#1072: EM Radiation Trust comments on draft Australian standard
From Eileen O”Connor, Director EM Radiation Research Trust (U.K.):
At a time when there are calls for tightening EMF power-frequency exposure standards to address cancer risks, Australia is moving in the opposite direction.
Read the whole story at:
http://www.microwav enews.com/ EMFConceits. html
Comment from Mike Repacholi comment:
“People don”t realize that the ICNIRP limits are VERY PRECAUTIONARY and, at many frequencies, the safety factors are very much larger than the nominal 50 for the general public.”
Cindy Sage response:
“..might be true for acute exposures resulting in thermal effects, for which these safety limits were developed. They are certainly not applicable to low-intensity (non-thermal) effects.
Findings of the BioInitiative Report:
“ low-intensity effects are established,
“ existing public safety standards are inadequate and do not sufficiently protect the public,
“ new, biologically-based public safety limits are needed that key to exposure levels associated with increased risk to health, and
* it is not in the public interest to wait to take proportionate, precautionary action.
It is not justified for any country of the world today to relax public safety limits for ELF that are at or near ICNIRP levels. The science and public health implications of what we know to be true today necessitate
new, far lower limits for chronic exposure.”
I simply fail to understand why Australia is considering raising the limits for EMF exposure for the general public by 3 times the value of ICNIRP when the time has come to use the lowest possible exposure values based on current empirical evidence demonstrating biological effects below the thermal standards.
The industry and Government will say that the ICNIRP limits are very precautionary and, at many frequencies, the safety factors are very much larger than the nominal 50 for the general public as quoted in Mike Repacholi”s comment above. However, this statement leads people into a false sense of security. The truth is ICNIRP only apply to thermal effects for acute exposures. The ICNIRP levels do not apply to low-intensity non-thermal biological effects which are known to exist (as referred to in Sage’s response, the BioInitiative Report and the Stewart Report 2000).
Evidence is building that shows extreme low frequency (ELF) waves may not only be related to cancer, but may speed up the aging process, increase anxiety, depression, anger, and irritability.
Studies also suggests that exposure to ELF waves alters calcium ions in our cells and alter the delicate melatonin/serotonin balance in the brain, which would explain mood disorders and sleep problems.
Governments now admit that magnetic fields at the power levels of 0.4 microtesla doubles the risk of contracting leukaemia. It is also a well know fact that children are far more vulnerable than adults to absorption of radiation. Plus an estimated 2 million EHS people could be suffering in the UK due to electrosensitivity which is another well known phenomenon.
Should we sit back and let it happen? Here are a few questions:
1) Has the Australian Government or any other Government taken people who
suffer with electrosensitivity (ES) into consideration?
2) Has any account been given to the unique susceptibility of growing children to
RF/MW?
3) What do you do if you have a phone mast next to your home or suffer as a result of exposure to mobile phones, Wifi, WIMAX or DECT phones?
4) Should our children and the world”s workforce be forced to go to school and work surrounded in a sea of untested and unregulated radiation?
5) Have we given our Government and the Industry permission to include us in this
experiment?
6) Hasn”t the Government got a duty of care to alert the public to the non-thermal
biological effects?
7) What are the long term consequences?
8) Is financial gain more important than health?
9) Do we really want to leave a legacy of enormous proportions with regards to health and the economic consequences for our children?
10) Is it ethical?
By encouraging the proliferation of wireless devices, society has created an invisible under-class who are denied the opportunities available to everyone else. ES victims are often unable to use their talents and capabilities to earn a living through denial of access to transport and places most people take for granted. With other forms of disability, society has taken the view that such a situation is unacceptable and has legislated to ensure equal access and equal opportunity. The safety of our children is at risk as they are considered to be the most vulnerable. The developing organs of a child are the most sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. The public have a right to know and choose safe environments without barriers to access. It is wholly unacceptable and unethical to treat members of society in this way.
The overall background radiation in the UK is excessive not least because we have eleven national infrastructures, four GSM operators, five 3G, one TETRA and Network Rail GSM. No other utilities duplicate their infrastructures, yet maintain competition. Further, the mobile phone operators have gone far beyond being a utility, into hi-tech mass marketing of entertainment and business services. The same special arrangement applies to almost every country in the world. Is it right to turn a blind eye in favour of industry? It could turn out to be false economy as International findings suggest that, we may face a catastrophic future which is not only damaging to public health but will also destroy the economy due to the loss of productivity, the financial strain could dwarf the current economic crisis, financial gain today could be false economy for tomorrow.
Please download the “Rewire.me” eMagazine www.rewire.me and share it with your family, friends and colleagues. It is of extreme importance to spread the word as a matter of urgency. Read the magazine and download links to video, virtual reality, audio and scientific studies and learn about the dangers of the electromagnetic fields that are produced by our modern technology.
We have attempted to present this information in a way that is easy to read and understand with colourful graphics and “Rich Media” as support materials. The Radiation Research Trust are the distributors and sponsors of the publication and we hope to use this medium to reach the governments and their citizens from all over the world that are still unaware of the illnesses that are caused by wireless technologies.
I believe that I got breast cancer from a phone mast and I would like to be able to share my experiences with others so they can avoid the dangers of unsafe levels of radiation by applying the precautionary principle and live a long and healthy life. That is what this magazine is all about. Please forward this on to your family, friends, colleagues and ask them to help spread the word, make it available on your websites, my space etc, please help!
“Rewire.me” magazine promotes the books of the late Dr Robert Becker. His book ‘The body electric’ contains a chapter on fatal locations in chapter fifteen ‘Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.”
Chapter on ‘Fatal Locations’, Dr Becker said: The major problems come from extremely low frequencies, but higher frequencies have the same effects if pulsed or modulated in the ELF range. This is very often the case, for, to transmit information, microwaves or radio waves must be shaped. This is done by interrupting the beam to form pulses or by modulating the frequency or amplitude (size) of the waves. Furthermore, today’s environment is a latticework of crisscrossing signals in which there’s always the possibility of synergistic effects of the “construction” of new ELF signals from the patterns of interference between two higher frequencies. Therefore, experiments in which cells or organisms are exposed to a single unmodulated frequency, though sometimes useful, are irrelevant outside the lab. They’re most often done by researchers whose goal is to be able to say, “See, there’s no cause for alarm.”
I would also like to draw your attention to a very interesting new research paper published in Pathophysiology by Dr Blackman, past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society by. Section 1.2. states: “Modulation signals are one important component in the delivery of EMF signals to which cells, tissues, organs and individuals can respond biologically.” He also mentions that “more recent studies of modulated RF signals report changes in human cognition, reaction time, brainwave activity, sleep disruption and immune function.” Dr Blackman includes the following sentence within the conclusion of his paper: “Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony). The collective papers on modulation appear to be omitted from consideration in the recent WHO and IEEE science reviews. This body of research has been ignored by current standard setting bodies that rely only on traditional energy-based (thermal) concepts.”
There are a large number of scientists worldwide who consider that the ICNIRP and SCENIHR have reached conclusions that cannot be objectively rationalised on the existing scientific evidence.
The enclosed information from Louis Slesin strengthens the argument against SCENIHR as objective and independent.
Check out the full story:
http://www.microwavenews.com/Interphone.Wild.html
There is huge progress being made in the European Parliament. A recent Report raised concerns over their “continuing uncertainties about possible health risks.” In particular, there are concerns about the exposure of children and young people to electromagnetic fields, 559 MEPs voted in favour, 22 against and 8 abstentions on calling for stricter regulation and protection for residents and consumers.
The European Commission should make more reliable information available about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields to citizens who feel that they are not well informed.
The vote from the MEPs will hopefully put pressure on the EU Commission to follow their own recommendation from the precautionary approach “” EU Commission recommendations 2000
“Recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially dangerous effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and that scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. The implementation of an approach based on the precautionary principle should start with a scientific evaluation, as complete as possible, and where possible,
identifying at each stage the degree of scientific uncertainty.”
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf
I am convinced that the law is probably the best chance we had so far to get momentum for a change. There is now an International law initiative for wireless EHS victims via lawyer, Mr Leistikow in Berlin.
Please see enclosed details: http://wireless-victims-lawyer.info/index.html
Don”t wait to become the next victims to EHS or cancer, take action today and become informed and demand protection from our Government now. Remember that the UK has an election coming sometime soon, be ready to ask the awkward questions above and vote for a member of parliament who is willing to put public health first.
Please feel free to share this information with anyone.
Kind regards,
Eileen
Eileen O”Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust www.radiationresearch.org
Rewire.Me eMagazine www.rewire.me