Anmerkung der BW zur folgenden
ICNIRP-RICHTLINIEN-KRITIK
von
Dr. Neill Cherry, Lincoln Universität 2. Oktober 1999
"Die ICNIRP
(internationale Strahlenschutzkommission für nichtionisierende Strahlung)
erstellt Richtlinien für Expositionsgrenzwerte von elektromagnetischen Feldern.
Die ICNIRP hat sich im Besonderen mit Fragen des Mobilfunks beschäftigt." (WHO-Broschüre 10/99).
Die Richtlinien der
ICNIRP werden i.d.R. von den nationalen Gremien übernommen. In Deutschland
geschah die Übernahme 1 : 1.
"Keine
Normungsbehörde hat Expositionsrichtlinien mit dem Ziel erlassen, vor
langfristigen gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen, wie einem möglichen Krebsrisiko,
zu schützen." (WHO-Broschüre 10/99)
Diese Aussage müsste
jeden kritischen Entscheidungsträger überzeugen, keine weiteren Sender
zuzulassen. Die WHO befürwortet ja diese Mobilfunktechnik und ist
mitverantwortlich für die jetzigen Grenzwerte. Umso bedeutender wird diese
Aussage!
"Die nationalen und internationalen Richtlinien basieren auf der
Vermeidung von gesicherten Auswirkung einer Exposition auf die
Gesundheit." (WHO Broschüre 10/99)
Was als
"wissenschaftlich gesichert" gilt, bestimmt vorwiegend die ICNIRP in
Zusammenarbeit mit der WHO! Dass in Deutschland die Grenzwerte der ICNIRP
übernommen wurden ist kein Wunder, denn der 1. Vorsitzende dieser ICNIRP war
bis vor kurzen Prof. Dr. Jürgen Bernhardt, jetzt ist er 2. Vorsitzender. Prof.
Bernhardt war auch maßgeblich in der deutschen Strahlenschutz-Kommission und im
deutschen Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) tätig. Das BfS hat keine eigenen
Forschungsaktivitäten und orientiert sich an der ICNIRP. Die Behörden in
Deutschland berufen sich auf das BfS. Laut der Aussage des Prof. Bernhardt
am 23.02.00 bei einer öffentlichen Veranstaltung ist er der persönliche Berater
des Bundesumweltministers Jürgen Trittin. Die Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation
und Post (RegTP), die die Standortgenehmigungen für die Mobilfunkbetreiber
erteilt, ist dem Wirtschaftsministerium unterstellt, betreibt ebenfalls keine
eigenen Forschungen und beruft sich auf das BfS. Die Behauptung in jeder
Standortbescheinigung der RegTP, dass die Sicherheitsbestimmungen dem Stand von
Wissenschaft und Technik entsprechen, ist wissenschaftlich falsch! Dipl.
Ing. R. Matthes ist im BfS und zugleich Mitglied der 16-köpfigen ICNIRP!
Mit der
Arbeit von Dr. Neill Cherry wird nun klar, daß unsere Grenzwerte der 26.
BImSchV. auf einem Wissenschaftsbetrug aufgebaut sind. Dr. Neill Cherry hat
hervorragende Arbeit geleistet und die Manipulation der ICNIRP transparent
aufgezeichnet.
Mit Sicherheit
erfüllt der Gesetzgeber in Deutschland mit der 26. BimSchV bei den gepulsten
elektromagnetischen Feldern nicht das Vorsorgeprinzip!
Dr. Neill Cherry ist
strenger Wissenschaftler. Aufgrund der wissenschaftlichen Studien fordert er
einen Grenzwert von 10 nW/cm². Als Wissenschaftler kann er keine Sicherheitsabschläge
fordern. Dies wäre Aufgabe der Strahlenschutzbehörden und Politik.
Dem Bundesumweltminister
Jürgen Trittin wurde daher am 19.10.1999, anlässlich des Bürgerforums
"Elektrosmog", eine Resolution zur Minimierung der allgemeinen
Elektrobelastung übergeben.
Hier wurden von vielen
Medizinern, Umweltverbänden (u.a. BW), Wissenschaftlern usw. Vorsorgewerte für
die gepulste Hochfrequenz
im
Wachbereich von 0,1 nW/cm² und
im Ruhe- und Schlafbereich von 0,001 nW/cm² (Nanowatt/cm²)
gefordert.
Diese Werte stützen sich
auf viele Studien und umfassende Ergebnisse der Erfahrungsmedizin.
Nimmt man von dem Wert von Dr. Neill Cherry noch einen Sicherheitsabschlag, so
kommt man genau wieder auf diese Werte.
Die gesetzlich erlaubten Grenzwerte in Deutschland sind
für das D-Netz
470.000nW/cm²
und
für das E-Netz 950.000 nW/cm²
Mit diesen Leistungen
darf der Mensch lebenslang bestrahlt werden!!!
Für ungepulste Strahlung
im Wachbereich liegen die Werte der Resolution, sogar ohne Sicherheitsabschlag,
identisch mit dem von Dr. Neill Cherry.
Die
Cherry-Studie ist z.Z. das bedeutendste Wissenschafts-Dokument zum Thema
Mobilfunk und sollte jedem kritischen Bürger bekannt sein; die deutsche
Übersetzung ist bei uns gebunden für DM 60.- oder deutsch+englisch für DM 70.-
zu beziehen.
Mehr unter:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/neil_cherry.pdf
Bürgerwelle e.V.
Dachverband der Bürger und Initiativen zum Schutz vor Elektrosmog
CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE ICNIRP
GUIDELINES FOR CELLSITES IN NEW ZEALAND
ICNIRP GUIDELINE
CRITIQUE
Dr Neil Cherry
Lincoln University
10/2/99
It is
proposed to make the New Zealand Standard and Guideline for Cell Site public
exposures of Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation guidelines based on the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
guideline.
The
ICNIRP guidelines and scientific assessment is published in Health Physics,
Vol. 74 (4), p 494-522. This is the primary source document for this critique
and will be referred to as ICNIRP 1998.
The
ICNIRP assessment of effects, ICNIRP (1998) has been review and found to be
seriously and fatally flawed, with a consistent pattern of bias, major
mistakes, omissions and deliberate misrepresentations. Adopting it fails to
protect public health from known potential and actual health effects and hence
is unlawful according to the requirements of the Resource Management Act. Public
health protection should be the objective of this process and this should be
based on the identification of the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level,
(LOAEL) and a reasonable safety factor to take into account the uncertainties
and vulnerable members of the community.
Epidemiology
currently identifies the LOAEL for RF/MW as 0.06m W/cm2
for cancer and an reproductive effects, and 0.0004m W/cm2
(0.4nW/cm2) for sleep disruption, learning impairment and immune
systems suppression, for example. Hence the scientifically identified LOAEL is
lower than the majority of the New Zealand population is currently exposed.
Since
background RF/MW levels in New Zealand cities are already in the range 1nW/cm2
- 3nW/cm2, the only practical option to avoid these demonstrated
effects is to set the initial public exposure limit at
50 nW/cm2 (0.05m W/cm2)
with
the aim of reducing it to
10 nW/cm2 (0.01m W/cm2)
in 10 years.
The
ICNIRP guideline is based on the frequently stated claim that there are no
adverse health effects unless a person is heated by more than 1° C, setting a
level at which adverse effects can be avoided between 4 and 8 W/kg. This claim
has been repeated in many statements and documents of ICNIRP, IRPA, WHO, NRL,
ARL, and NRPB. It has also been stated publicly by the leaders of these bodies.
A leading proponent of this position is Dr Michael Repacholi, WHO official and
former chairperson of ICNIRP, IRPA and the Australasian RF standards committee.
Dr Michael Repacholi has expressed this view on TV, radio and in the press, in
ICNIRP, IRPA and WHO reviews and in sworn evidence in a Planning Tribunal
hearing in Christchurch in 1995. This is also the position taken by the staff
of the National Radiation Laboratory (NRL) of the New Zealand Ministry of
Health, the Australian Radiation Laboratory (ARL), the National Radiological
Protection Board of the U.K. (NRPB).
This
stands in strong contrast to the epidemiological and laboratory evidence given
here and with the summary statement provided by one of the world's leading and
most experienced, most scientifically published and respected EMR researchers,
Dr William Ross Adey. The following is the abstract from his paper
"Frequency and Power Windowing in Tissue Interactions with Weak
Electromagnetic Fields": (Proc. IEEE 1980)
"Abstract: Effects of non-ionizing
electromagnetic (EM) fields that raise tissue temperature in general differ
very little from effects of hyperthermia induced by other means. However,
fields raising tissue temperature orders of magnitude less than 0.1C may result
in major physiological changes not attributable to raised temperature per se.
These weak fields have been observed to produce chemical, physiological,
and behavioral changes only within windows in frequency and incident energy. For
brain tissue, a maximum sensitivity occurs between 6 and 20 Hz. Two different
intensity windows have been seen, one for ELF tissue gradients around 10-7
V/m, and one for amplitude modulated RF and microwave gradients around 10-1
V/m. The former is the level associated with navigation and prey detection in
marine vertebrates and with the control of human biological rhythms; the latter
is the level of the electroencephalogram (EEG) in the brain tissue. Coupling to
living cells appears to require amplifying mechanisms that may be based
on non-equilibrium processes, with long-range resonant molecular interactions. The
cooperative processes are now recognized as important in immune and
hormonal responses, as well as in nerve excitation. Polyanionic proteinaceous
material forming a sheet on the cell membrane surfaces appears to be the site
of detection of these weak molecular and neuroelectric stimuli."
Professor
Adey succinctly summarizes EMR research at that time. He does not claim, in the
body of the paper, that there are only two intensity windows but that these are
intensity windows that have repeatedly been shown to have significant effects. The
paper contains evidence of other windows for ELF induced calcium ion efflux in
chick and cat brains, e.g. 5, 10, 56 and 100 V/m, and other microwave intensity
windows for calcium ion influx and efflux. This (Figure 4) shows significant
biological effects at 0.1 and 1 mW/cm2.
Adey
(1979) reviews a large body of research on the neurophysiologic effects of
RF/MW radiation. This included the human biometeorological research on
circadian rhythms in human subjects isolated from sunlight and EMR; their own
work on altered monkey behaviour with a tissue gradient of 10-7 V/m
and other animal behaviour experiments. It also covered cellular evidence
including calcium ion flux experiments on cats and chick brains. These show
that ionic changes in amplitude modulated RF/MW fields are much more related to
modulation frequency than intensity of signal. Often higher effects are seen at
lower exposure intensities than some higher intensities - in windows.
In great
frustration at the intransigent position held by scientists who doggedly claim
that there is only evidence of thermal effects, Professor Adey concludes:
"Faced with the overwhelming complexity of the
brain as a tissue and as the organ of the mind, physical scientists and medical
researchers alike have all too often retreated shamelessly into classicisms and
the argots of their respective trades. Too many physicists and engineers cling
desperately to thermal models as the alpha and omega of bioeffects from
non-ionizing radiofrequency fields, shunning the exquisite beauty of long-range
molecular interactions and resonant processes in biological
macromolecules."
"True science can never be a popularity contest. The
time has surely come when we should place these scholasticisms of another age in
a proper context, counting ourselves thrice blessed at the prospect that
through the use of non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation as a research tool,
the intrinsic organization of the brain tissue, the subtleties of
neuroendocrine phenomena and the broad sweep of immunological interections may
at last be understood in terms of transductive coupling at the molecular
level."
Dr Adey
was basing his insights on a fascination with discovering how neurological
tissue operated and altered in extremely low level RF/MW and ELF fields. Biochemists
have now confirmed that RF/MW alters signal transduction, (e.g. Luben (1995),
Byus (1994)), alters melatonin and damages the immune system, as will be shown
below.
There is
a wealth of laboratory evidence of cellular and animal changes at extremely low
exposure levels to RF/MW radiation, accompanied by a massive body of
epidemiological research which shows adverse health effects in human beings
down to extremely low life-time mean exposure levels for chronic exposures. There
is much more than Dr Adey had in 1979/80. It is simply not scientifically
credible to claim that there are no established non-thermal effects and hence a
public exposure standard that protects against warming by 1° C is adequate and
should be adopted as a guideline in New Zealand.
The
scientific evidence in relation to the requirements of the Resource Management
Act 1991, makes it unlawful to adopt the ICNIRP guideline.
Professor
John Goldsmith, as one of the world's leading epidemiologists was invited by
the editor to provide a significant review paper to help to launch a new
scientific journal, the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Health. A couple of decades earlier Dr Goldsmith has be invited to the opening
key note speaker of the first conference of the newly formed International
Society for Environmental Epidemiology. This illustrates the high standing with
which he is held in the internation epidemiological and public health
community. The review, headed "Special Contributions" was carefully
identifeid by Dr Goldsmith as an "opinion piece" which reviews and
summarized the "Epidemiologic Evidence of Radiofrequency Radiation
(Microwave) Effects on Health in Military, Broadcasting and Occupational
Studies".
This is a
very relevant review for this assessment of what guideline level to choose. A
member of the M.O.H./M.F.E. staff team in this process is a member of the
National Radiation Laboratory, Mr Martin Gledhill. Mr Gledhill and Dr Andrew
MacEwan were warmly praised and thanked for their large and dominant
contributions to the recent Royal Society report "Radiation and the New
Zealand Community - A scientific Overview".
The Royal
Society report contains all of the omissions, biases and errors shown below in
the preparation of the ICNIRP guideline and the WHO/UNEP/IRPA review. It takes
the thermal view and at one key point makes the claim in relation to
radiofrequency/ microwave radiation, p67:
"Some questions have been raised with respect to
possible adverse effects of electric and magnetic fields, particularly those at
low frequencies, in connection with high voltage lines, computer terminals,
domestic appliances and wiring. However, no effects due to occupational
exposure have been reported, nor are there any indications of adverse health
effects on humans, other than from spark discharges and shock from direct
contact."
While
this paragraph is mainly about ELF fields, it immediately follows the statement
on RF/MW that only acknowledges a probable effect from a faulty microwave oven.
However,
to claim in this alledged credible and high quality scientific report that no
effects have been reported from occupational exposure and that there aren't any
indications of adverse health effects on humans, is so grossly wrong,
misleading and dishonest, that it puts this report's credibility and that of
the Royal Society, seriously at risk.
There are
hundreds of occupational studies showing significant adverse effects from ELF
exposures, as well as scores of residential studies showing adverse effects on
humans. In relation to RF/MW, a large number of such studies are reviewed by Dr
Goldsmith's 1995 paper.
At the
conclusion of the review, which covers statistically significant evidence of
cancer and reproductive effects in exposed populations, as well as alterations
in blood immune factors and chromosome aberrations in RF/MW exposed people, Dr
Goldsmith states in part:
"There
are strong political and economic reasons for wanting here to be no health
effect from RF/MW exposure, as there are strong public health reasons for more
accurately portraying the risks. Those of us who intend to speak for public
health must be ready for opposition that is nominally but not truly,
scientific."
Dr
Goldsmith's conclusion is exactly the same one I have come to in reviewing the
ICNIRP assessment of effects. The position of the Ministry of Health as
presented by the National Radiation Laboratory is scientifically flawed and
shown to be biased and political, not based on public health protection. The
Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health should be above the
influence of industry and its consultants, but in recommending the adoption of
the ICNIRP guidelines, guidelines supported by industry around the world, will
only favour putting more and more of the public at serious health risk.
It is
easy to make strong and general dismissive and critical statements. The ICNIRP
statement does this all the time. It is more difficult, and much more time
consuming to carefully consider each claim and every paper cited in making
those claims. I have done this in relation to the ICNIRP assessment of human
reproduction and cancer evidence, and, to a lesser extent, to animal and
laboratory evidence of RF/MW effects. This is set out below.
I show
clearly and conclusively that there is a bias against finding and acknowledging
adverse effects to the extent that most of the available scientific studies
which show effects are ignored, the ones chosen are largely misrepresented,
misinterpreted and mis- used.
A
reductionist approach is taken rather than a comprehensive, integrative
approach which is warranted by the nature and signficance of the isses. It
systematically dismisses individual papers:
·
claiming papers don't show effects, when they do.
·
claiming papers show no evidence of effects when they are not purporting
to assess the effect under consideration.
·
claiming papers don’t show significant effects when they clearly do, and
·
dismissing papers which show significant effects using incorrect, inappropriate
and unjustified reasons.
A small
number of studies are cited and reviewed, out of a large set of available
material which shows potential, probable, taken together, actual adverse health
effects. Whole bodies of research and the research results of complete
disciplines, e.g. biometeorology, is totally ignored.
This
happens so consistently, systematically, demonstrably and blatantly that we can
only conclude there is an unscientific motive behind the assessment and its
conclusions.
The
guideline adopted in New Zealand must be based on an objective and independent
assessment of the science, and epidemiological evidence, which is extremely
strong and consistent, and not a simple adoption of a flawed and scientifically
and legally challengable approach and exposure level.
ICNIRP
Guideline seriously flawed and unlawful:
The
ICNIRP guideline should not be used as the New Zealand guideline or standard
for three very important reasons. The use of the ICNIRP guideline is unlawful
in New Zealand. It is grossly inappropriate for public health protection. It is
scientifically challengable because it is based on serious errors and
omissions.
The
ICNIRP guideline is unlawful since the ICNIRP assessment is based established
and proven effects whereas the New Zealand law RMA (1991) is based on potential
effects and cumulative effects, "regardless of scale, intensity, duration
or frequency." Everybody in New Zealand is cumulatively exposed to
electromagnetic radiation from power sources, appliances, cordless and cell
phones, radio and TV stations and cell sites. Hence cell site radiation is a
cumulate addition exposure in addition to all other exposures, and hence must
be dealt with under Section 5(2)(c) of the RMA regardless of the level of
exposure. It cannot be ignored claiming a "de minimus" level.
Public
health protection, as outlined by Bradford-Hill (1965) and Goldsmith (1992), is
should be based on epidemiological studies which show statistically significant
results. Statistical significance is defined in terms of p=0.05 and a 95%
confidence interval. For a disease agent to which almost every person is
exposed, a lower level of evidence is used as a threshold because of the
importance and impact of the effect. Often in such cases an elevated Risk Ratio
which lacks significance is sufficient for avoidance to be required. The ICNIRP
guideline is not based on this approach and therefore fails to protect public
health.
Goldsmith
(1997) states:
"To this day, the ICNIRP makes little use of
epidemiological data, alleging that it is inconsistent and difficult to
understand."
Professor
Goldsmith, one of the world’s leading and most respected epidemiologists, then
outlines detailed criticisms of the ICNIRP use of studies which are promoted to
claim no effects are possible from RF/MW when the data in these studies
actually does show significant adverse health effects.
The
scientific assessment on which the ICNIRP guideline is based, contains major
errors of scientific fact, research interpretation as well as taking the flawed
approach to public health protection outlined above. Errors made in previous
reviews, such as the UNEP/WHO/IRPA (1993) and NRPB (1991) reviews, are
propagated through into the ICNIRP (1998) assessment through uncritical
assessment. A small number of studies are directly cited. In almost all cases
the conclusions drawn are scientifically incorrect. This leads to the wrong
conclusions and recommendations.
A major
omission in the consideration of the effects of EMR on people is the results of
the extensive research carried out by biometeorologists. Biometeorologists have
identified many alterations in human conditions which are statistically
significantly related to variations in naturally occurring electromagnetic
fields. These results show conclusively that birds, mammals and people respond
to extremely low and subtle changes in ELF and modulated RF field changes
brought about by solar activity and the weather.
Public
health protection is properly based on public health research from
epidemiological studies. Many epidemiological studies show many statistically
significant adverse health effects at levels of exposure to RF/MW which are
hundreds to thousands of times lower than the proposed guideline of 200 m W/cm2.
Under New Zealand law, the Resource Management Act, there is a legal
requirement to "avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of an
activity on the environment". The environment includes the health
and safety aspects of people and communities. An effect includes "any
actual or potential effect", any cumulative effect, "regardless of
scale, intensity, duration or frequency", and "includes any potential
effect of high probability" and "any potential effect of low
probability which has a high potential impact".
Chemical
Comparison:
There are
standard techniques for assessing the carcinogenicity of chemical substances,
involving cell line studies, laboratory animal studies and human epidemiology. If
EMR was treated in the same way it would have been declared a human carcinogen
many years ago. EMR neoplastically transforms cell, causes cancer in mice, is
found to increase cancer in exposed electrical workers and military personnel
and in residential populations.
Chemical
health risks are usually investigated around a single disease outcome, such as
a particular kind of cancer. It may be a single form of leukaemia.
Once
epidemiological studies find statistically significant increases in cancer from
chemicals at a given mean concentration, safety factors of 1 to 10,000 are
applied. The size of the safety factor depends on the nature of the critical
effect and the size of the exposed population, Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution (U.K.), 21st Report, "Setting Environmental
Standards", cited at Houghton (1998).
Benzene
as an Example: (from Houghton (1998)
Benzene
is classified as a genotoxic carcinogen which is primarily associated with
non-lymphatic leukaemia. Benzene was shown to be a genotoxic carcinogen In
Vitro, i.e. in cells in a test tube or a petri dish. It produced certain
types of leukaemia in laboratory animals and was found to increase
non-lymphatic leukaemia significantly in exposed workers, primarily in two
cohort studies, which gave "evidence of an association between exposure to
benzene and the likelihood of developing leukaemia".
In these
studies the risk of leukaemia in workers was not detectable when the average
lifetime exposure was around 500 ppb (part per billion). To take into account
the difference between a working life (approximately 77,000 hours) and
chronological life (about 660,000 hours), the figure of 500 ppb is divided by
10. A further factor of 10 was applied in order to extrapolate from the fit,
young to middle-aged male working population to the general population that
might reasonably contain individuals unusually sensitive to the effects of
benzene. Because of uncertainties in the downward extrapolation of risk and to
keep exposure as low as practicable, the U.K. Expert Panel on Air Quality
Standards (EPAQS) recommended a target standard of 1 ppb as a running annual average
exposure.
This
gives a safety factor of 1000 below a level at which no effects could be seen
in workers. It is important also to note that the EPAQS consists of five
professional public health experts who are required to be totally independent
of industry, the military and environmental lobby groups. These qualifications
are not met by the ICNIRP council nor the Australasian Standards Association
committee on RF/MW standards.
Grouping
of Substances:
Chemical
substances are often grouped into classes of chemicals, such as the
organochlorines or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Within each tightly
defined group some substances are classified as carcinogenic with particular
disease outcomes and others are not.
EMR
should be treated as multiple "Chemicals":
At the
Scientific Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation in
Vienna, October 1998, Dr Carl Blackman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
presented the results of 30 years of research into cellular calcium ion efflux
and influx which is induced by pulsed and modulated EMR. The work is well
characterized as occurring within particular windows of intensity of signal (m W/cm2),
modulation frequency, carrier frequency and temperature range. Statistically
significant efflux or influx of calcium ions from exposed cells has been
repeatedly observed for particular combinations of intensity, carrier
frequency, modulation frequency and temperature, and not found at a nearby
frequency intensity. These "windows" of effect have been found down
to extremely low field intensities and are not found at some high but still
athermal exposure levels.
Cellular
calcium ion alteration in the presence of time varying electromagnetic fields
is an established biological effect of EMR exposure. However, the "windowing"
nature of this particular biological effect means, according to Dr Blackman,
that EMR must be considered as chemicals (plural) and not just a single
chemical.
Since
alteration of cellular calcium ions concentration leads to many different
health effects, and since many other biological changes have been identified,
it is inappropriate to limit consideration of RF/MW exposure to single adverse
health effects.
EMR
exposes the whole human body and not a single target organ. Each organ has a
different cellular structure which relies to a greater or lesser extent in
electric and magnetic factors and forces for its growth and control. The brain,
central nervous system and muscles, including the heart, make much stronger use
of electrical signals than bones for example. However, every cell has an
electric potential across its membrane and uses ions, such as calcium ions (Ca2+),
sodium ions and potassium ions. Receptors on cells are negatively charged and
ions and neurotransmitters which initiate signal transduction are positively
charged. DNA is negatively charged and the protein which is bound to it is
positively charged.
Hence,
every cell can interact with EMR and EMR can alter the growth regulation
factors through alteration of the ionic concentration within the cells and in
the intracellular fluid. Some higher functioning organs, especially the brain
and CNS, are dependent on EMR for normal operation and have been shown to be
altered by externally applied EMR, with consequent behaviour and neurological
performance change, Bawin et al. (1976).
Because
the whole body is exposed to RF/MW radiation, and since the brain and central
nervous systems are electrically sensitive and active, it is not surprising
that the most frequent adverse health effects identified in epidemiological
studies are leukaemia and brain tumour. Leukaemia is a disease of the blood and
bone marrow, whole body organs.
The
ICNIRP approach, which at best can be seen as treating EMR as a single
chemical, uses the observation that an effect shown in one laboratory or health
study, but is not found in another when different frequencies, modulation
frequencies, intensities and populations and effects are involved, as a reason
to ignore the effects shown. By moving to the concept that EMR has different
effects in different combinations of exposure parameters, much more accurate
and appropriate interpretation of the scientific data is possible and more
accurate.
Recommended
Public Exposure Standard:
At least
10 epidemiological studies have found increases in brain tumour in RF/MW
exposed workers, including military personnel exposed to radio and radar. Eight
of them reach statistical significance. A similar number of occupational
studies have found a statistically significant increase in leukaemia. In addition
there are many residential and occupational studies showing significantly
increased adult and/or childhood leukaemia, some with significant dose response
relationships. In addition there are several studies which report significant
increases in "all cancer" from RF/MW exposure, some of these are also
residential studies, and some have dose response relationships.
This body
of studies alone, if applied to air pollution or toxic chemicals, would be
sufficient to classify RF/MW as a human carcinogen, to identify an estimated
lowest observed level adverse effect level (LOAEL) for residential exposure of
about 0.05m W/cm2 associated with childhood leukaemia.
Applying a small safety factor or 50, which is conservative considering the
diverse and sensitive members existing in the exposed population results in a
public exposure standard of 0.001m W/cm2
or 1nW/cm2 (n = nano = 10-9).
At the
turn of the century public exposures to RF/MW radiation were about 10 pW/cm2
(0.00001m W/cm2). Hence this initially proposed
exposure standard allows for an increase of a factor of 100. However, since
urban populations are already exposed to 1 to 5nW/cm2, a 2nW/cm2
standard is impractical. Hence a 10nW/cm2 (0.01m W/cm2)
is proposed, allowing for a safety factor of 5 for leukaemia risk. As will be
shown later, this allows for a safety factor of less than 1 for sleep, chronic
fatigue, immune system impairment and learning impairment resulting from
chronic low level RF/MW exposure.
An
interim immediate target could be 50nW/cm2 to allow industry time to
adapt, but the recommended standard 10nW/cm2 should be aimed
to be achieved in 10 years.
This is
despite the fact that the Swiss, Schwarzenburg Study, identified adverse effects
on sleep, learning and a number of other serious health effects, down to mean
levels of 0.4nW/cm2.
Biological
Effects of RF/MW:
Induced
cellular calcium ion alteration:
·
of brain cells is associated with behavioural and reaction time changes
and associated EEG alterations, Bawin et al. (1978);
·
of the pineal gland reduces the nocturnal production of melatonin (which
increases the cell damage throughout the body, reduces the integrity and
competence of the immune system, and hence increases the incidence of cancer
and immune system related disease and degenerative diseases of the brain,
Reiter (1994) and Walleczek (1992);
·
of lymphocytes reduced the competence of the immune system making the
subject more vulnerable to allergens, toxins and viruses, and to leukaemia; and
·
of damaged cells alters the ratio of surviving neoplastically
transformed cells and those programmed to self destruct (apoptosis),
Balcer-Kubiczek (1995).
Several
studies show that RF/MW exposure and ELF exposure can reduce pineal melatonin
production. Professor Russell Reiter, one of the worlds leading medical
researchers into the effects of melatonin, summarizes melatonin’s roles, Reiter
and Robinson (1995), as being:
·
Vital for healthy sleep, including lowering the body temperature, and
assisting in maintaining health sleep states.
·
Reduces cholesterol, with consequent reductions is risk of
atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease.
·
Reduces blood pressure and the tendency for blood clots, and hence
reduces the risk of strokes.
·
Scavenger of free radicals. This, along with the above factors, reduces
the risk of heart attack, cancer, viral replication. Melatonin plays a vital
free radical scavenging role in the brain where, because it is high in iron,
has a high production rate of hydroxyl radicals (OH· ). Free radical
damage is now known to play a formative role in most brain disorders, including
Alzheimer’ disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s
disease. While the Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) denies access to most free radical
scavengers, melatonin has free access.
·
Enhances the effectiveness of the immune system. Specifically enhancing
the T-cells, i.e. the T-helper cells and the T-killer cells. T-helper cells
have a receptor for melatonin. When melatonin is received a cascade of events
is set in motion including stimulation of Interleukin-4 (IL-4) which then
stimulates natural killer cells (NK), B-cells, IgA, phagocytes and T-Cytotoxic
cells. The NK cells specialize in attacking cancer cells and virus infected
cells.
Alzheimer’s
disease:
Sobel et al. (1996) found that
workers in industries with likely electromagnetic field exposure have a very
significant (p=0.006) increase in incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, OR = 3.93,
95% CI: 1.5-10.6. For males the adjusted odds ratio was 4.9, 95% CI: 1.3-7.9,
p=0.01, and for females, OR = 3.40, 95% CI: 0.8-16.0, p = 0.01. They note that:
"These
results are consistent with previous findings regarding the hypothesis that
electromagnetic field exposure is etiologically associated with the occurrence
of AD."
Sobel and
Davanipour (1996) outline the etiological process they hypothesize by which EMR
produces Alzheimer’s disease.
·
The first step involves EMR exposure upsetting the cellular calcium ion
homeostasis through calcium ion efflux from cells increasing the intracellular
calcium ion concentrations. This cleaves the amyloid precursor protein to
produce soluble amyloid beta (sAb ).
·
sAb is quickly secreted from cells after production,
increasing the levels of sAb in the blood stream. sAb then binds to
Apolipoprotein E and apolipoprotein J to be transported to and across the Blood
Brain Barrier.
·
Over time, when sufficient sAb have been
transported to the brain, a cascade of further events lead to the formation of
insoluble neurotoxic beat pleated sheets of amyloid fibril, senile plaques, and
eventually AD.
The
biological mechanism for EMR to cause Alzheimer’s disease is well advanced and
entirely plausible, commencing with calcium ion efflux.
Breast
Cancer
Breast
tissue is very sensitive to free radical damage and hence to melatonin
reduction. While breast cancer has been associated with diet, stress levels and
a number of chemical toxins, there is now compelling evidence that power
frequency (50 Hz or 60 Hz) radiation can overcome the protective effect of
melatonin in breast cancer cells. This research has now been carried out in 4
independent laboratories. This work shows a dose response relationship between
0.2 and 1.2m T (2 and 12 mG). At 1.2m T the protective
effect of melatonin is completely negated. Several epidemiological studies have
associated EMR and EMF exposure with breast cancer. With the progressively
increase Mer exposure of the U.S. population, EMR cannot be ruled out as a
contributory factor in the increase in rate of breast cancer in U.S. women
under the age of 85 rising from 1-in-20 in 1940 to 1-in-8 by 1994.
Several
epidemiological studies find statistically significant associations between EMF
and EMR exposure and breast cancer, including Demers (1991), Tynes et al. (1996)
and Hardell et al. (1995). Hardell et al. (1995) was an extensive independent review of the
scientific literature published up to 1 July 1994 in relation to ELF exposures.
One of their conclusions relates to "electrical occupations". In such
situations ELF and RF/MW signals are common. They conclude that there is
"an increased risk of breast cancer, malignant melanoma of the skin,
nervous system tumours, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphatic leukaemia or
acute myeloid leukaemia and certain occupations."
Demers et al. (1991) found an
elevated risk of male breast cancer in radio and communications workers, OR =
2.9, 95% CI: 0.8 - 10. Tynes et al. studied 2,619 Norwegian female radio and
telegraph operators and their incidence of disease between 1920 and 1980. They
compared the occupational incidence with the general population using a
standardized incidence ratio (SIR). For all cancers SIR = 1.2, and for breast
cancer SIR = 1.5 (p<0.05).
In
Professor Reiter’s book, published in 1995, he describes the evidence that
EMR/EMF does reduce melatonin as a "Smoking Gun" level of proof. That
is, there is considerable scientific evidence but at that time it wasn’t
sufficient for proof.
By
considering more recent information, and the extensive results of
biometeorological research, and linking the melatonin research to the calcium
ion research, the level of proof can be seen as causal.
Biometeorological
Research:
This
conclusion was drawn without reference to biometeorological work at the Max
Planck Institute in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s involving isolating
volunteers for many months from sunlight, and in some cases, from the earth’s
fluctuation electromagnetic field by using a Faraday Cage, Wever (1974). The
results included the fact that a those in the Faraday Cage shielded room,
identical to the other room in all other respects, had significantly longer
circadian rhythms (p<0.01).
In
addition, a significant proportion of the Faraday Cage group
"desynchronized" while none of the other group did (p<0.001). This
involved rapid lengthening of the circadian period from around 26-27 hours to
30 - 36 hours, Figure 1.
From the
results of the experiments involving human subjects, their reaction times and
altered circadian rhythm, the German researchers from the Max Planck Institute
conclude:
"Thus, it has been proven at a high statistical
level that the artificial electric 10 cps field diminishes the tendency towards
internal desynchronization, as does the natural field."
The
desynchronization was removed through the application of a 10 Hz signal with a
peak to peak field strength of 2.5 V/m. This is equivalent to 0.83m W/cm2.
The signal the Faraday cage had removed, which was replaced by this artificial
signal, was the Schumann Oscillation which has a field intensity of about 0.3
pW/cm2. Hence the desynchronization was caused by the removal of a
0.3pW/cm2 signal. Wever (1974) concludes that their research gives:
"significant proof that electromagnetic fields in
the ELF range influence the human circadian rhythms and therefore human
beings."
Figure 1: Free-running circadian rhythm of a subject
living under strict isolation from environmental time cues. During the first
and third section protected from natural and artificial electromagnetic fields,
during the second and fourth sections (shaded area) under the influence of a
continuously operating 10 Hz electric field of 2.5 V/m, Wever (1974).
A
plausible biological mechanism was proposed by Koneg (1974). He noted the
strong similarity between the frequencies of the Schumann Oscillation and the
alpha band of the human EEG, see the figure below. A resonant interaction is
clearly feasible. Removing the Schumann Oscillation for some individuals,
removes part of their circadian control.
The Type
II signals on the left are naturally occurring, locally sourced ELF fields
centred around 3 Hz, close to the delta EEG band. Konig (1974) showed that
people’s reaction time significantly slows in the presence of Type I signals
and speed up when Type II signals were dominant, Figures a and b.
Figure 2:Electric fields from , I , the
Schumann-Resonance, I I , Local fields of about 3 Hz and the a (10 Hz) and d (3 Hz) human EEG
channels, Konig (1974).
Figure 3:The solid line shows the reaction times of
4500 people per point, over the day in September 1953 in Munich, compared with
(dashed line) the Type I (10 Hz)
signals field intensity.
Figure 4: The speeding up of
the reaction time of people in the 60 to 90 minutes following the onset of 3 Hz
signals, from the Traffic Exhibition in Munich in 1953.
Signals
of the Type I I occurred during 10 occasions during the
August-September period. Figure 4 shows the inter-relation for the change in
reaction time relative to the onset of Type I I signals at time n
hr. In the hour and a half after the onset of Type I I signals the
reaction times (involving between 2000 and 3000 people), are well above
average.
At the
same time that the Germans were publishing their biometeorological results
showing that human being’s reaction times vary with extremely low intensity
naturally occurring and varying electromagnetic fields in the ELF part of the
spectrum, Professor Ross Adey and Dr Susan Bawin were showing that altered
human reaction times in ELF modulated microwave fields was associated with
altered EEG and calcium ion efflux from the brain cells.
Hence the
U.S. and German research jointly confirm both the effect and the mechanism.
Physiological
Reactions to Atmospheric EMR/EMF changes:
Very few
people are aware that anticyclones and depressions are characterized by very
different natural background of ELF modulated RF fields. Lomar et al. (1969)
characterized these weather system EMR/EMF characteristics as:
Cyclone: 10-100 kHz, 30-100 Hz, >
100 mV/m, ( Exposure > 0.0027 m W/cm2)
Anticyclone: 10 kHz, 1-3 Hz, < 10
mV/m, (Exposure < 0.000027 m W/cm2 )
Importantly
Lomar et al. (1969) found that in the laboratory under simulated cyclonic conditions
(using the above EMR fields) mouse liver respiration rates were 42 % higher
than anticyclonic conditions, a highly statistically significant effect
(p<0.001). It is well known and accepted that people generally feel fresher
and more energetic in clear, sunny anticyclonic weather, compared to overcast,
wet and windy depression weather. This is partly explained through a stronger
serotonin/melatonin rhythm in sunny weather compared to cloudy weather. Sunlight
drives daytime melatonin down and serotonin up producing sensations of clear
headedness and alertness. The German research also shows that naturally
occurring ELF modulated RF fields vary by a factor of about 100 in intensity,
from 2.7 nW/cm2 in depressions to 27 pW/cm2 in
anticyclones and that this is associated with a highly significant change in
liver respiration.
Thus the
German work in the 1960’s and 1970’s established that naturally occurring EMR
and EMR at extremely low levels influenced and altered sleep, circadian rhythm
and reaction times. In the 1990’s German work showed the cell phones alter the
human EEG and interfere with REM sleep, Von Klitzing (1995) and Mann and
Roschkle (1996). Impairment of REM sleep is associated with memory and learning
difficulties. The Swiss research (Altpeter et al. (1995) and Abelin (1998) -
The Schwarzenburg Study) found a causal relationship between sleep disturbance
and subsequent chronic fatigue, and short-wave radio exposures at extremely low
mean levels.
In 1998
Mild et al. (1998) survey over 10,000 cell phone users in Norway and Sweden,
Figure 5. They found significant dose response relationships for a number of
crucial symptoms that had been clinically described and associated with cell
phone use by Hocking (1998).
The
symptoms include dizziness, a feeling of discomfort, difficulty with
concentration, Memory Loss, Fatigue, Headache, Burning Skin and tinglingness
and tightness of the skin near the phone. The symptoms were consistent across
analogue and digital (GSM) phone users. A dominant physical symptom was a
sensation of warmth on the ear and behind the ear. These is not a sensation
which is experienced with a conventional telephone but are unique to the cell
phone which exposes the user’s head to moderate to high intensities of
microwaves. It was significant that the neurological symptoms were highly
correlated to the warm sensations. The symptoms are consistent with the
Schwarzenburg symptoms. The headache symptoms were found with microwave
exposure during "microwave hearing" experiments, Frey (1998).
Figure 5: The prevalence of symptoms with various
categories of calling times/day, A. Norway, B. Sweden, Mild et al. (1998).
The link
with calcium ion efflux, altered EEG, behavioural change and EMR exposure is
well established. The link with melatonin is stronger than the smoking gun
proof accepted by Reiter (1995), with the circadian rhythm connection and the
sleep disruption at Schwarzenburg. Salival melatonin was measured in cows in
the Schwarzenburg study in 5 ‘exposed’ cows and 5 ‘unexposed’ cows. The exposed
cows had lower mean melatonin levels but the difference was not statistically
significant because the sample was too small. Human beings were sampled (using
urine analysis. Samples were taken first thing in the morning when melatonin
levels are naturally low, instead of at the correct time soon after midnight,
when melatonin levels are high and reductions are easier to detect. However,
the research team noted "Persons reporting sleep disorders, however, tend
to have lower melatonin levels."
When the
transmitter was off unexpectedly for three days, sleep quality improved
markedly, and for those three nights the melatonin in the exposed cow herd
reached their highest nocturnal peaks for that week. When the transmitter went
on again, on that day the exposed cows’ melatonin was statistically
significantly lower than the unexposed cows.
In
addition to these observation, two recent papers made direct human measurements
of melatonin in association with power frequency exposure and one of them also
associated cellphone usage, Armstrong and Martin (1997) and Burch et al. (1997).
In both cases they found statistically significant reductions in melatonin.
It is
clearly a mistake to seek to classify the effects of EMR in terms of a single
health outcome which should be expected to occur across the whole spectrum of
carrier frequencies, modulation frequencies, intensities and ambient
temperatures.
Biological
mechanisms:
One of
the primary reasons many skeptics about EMR health effects use to dismiss
studies which show statistically significant effects and even dose-response
relationships, is the apparent lack of a plausible biological mechanism for the
EMR to alter the biological processes in an adverse way. While well documented
biological mechanisms do exist, including calcium ion efflux and melatonin
reduction. The EMR skeptics ignore these or claim that they must be invalid
because of their pre-conceived notions that EMR must be benign because the EMR
photons do not possess the energy to ionize atoms nor to break chemical bonds.
The EMR
skeptics are wrong on two counts. There are plausible biological mechanisms, as
stated above, and, the classifications of substances as carcinogens does not
require the identification of detailed biological mechanisms if we are dealing
with air pollutants or chemical carcinogens.
The
absence of a detailed step by step biological mechanism is not a limitation on
classifying chemicals, such as benzene, as carcinogens. A chemical which is
observed to neoplastically transform cells, produces tumours in laboratory
animals and is associated with increased incidence of cancer in exposed
workers, is classified as a carcinogen.
Even two
years ago Quinn (1997) noted that "although the role of ultraviolet
radiation in human skin carcinogenesis has been supported by a wealth of
epidemiological data, the mechanisms by which it leads to skin cancer are still
poorly understood." This hasn’t stopped the Cancer Society from running
"slip, slap, slop" and cover-up campaigns for several years in order
to reduce the risk of skin cancer. These programmes are targeted at children
for it is understood that UV damage in childhood leads to a higher incidence of
skin cancer as adults.
Why is
EMR treated differently from other toxic substances ?
The
history of EMR shows that it has always been treated differently from
chemicals. This is largely a consequence of the controversies around the
adverse health effects of "radiation" in contrast to the
"national security benefits" of the use of "radiation".
"Radiation"
in this context is nuclear radiation and the alpha-, beta-, gamma- and X-rays
which are released by nuclear explosions The absence of reliable and repeatable
acute effects was taken as evidence as the absence of effects. When the atomic
bombs were dropped on Japan the only officially acknowledged effects were the
explosive effects of blast and the shockwave.
The
lingering health effects among the surviving populations of Horoshima and
Ngasaki were initially attributed to vitamin deficiency. Western scientists
strongly denied that the sickness related to the after-effects of the bombs,
largely because these was know known plausible mechanism. It took years for
radiation sickness to be recognized and decades for radiation related cancers
to be recognized. It took many more years to identify the mechanism through
which the radioactive material released ionizing radiation which produced free
radicals, which in turn caused single and double strand breakage of DNA, and
cancer.
The
observation that ionizing radiation can ionize atoms, produce free radicals and
hence damage DNA, was incorrectly taken as assurance that non-ionizing
radiation, which could not ionize atoms, must by this very fact, be benign.
It gave
the EMR skeptics a sense of security and comfort to assume that ionizing
radiation is harmful and all other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum is
safe and benign.
Thus, it
was assumed, the part of the solar spectrum which included ultraviolet (UV),
visible and infrared (IR), were part of the benign spectrum, because the
threshold for ionization lies above the UV region. Recently it has been
established that UV radiation is carcinogenic, damaging the DNA of skin to
produce melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma.
However,
despite the clear evidence that UV radiation is carcinogenic without having the
energy to ionized atoms and break chemical bonds, the EMR skeptics, which
include most Health and Radiation Physicists have maintained their view that
ionization and radiation induced chemical bond breakage means (to them) that
EMR is benign apart from heating effects.
Ionization
is not a prerequisite for cancer:
Many
generations of medical biologists and toxicologists do not assume that
ionization is a necessary prerequisite for cancer producing agents since
thousands of chemicals are cancer producing agents without the involvement of
ionization. Chemicals change the biochemistry of cells and hence can cause
neoplastic transformation.
Free
radicals occur naturally in our bodies:
Free
radical chemistry is quite straight forward. Atoms are held together to form
molecules by sharing electrons. Two electrons shared between two atoms forms an
ionic bond. Some atoms, especially oxygen, can easily gain only one of these
bonding electrons, which means that it has an unpaired electron and hence is
very reactive. This is a free radical, a molecule with unpaired electrons.
Free
radicals are produced by many chemical reactions, including respiration. In
breathing we all produce oxygen free radicals all of the time. Hence DNA and
cellular damaging free radicals are a ubiquitous and ever present reality for
all air breathing mammals. They are so reactive that they only last for a few
nanoseconds but they are always present because they are always being
generated.
Damage
and repair:
The
extent of the damage caused by free radicals and the amount and rate of repair
which is necessary, is strongly dependent on the presence of free radical
scavengers and a the health of the immune system. Our immune system has the job
of identifying damaged cells and foreign agents and eliminating them. Our cells
also have internal checking mechanisms.
When
genetic damage is detected and a cell starts to behave abnormally, several
systems seek to eliminated that rouge cell. The cell has an internal checking
system and can start to digest the cellular protein in a damaged cell in a
process called programmed cell death or apoptosis. If this doesn’t happen and
the damaged cell survives then the cell may be identified as
"foreign" and the natural killer cells in the immune system can
attack and eliminate them.
Thus in
biological cellular based systems such as human and animal bodies, a healthy
state is one in which the naturally occurring cellular damage is being
detected, and eliminated or repaired. Ill health occurs when any situation or
factor enhances the rate of damage or diminishes the effectiveness of the
repair mechanisms.
Melatonin,
a neurohomone produced from serotonin in the pineal gland, is the strongest
known naturally occurring free radical scavenger. It also has the property that
it can easily pass through the cell membrane so that it actively seeks to
eliminate free radicals in the vicinity of the nucleus of the cell. It is the
nucleus of the cell which houses the chromosomes and DNA. Hence melatonin plays
a vital role in minimizing damage to chromosomes and DNA by free radicals. Melatonin
levels are low during the daytime when respiration rates are high. Melatonin
concentrations in the blood stream and cells is high at night when respiration
rate, and hence free radical generation rates, are lowest. Hence a great deal
of cellular repair is accomplished at night.
Melatonin
also provides this protective effect for the immune system, assisting it to
remain healthy and effective.
Any factor
which reduces melatonin levels results in the greater risk of cell damage,
faster cell death through apoptosis, and greater change that a damaged
neoplastic cell can survive to become cancerous. Factors which are known to
reduce melatonin in mammals, including in people, includes older age, light at
night, sleeplessness and electric and magnetic fields, of themselves or in
combination with RF/MW fields.
In the
same manner, EMR alters the electrobiochemistry of cells and hence can cause
neoplastic transformation of cells. The way in which EMR does interact with
cells is illustrated by considering a known cancer promoter, TPA. TPA is
phorbol myristate acetate. It is very commonly used in laboratories as a cancer
promotor. TPA acts by altering an already damaged (neoplastically transformed)
cell by switching the effect of calcium elevation from cell death to cell
proliferation. Thus TPA maintains the malignant phenotype by blocking apoptosis
through altering the calcium ion status of the cell. It is already shown that
calcium ion efflux and influx is induced by ELF modulated RF/MW. Hence RF/MW
can enhance cancer in some situations and enhance apoptosis in others.
Calcium
ion efflux has been documented in published papers down to an SAR of
0.00015W/kg, Schwartz et al. (1990), using 240 MHz microwaves modulated at 16
Hz, the rate of calcium ion efflux was 21 % higher than the control, with
p<0.05. The medium was isolated frog hearts. This is an exposure intensity
of 0.08 m W/cm2 , 0.3 V/m and 1.8nT. Dr Carl Blackman,
pers. comm. informs me that his laboratory has found calcium ion efflux
occurring in fT (femtoTesla = 10-15 T) ELF fields. 10 fT is
equivalent to 2.4x10-12 m W/cm2
or 2.4 attoW/cm2. This might sound totally unrealistic until it is
noticed that if the carrier was a 50 MHz signal, 2.4aW/cm2 would
still stand out against the blackbody background (1 x 10-19 W/cm2)
by a factor of 24 .
For many
people in the EMR area there is a "mind block" which stops them from
accepting the possibility that EMR can have biological effects because of their
assumptions about ionization, free radicals and radiation induced chemical bond
breakage as prerequisites for biological action. A large body of scientific
research contradicts this stance but this mind set persists and dominates the
WHO, IRPA, ICNIRP, National Radiation Laboratory, Industrial and military
personnel and their consultants, and the Standards setting bodies in
Australasia and around the world.
To
continue this mindset based on these challengable assumptions continues to put
millions of people at risk or severe health effects in New Zealand and billions
of people around the world. To adopt the ICNIRP guideline will therefore be
shown to be a disaster in New Zealand and thousands of people will suffer
unnecessarily as a consequence.
Legal
Guidance:
The
Environment Court (MacIntyre 1996) declared that the New Zealand Standard (and
hence the ICNIRP guideline) is "not decisive" in New Zealand law but
that the Sections 5 and 3 of the RMA are the appropriate legal basis for public
exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR). In considering the evidence before
it the court set a public exposure condition at that time and in that case of 2
m W/cm2,
1 % of the then allowed public exposure in NZS 6609, and of the proposed AS/NZS
2772.1 and ICNIRP guideline.
In the
recent Shirley Primary School Case, Judge J. Jackson made an error in law and
through his interpretation of the scientific evidence through his failure to
properly apply sections 5 and 3 of the RMA.
The
guideline discussion document legal section makes and error in referring to the
MacIntyre case as having set a public limit of 50 m W/cm2
when in fact it was 2 m W/cm2.
Scientific
Critique of ICNIRP Assessment:
ICNIRP
Discussion of 100kHz-300GHz effects:
Reproductive
outcomes:
There are
several major errors and omissions in the ICNIRP (1998) assessment of
reproductive effects, ICNIRP (1998), p 504.
This
includes misrepresentation of two studies, inadequate interpretation of three
studies and omission of several relevant epidemiological studies and failure to
cite the relevant animal studies.
ICNIRP
(1998) concludes that studies involving pregnancy outcome and microwave
exposure suffer from poor assessment of exposure, small numbers of subjects and
contrasting results. All of these claims and conclusions are wrong.
The
studies of Daels (1973 and 1976):
The first
claim is that there are two extensive studies on women treated with microwave
diathermy to relieve the pain of uterine contractions during labour, with no
evidence of adverse effects on the fetus, quoting Daels (1973 & 1976).
Daels
(1973 (4 pages) & 1976 (2 pages)) are not an extensive studies on the
effect on the fetus. They are small descriptive papers on an analgesic therapy
for use in labour.
The
subject of the study is the mother. A fully developed child is involved,
immediately prior to birth, not the developing fetus which other studies are
concerned about. The papers contain no assessments of the effects on the child.
In Daels (1973) he simply states "No undesirable side effects of microwave
heating of tissues are known." He references a single study, Leary (1959)
to note that overheating can be a rare complication. Thus Daels (1973 &
1976) are neither extensive studies nor about fetal health.
These
studies involve short term microwave heating of the uterine area for 30 to 40
minutes during labour. There was a maximum recorded neonate temperature of 37.8° C and amniotic
fluid temperature of 36.5° C. These are well within the
normal range. Heating was limited to levels where the mother felt skin heating
as "agreeable". Since most of the microwaves are absorbed in the
surface skin layers the fetal exposure will be extremely small, see Hocking and
Joyner (1995) below. There is no reported follow-up on the children over
subsequent years to determine any altered health status, which might have
resulted from chromosome aberrations which, could have occurred during the
microwave exposure.
It
is therefore totally inappropriate and grossly misleading to cite these as
"extensive studies" of the impact of microwaves on the fetus. They
are not extensive, they do not relate to developing fetus and there is no
actual assessment of the impact of the exposure on the children.
Interpretation
of Physiotherapy Studies:
In
assessing reproductive outcomes from physiotherapist studies it is important to
distinguish short-wave exposure and microwave exposure, small study populations
and larger study populations, and whole pregnancy including birth outcomes, in
contrast to early pregnancy miscarriage alone. The effects of short-wave
radiation are likely to be different from microwave effects. Small sample sizes
may have elevated Risk Ratios but lack statistical significance solely by
virtue of the small sample size.
Physiotherapist
Studies Cited by ICNIRP (1998):
In ICNIRP
1998 three physiotherapist studies are cited, Kallen et al. (1982), Larsen et al. (1991) and Ouellet-Hellstrom
and Stewart (1993).
Kallen
and Larsen involve small samples and short-wave exposure, and whole pregnancy
outcomes, whereas Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stuart involves a large sample, studies
only early pregnancy miscarriage and finds only microwaves to have an effect. Kallen
et al. and Larsen et al. are cited in the review referred to as) with results
which raise concerns about possible effects. The reviewers state however
"The results suggest further study is necessary before conclusions can be
drawn."
Several
other studies were available prior to 1993 but they were not used by
UNEP/WHO/IRPA (1993).
In 1993
Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart was published with even more significant results.
When all
the studies are taken together they form a comprehensive and compelling body of
research to show that microwave exposure of mothers leads to a significant
increase in early pregnancy miscarriage, with a significant dose response
relationship, and that those using short-wave radio therapies and working in
electrical industries, have more late pregnancy problems and malformed
children.
The most
likely mechanism is accumulated chromosome aberrations and damaged cells in the
placenta and fetus because biophysics shows extremely small temperature
increases can be expected from even very high RF/MW exposures.
Case
by case assessment:
ICNIRP
states that there were "no statistically significant effects on rates of
abortion or fetal malformation" in Kallen et al. (1982). This is wrong.
even though Kallen et al. involves small sample numbers they conclude "The
only positive finding was a higher incidence of short-wave equipment use among
the females with dead and deformed infant than among controls." Very few
therapists were involved with microwaves. Hence Kallen et al. associate fetal
death and malformation with the use of short-wave diathermy equipment, with
p=0.03. This is a statistically significant association, contrary to the
ICNIRP claim.
Larsen et al. (1991), identified
54 cases with birth problems and 146 spontaneous abortion cases from Denmark. They
found a significant increase in malformations, still birth, low birth weight,
cot death and prematurely when working with short-wave diathermy.
Ouellet-Hellstrom
and Stewart (1993) investigated early pregnancy miscarriage among U.S. physical
therapists using short-wave (27 MHz) and microwave (915 MHz and 2.45 GHz)
diathermy. The sample included 1753 case pregnancies (miscarriages) and 1753
control pregnancies. They found no significant increase in first trimester
miscarriage amongst those using short-wave diathermy. They found a
statistically significant increase in miscarriage in the first trimester with
microwave exposure (OR= 1.28, 95%CI: 1.02-1.59) and a statistically significant
dose response relationship (p<0.005) using a dose measure of treatments per
month. With more than 20 treatments per month OR = 1.59, 95%CI: 0.99-2.55 .
In
addition to the three studies cited in ICNIRP (1998) there are several others
with are relevant.
Vaughan et al. (1984), studying
U.S. workers, found significantly increased risk of fetal death for last
pregnancy for therapists, RR=2.0, CI: 1.5-2.5, n=169, and for electronic
technicians, RR= 1.5, CI:1.2-2.0, n=202.
Taskinen et al.
(1990)
in Finland, with 204 cases, found increased spontaneous abortion with
short-wave and microwave use: Note that the statistical a significance is
limited by the small sample sizes.
·
Electric therapies >5/week OR=
2.0, CI: 1.0-3.9, n=17
·
Shortwaves>=5h/week, OR=
1.6, CI: 0.9-2.7, n= 30
·
Microwaves, OR= 1.8, CI: 0.8-4.1,
n=13),
Stronger
associations with ultrasound and heavy lifting:
·
Ultrasound>=20/week, OR= 3.4, CI: 1.2-9.0, n=9
·
Heavy lifting, > 10 kg or patient transfers >=50 times/week,
OR=3.5, IC: 1.1-9.0, n=11
Odds
ratios increased for pregnancies > 10 weeks:
·
Electric therapies OR=2.2
·
Shortwaves OR=2.5
·
Microwaves OR=2.4
·
Ultrasound OR=3.4
·
Heavy lifting OR=6.7 .
Taskinen
et al. conclude "Physical exertion during early pregnancy seems to be a
risk factor for spontaneous abortion. The findings raise suspicion of potential
harmful effect of shortwaves and ultrasound on the pregnancy, but no firm
conclusion can be drawn on the bases of these results alone."
However,
this study, in the context of all the other studies, is consistent and adds
considerable weight to the conclusion that there are adverse health effects
from RF/MW exposure. Taskinen at al. also found statistically significant
increases in congenital malformations in the children of mothers using
shortwave therapy. This confirms the results of Kallen et al, and Larsen et al.
Taskinen et al.
(1990)
was the only Scandanavian study to have a large enough sample to investigate
the effects of miscarriage with microwaves. The sample was quite small (13),
limiting the significance of the result. The Odds Ratio was (OR= 1.8, 95% CI
0.8-4.1). Exposure to ultrasound and short-wave showed significant increases in
odds ratio for abortion after the 10th week of gestation, (OR = 3.4, p<0.01
and OR = 2.5, p<0.03, respectively). Taskinen et al. concluded: "The
effect of shortwaves and ultrasound on the ‘late’ spontaneous abortions was
significant and increased in a dose response manner."
Sanjose et al. (1991)
investigated the incidence of low birthweight and preterm delivery in Scotland,
1981-84, in relation to parent’s occupation. They found statistically
significant (p<0.05) increases in low birth weight (RR = 1.4) and preterm
delivery (RR = 1.8) for mothers who work in the electrical industry. People who
work in "electrical industries" are recognized as being exposed to a
wide range of EMR giving them more than average EMR exposures.
Vaughan et al. (1984),
Taskinen et al. (1990) and Sanjose et al. (1991) are consistent with Kallen et al.
(1982) and Larsen et al. (1991) giving the conclusion that shortwave exposure
takes longer to produce effects than do microwaves. Shortwave effects range
from later pregnancy miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight, premature
birth, cot death and congenital abnormalities.
Taskinen et al.
(1990)
and Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993) confirm that microwave exposure is
associated with early pregancy miscarriage.
It is
sobering to also note that breast cancer risk is over 4 times higher for women
who miscarry in the first trimester, RR = 4.1, 95% CI: 1.5-11.3, Hadjimichael et
al, (1986).
Genetic
damage from RF/MW has been studied by a number of researchers. ICNIRP (1998) quotes
Cohen et al. (1977) which found no association between radar exposure and Down’s
syndrome in their off-spring. They failed to mention a previous paper from the
same group, Sigler et al, (1965), which did find a significant risk from
parental radar exposure.
Sigler et
al. suggested that this result, along with research which found "tissue
damage in humans and laboratory animals" and "a deleterious effect of
rat testis" as evidence that microwaves might be ionizing radiation, since
similar effects had been identified with exposure to ionizing radiation. We now
know that chromosome aberrations do occur in microwave exposed subjects without
the need for microwaves to be ionizing.
Flaherty
(1994) presents "The effect of non ionizing electromagnetic radiation on
RAAF personnel during World War II". He found in a group of 302 surviving
veterans, men had a ratio of single to twin births of 41:1, women 38:1 and overall
the ratio was 40:1 . This contrasts with the ratio in the normal Australian
population of 85:1. Hence radar exposed veterans had over twice the expected
number of twins, a very significant result.
Animal
Toxicology:
ICNIRP
(1998) fails to refer to the significant research involving animal experiments
on reproductive effects when exposed to RF/MW.
Results
range from testicular degeneration, resorption of the fetus and altered body
weight at high but non-thermal levels of exposure to total infertility in
multigenerational studies of mice exposed to 0.168m W/cm2
and 1.053m W/cm2, Magras and Xenos (1997).
There are
many animal studies showing that RF/MW is teratogenic, that is, it causes
severe reproductive problems. Berman et al. (1982) introduce their paper by stating:
"It has been repeatedly shown that microwaves
have teratogenic potential. Rats and mice have been used almost exclusively in
these studies."
Berman et al. (1982) were
extending the studies to hamsters. They investigated the teratogenic potential
of microwaves on Syrian hamsters, using 2.45 GHz at power densities of 30 mW/cm2
for 100 minutes daily This caused a temperature rise of 0.8 ° C and significant
fetal resporptions or death (p = 0.0012), decreased fetal body weight
(p=0.0001) and decreased skeletal maturity. Averaging this over a whole day the
mean exposure is 2.08 mW/cm2. Maternal toxicity was not observed,
only fetal damage and death. They conclude by comparing hamsters with mice.
"In mice, SAR’s of 16 or 22 mW/g caused fetal
changes. Comparing these two species, we see that 16 mW/g and above can cause
decreased body weight and skeletal immaturity in mice, while only 9 mW/g in the
hamster causes similar changes. Additionally, this lower SAR causes a
significant increase in hamster fetal death (resporptions). Hamster fetus,
appears to be more susceptible to microwave radiation than the mouse,
exhibiting fetotoxic changes at lower SAR values."
Prausnitz
and Susskind (1962) exposed male Swiss albino mice to 9.27 GHz microwaves,
pulsed with a 2 m s pulse at 500 Hz, 4.5 mins per day, 5 days per week
for 59 weeks with an exposure level of 100 m W/cm2.
This amounts to a mean weekly exposure of 0.22m W/cm2.
Detailed
autopsies were carried out on 60 irradiated and 40 control mice who died during
the experiment. Two adverse effects were more severe in the exposed compared to
the control animals.
(1) Testicular
degeneration (atrophy with no sperm) occurred in 29.8% (39/124) of the exposed
animals and 7.1 % (4/56) of the control animals, RR = 4.2.
(2) Cancer
of the white cells or leukosis was seen in 26.5% (39/147) of the exposed
animals compared to 13.0% (9/69) of the controls, RR= 2.04. This condition was
described as monocytic or lymphatic organ tumours or myeloid leukaemia in the
circulating blood.
In these
mice significant and severe (4.2-fold) testicular damage and a 2-fold increase
in the initiation of leukaemia occurred is association with a mean exposure of
0.22m W/cm2.
Testicular
damage has also been found in men who have radar exposures. Weyandt et al. (1996) studied
U.S. service men who have radar exposures. "The group of men with
potential microwave exposures demonstrated lower sperm counts / mL (p = 0.009)
and lower sperm/ejaculate (p= 0.027) than the comparison group."
Although
as early as 1962 severe reproductive problems had been identified with and
exposure regime averaging 0.22m W/cm2 most of the
research was carried out with the incorrect assumption that if an effect was
real it would be demonstrated if the exposure was high enough. And if an effect
was not detectable at extremely high levels of exposure, there was no way that
an effect would occur at low levels of exposure.
Even so,
high exposure experiments did show effects. Below shows the progression
downwards until animal experiments have been carried out and found significant
effects at the levels used in 1962 by Prausnitz and Susskind and are found in
the vicinity of cell sites.
Chazan et al. (1983)
investigated the development of murine embryos and fetuses after irradiation
with 2450 MHz microwaves at 40 mW/cm2. They found indications of
retardation of development in the early period of gestation in mice exposed to
thermal MW fields. During the second half of pregnancy an increase in the
number of resorptions, stillbirths and internal hemorrhages was noted. The
living fetuses had lowered body mass compared to the offsprings of sham-irradiated
mice.
Berman,
Carter and House (1982) also found reduced weight in mice offspring after in
utero exposure to 2450-MHz (CW) microwaves using an exposure level of 28 mW/cm2.
They were exposed to for 100 minutes daily from the 6th through 17th day of
gestation. This gives a mean exposure during that period of 1.9 mW/cm2.
These data demonstrate that the decreased fetal weight seen in
microwave-irradiated mice (-10 %) detected in utero and is retained at least 7
days after birth. Evidence from other published studies is presented to show
that the retarded growth is persistent and might be interpreted as permanent
stunting.
Suvorov et al. (1994) studied the
biological action of physical factors in the critical periods of embryogenesis.
The critical period in a chicken embryonic development (the 10-13 days of
incubation) is revealed under total electromagnetic radiation. EMR is a
physiologically active irritant which can influence functional state of the
brain. The increased absorption of electromagnetic energy takes place in this
incubation period. Its dynamics within 20 days of embryonic development has
phasic, up and down character.
Electromagnetic
exposure (4 hours a day) in the above mentioned period evokes a delay in embryo
adaptive motor behavior (biofeedback learning). Morphological investigation
shows significant pathological changes, specifically, destruction of share
brain synapses. The delay in embryo hatching for a day is also detected. Radiation
exposure within other periods of incubation (3-6th or 12-15th days) was not
effective with respect to formation of normal motor pattern in biofeedback
experiment. Unfortunately this paper is in Russian and no exposure levels are
quoted in the English translation of the abstract.
The
Australian ABC television investigative programme, Four Corners, claimed in a
documentary on electromagnetic health effects, that in a factory which used
radiofrequency heaters for sealing plastics, that of 17 women who worked at
sealing machines, 14 had miscarried. Plastic sealers expose the operator to far
higher levels that do physiotherapy diathermy devices. In association with the
concern in Australia about the reproductive risks from plastic sealers,
Brown-Woodman et al. (1989) exposed a set of rats to a repeated exposure to
27.12 MHz EM fields for 5 weeks. A reduction in fertility occurred as indicated
by a reduced number of matings in exposed rats compared to sham-exposed rats,
and a reduced number of conceptions after exposure. They conclude that:
"The data suggests that female operators could
experience reduced fertility, if they remain close to the console for prolonged
periods. This has particular significance for the physiotherapy
profession."
Magras
and Xenos (1997) responded to health concerns among residents living in the
vicinity of an RF transmission tower in Greece, by placing groups of mice at
various locations in relation to the tower. The mice fertility was monitored
over several generations and related to the RF exposure.
The
Figure below shows the fertility rate of the two exposed groups. Where group A
the "Low" exposure group (0.168 m W/cm2 )
became infertile after 5 generations and B the "High" exposure group
1.053 m W/cm2 , became infertile after only 3
generations. This is a highly significant result because so few
multi-generation studies have been done and the effects of this study occur at
extremely low levels and the effect is total infertility.
The Greek
study confirms the Australian study, but shows that over several generations
the infertility is complete at very low levels of mean RF/MW exposure, Figure
6.
Figure 6: Multigenerational exposure of mice to low
level RF leads to complete infertility.
Summary
and conclusions about teratological animal studies:
There is
repeated evidence of RF/MW induced infertility in rodents strongly showing that
RF/MW have genetically damaged the cells of the animals. This suggests that
there could be reproductive and genetic damage in RF/MW exposed humans. The
epidemiological studies below confirm that there is, and at very low mean
levels of exposure comparable to the exposure of the mice in Greece.
Developing
sperm, embryos and fetuses are very vulnerable to damage from toxins. At
critical times in utero development damage to certain organs occurs. With
sufficient fetal or placenta damage a spontaneous abortion is initiated. At
other exposure levels and timing of damage a still birth can result. Thermal
levels of microwave exposure has produced retardation of development if
exposure is in early pregnancy, and resorptions, still births and hemorrhages
with exposure in the second half of the pregnancy.
A much
lower microwave dose was associated with significant reduction in birth weight
and permanent stunting and slowing of bone hardening. Changes in chick embryo
biofeedback learning is observed and testicular atrophy was observed with a
mean exposure to a radar-like signal averaging 0.22 m W/cm2
over a week. Total infertility occurred in mice after 5 weeks of exposure to
0.17m W/cm2.
Thus in 1962 and 1997 it is been shown that chronic
low level microwave exposure of animals leads to very significant adverse
reproductive effects in males and females down. The effects were still significant
at exposures of 0.22 and 0.17m W/cm2.
These are close to the level of the lowest published results for calcium ion
efflux, 0.08m W/cm2 Schwartz et al. (1990).
RF/MW
radiation causes significant birth and reproductive damage in exposed animals
down to very low short-term and extremely low average exposure levels.
Reproductive
Health Effects Conclusions:
The
ICNIRP (1998) assessment of reproductive effects from RF/MW exposure is
severely flawed. Animal studies show that chromosome aberrations and single and
double strand DNA breakage occurs with EMR exposure, mice and rats have
pregnancy, birth and fertility problems associated with EMR exposure which are
also found in exposed human populations. There is consistency within human
studies and between human studies and animal studies. Many human studies show
statistically significant adverse reproductive outcomes One large human study,
Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993), gave a statistically significant dose response
relationship. This study allows an exposure assessment to be carried out, along
with the multigeneration mice study, Magras and Xenos (1997).
Exposure
Assessment:
Ouellet-Hellstrom
and Stewart (1993) report that the microwave exposure was primarily from
leakage, which at waist level was measured in the range 80 - 1200 m W/cm2.
At 15 cm from the source the highest reading was 15 mW/cm2. The
therapist needs to be leaning over the patient during the therapy to receive
this dose. This is highly unlikely when the machine is turned on. Even so, this
is not sufficient to course a surface heating of the skin in the few minutes it
is likely to involve.
Hocking and Joyner (1995) show that microwaves produce
very small SARs with the uterus, in the following figure 7.
Figure 7: Specific absorption rate (SAR) profile across the uterus
for a small woman exposed to 1 mW/cm2, from Hocking and Joyner
(1995).
In their
table 2 Hocking and Joyner (1995) show maximum SARs in the uterus for the
conditions in Figure 38 for short-wave (27.12 MHz) of 0.209 W/kg, for microwave
(915 MHz) of 0.023 W/kg and for microwave (2.45 GHz) of 0.000027 W/kg.
Gandhi
(1990) gives the relationship between SAR and temperature increase. The heating
rate given is 0.0045 x SAR ° C/min. With a maximum
exposure time per treatment of 5 minutes, and an external field intensity of
1,200 m W/cm2, the heating of the fetus will be
0.0055 , 0.00062 and 0.00000073 ° C, respectively. Not even at
15 mW/cm2 does the short-wave exposure can produce a detectable heating effect
in the uterus environment (0.071° C).
Since an
acute thermal mechanism can be ruled out it is appropriate to calculate and use
the cumulative average dose to determine the range of the exposure regime.
it is not
the habit of therapists to stand close to the patient during the diathermy. In
many cases the therapist leaves the room while the 15 to 30 minute diathermy is
carried out. Hence a conservatively long exposure period of 2 minutes is chosen
to be associated with the exposure range of 80 - 1200 m W/cm2.
The dose-response relationship is expressed in terms of treatments per month. One
treatment per month is associated with a mean monthly exposure in the range
0.0038 to 0.056m W/cm2, and a mean exposure of 0.03m W/cm2.
No.
of Exposures Odds Ratio Exposure Regime (m W/cm2)
per
Month Mean Range
All pregnancies 0 1.00 0.0 -
<5
(2.5) 1.05 0.08 0.0095-0.14
5-20
(12.5) 1.50 0.38 0.048 - 0.7
>20
(25) 1.59 0.75 0.095 - 1.45
This
table shows the results from Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993) for microwave
exposure for all pregnancies. The Number of exposures in brackets is the
assumed mean number of treatments in the calculation of the Exposure regime.
There is
a 5 % increase in miscarriage associated with a mean microwave exposure of 0.08m W/cm2.
This is totally consistent with the calcium ion efflux and animal toxicology
experiments.
Hence for reproductive effects the Level of Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect is 0.08m W/cm2.
Biologically
Plausible Mechanism:
Calcium
ion efflux lead to the survival of damaged cells which carry their chromosome
aberrations into future generations of cells. A reduction in melatonin reduces
the elimination of free radicals which enhances the chromosome damage. Calcium
ion efflux and melatonin reduction also impairs the immune system with allows a
greater population of damaged cells to survive. Cells with damaged chromosomes
are a known cause of spontaneous abortion.
According
to Sandyk et al. (1992):
"The
causes of spontaneous abortion can be divided into two main categories: those
arising from chromosomal anomalies and those arising from abnormalities in the
intrauterine environment. In the following communication, we propose that
deficient pineal melatonin functions in early pregnancy may be causally related
to the development of spontaneous abortions in cases where chromosomal
anomalies or structural abnormalities of the uterus have been excluded."
Microwaves are shown to be associated with DNA breakage in rats brains, Lai and
Singh (1995, 1996, 1997), Sarkar et al. (1994) and Phillips et al. (1998), and
to cause chromosome aberrations, Heller and Teixeira-Pinto (1959),
Garaj-Vrhovac et al. (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993), Haider et al. (1994) , and many others.
Cancer
Assessment:
Laboratory
Experiments:
I have
only alluded to some of the cell and animal laboratory studies to demonstrate
the consistency of the flawed scientific approach taken by ICNIRP.
ICNIRP, p
506 Totally inappropriately down plays and misrepresents the calcium ion
research. It is openly an importantly acknowledged that there calcium ion
efflux and influx can occur, depending on the particular combination of
intensity, temperature, modulation frequency and carrier frequency, and that
there are windows of effect and no effect very close together. An attempt is
made to dismiss the effects of alteration of cellular calcium ions by noting
that there are "positive and negative" effects and by claiming the an
attempted replication, Albert et al. (1987) was unsuccessful ignores dozens of
other successful replications showing calcium ion efflux and influx. Albert et
al. used chick brains, 147 MHz carrier frequency, and 16 Hz modulation, with an
exposure level of 0.75 mW/cm2. At the same carrier and modulation
frequency chick brains have been shown to have significant efflux at exposure
intensities of 0.0014 W/kg three times, 0.006 and 0.008 and 0.002 W/kg. The
fact that Albert et al. (1987) found no effect at a very high exposure level of
0.75 mW/cm2, equivalent to about 0.3 W/kg, simply means they are outside a
window of intensity. Very few high intensity windows have been found.
This is
an extremely poor and misleading assessment of calcium ion research and its
health effect significance as set out above. The ICNIRP assessment totally
misrepresents the nature and implications of laboratory experiments in their
consistent efforts to dismiss evidence of effects.
The
effect of microwaves neoplastically transforming a standard mice embryo cell
line, a cell line which has been used several times in chemical carcinogen
assessment are treated in the same inaccurately dismissive manner, p507,
referring to the work of Balcer-Kubiczek and Harrison (1991). These researchers
carried out a series of very careful and extensive laboratory assessments using
a standard mouse cell line. One of their most significant results is presented
below, Figure 8.
Read
More...