effects associated with RF EME exposure- within the standards that apply in Australia and overseas..."

Where is Dr. Wooldridge getting his information from?.... According to the press release, it must be from the EME Committee.

There is ample evidence of adverse health effects, to warrant concern, when one looks at what few epidemiological studies that have been done to date on RF/MW human exposure.

The catch word in Dr. Wooldridge's statement is "substantiated" evidence. This essentially means proven evidence, so that there is no doubt about the connection.

To use the term "proven"or "substantiated" is somewhat misleading . Epidemiological studies on human populations do not look for "proof" or "substantiation" but increases in incidence of a disease, or relative risk ratios .

The following recent studies do not "substantiate" anything in relation to exposure to RF/MW; they are dealing with the increase in incidence of adverse health effects such as cancer.

Epidemiological studies on tobacco and asbestos did not "substantiate" that these carcinogens cause cancer , they do show however, a significant increased risk of developing cancer from exposure. This is not "substantiation," but that did not prevent the health authorities from taking corrective action.

It is unfortunate that with electromagnetic radiation however industry and its supporters insist an absolute connection must be found before corrective action be taken.

The following are some relevant studies which should be of interest to anyone involved in EME health issues and who are concerned with a possible association with the human population.

a) The recent Bruce Hocking preliminary study compared cancer rates in three municipalities within a 4 km. radius of the Sydney TV towers with rates in adjacent areas further out. The study found children living within the 4km. radius had a relative risk of 1.61 for leukemia, compared with the control group. The relative risk for mortality was higher, at 2.25, and highest at 2.84 for fatal lymphoblastic leukemia.

The calculated power density levels within the 4 km. area were calculated to be in the order of 0.02 to 8 microwatts/sq.cm., up to 1000 times less than the Australian RF/MW safety standard of 200 microwatts/sq.cm.

b) In 1987, a similar study identified higher rates of cancer among those living near the TV and radio broadcast towers in Honolulu, Hawaii. Drs. Bruce Anderson and Alden Henderson of the Hawaii Department of Health found in a study of several thousand people in residential areas with about 12 communication towers in the midst, a relative risk for cancer, including leukemia, of 1.375 (37.5% increase). This study was never followed up.

c) An earlier study in 1982,conducted by Dr. William Morton of the University of Oregon's Health Sciences Centre in Portland, Oregon found parallel trends in his study of cancer and broadcast radiation in Portland.

d) Dr. Stanislaw Szmigieski, a leading epidemiologist with the Centre for Radiobiology and Radiation Safety at the Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland has been the team leader for an on-going study of the health effects of RF/MW exposure of military personnel in Poland for the whole military population. His research found that young military personnel exposed to RF/MW radiation had more than eight times the expected rate of leukemia and lymphoma. Careful surveys of exposure revealed that 80 - 85% of the personnel were exposed to an average of less than 42 micro watts/sq.cm., with a median point near 7 micro watts/sq.cm.

e) Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993) found a statistically significant 3.3 fold increase of miscarriage amongst U.S. physiotherapists using microwave diathermy compared to a non-exposed control group. The incidence increased with the number of monthly treatments, which could suggest a cumulative effect. At an average of about 10 treatments per month the estimated average exposure was about 0.04 to 0.56 micro watts/sq.cm.

f) Shandala et.al. (1979) found that calcium ion efflux varies in living animal cells at 10 micro watts/sq.cm. and this level also produces brain activity changes.

g) von Klitzing (1995) found changes to human brain EEG with a signal of 217 Hz modulation on a 150 megahertz (MHz) carrier with an external exposure of about 2.5 micro watts/sq.cm.

h) Dr. John Goldsmith, professor of Epidemiology at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Isreal (mentioned earlier) has collected evidence of several occupational and military exposures to microwaves which produced elevated risks of a wide range of cancers, including childhood leukemia in the children of staff, and cancers in the staff and partners at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and other eastern European U.S. embassies. These cancers were associated with a reported maximum exposure of between 5 and 15 micro watts/sq.cm. and mean exposures between 1 and 2.4 micro watts/sq.cm., recorded near the outside walls of the embassy. Exposures inside the building should be somewhat smaller than these readings.

To quote from Dr. Neil Cherry's recent paper of March 1996, Potential and Actual Adverse Effects of Cellsite Microwave Radiation:

"With these and dozens of other epidemiological studies of large populations and large numbers of workers occupationally exposed to RF/MW radiation, showing statistically significant increases of a wide spectrum of cancers, there can be little or no doubt that chronic low level exposure to RF/MW radiation produces increased cancer risk."

Considering these studies and the evidence for an increased cancer risk, at levels well below the current Australian RF/MW standard of 200 micro watts/sq.cm. , for Dr. Wooldridge to state that "there is no substantiated evidence available to date of adverse health effects"..."within the standards...". indicates that he is not getting proper advice.

Question no. 3:

"Will the World Health Organization's International EMF Project be able to answer the above questions after its 5 year study?"

As mentioned in the previous article, the WHO EMF Project will not be conducting new research, but will only be reanalyzing previous studies . It was also shown that most of these laboratory studies are not relevant to low level radiofrequency/microwave exposures and the development of cancer in humans. Therefore the relevance of the WHO Project is very limited, as far as giving us any real answers is concerned.

I'm not saying that the WHO Project should not be supported, but its limitations should be realized by the current government. If the government wants better value for its money it would seem wiser to put most of the $4.5 million into practical, on the ground, "getting test tubes wet" research in Australia and supporting similar research in other countries. Hopefully the Australian EME Committee is planning this, but lets not skimp on it though. Practical research should be the main focus of the $4.5 million. As far as producing up-to-date fact sheets, maybe we should get some answers first.