|Betreff: Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines - urgent please!|
|Von: hans karow
|Datum: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:54:08 -0700|
Following e-mail with re EMF exposure guideline I sent to the ICNIRP secretariat I have been referred to by Dr. Ahlbom (see his two responses to my e-mails below).
If you support my request for an interim public ICNIRP press release, please forward a message to Mrs. Gunde Ziegelberger by referring to my June 27 e-mail, and if possible add also your personal arguments/points.
I would appreciate if you forward this e-mail to your fellow EMF experts to do so as well.
Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE)
Penticton, BC, Canada, V2A 8T6
From: hans karow
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:17 PM
To: 'Gunde Ziegelberger'
Subject: RE: EMF exposure guidelines
Dear Mrs. Ziegelberger,
Please accept this as a friendly reminder.
Our local power company is proposing a second new substation and transmission line within a new residential area. Attending a public info session organized by the power company, I again noticed how this power company is misleading the general public, in addition to that these people directly and indirectly affected by the proximity of both facility know very little about the EMF issue.
Again and again, when the EMF issue is addressed and certain EMF levels near residential properties, the power company is referring to ICNIRP and WHO and Health Canada recommended guidelines and demonstrating to the public how well below the new projects' EMF level will be: ICNIRP/WHO/Health Canada recommended safety guideline of 830 milliGauss compared to about 0.5 - 15. milliGauss or a little more in certain areas of the proposed project.
Independent as well as industry funded studies have clearly shown adverse health effects at levels far below the 830 milliGauss levels, see a summary in slide # 12 in http://www.stop-emf.ca/hydroone/PresentationEMFHydro_files/frame.htm , whichg is a lide show presented by Dr. Magda Havas at the Hydro One Workshop on EMFs, Markham Ontario, Canada, June 16, 2004.
With approval from the
please also accept Dr.
From there I especially like to note and cite, that
“…There are no internationally agreed upon guidelines that consider long-term exposure to magnetic fields within the low frequency range. International guidelines on exposures limits for all ELF EMF have been developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO clearly states, that:
“…the ICNIRP guidelines for EMF exposure…are intended to prevent health effects related to short-term acute exposure…” [Dr. Havas’ Evidence, page 8, line 24 -30]
“If we examine the effects that have been documented in the literature for magnetic field exposure and the ICNIRP/Health Canada guidelines, there is a serious discrepancy [...] Associations based on epidemiological studies and cause-effect relationships based on laboratory experiments suggests that magnetic fields within the range of 2 to 16 mG are harmful. Canadian guidelines allow exposure of the general public to magnetic fields up to 830 mG for any 24-hour period. It is clear that these outdated guidelines need to be reviewed based on recent scientific studies…”[Dr. Havas’ Evidence, page 9 line 7-12]
Power companies and regulatory agencies (utilities commission (provincial and federal) are “ducking” under the for the industry very convenient high exposure guidelines! People and health care systems are suffering due to these already for a long time to be reviewed guidelines, as a matter of fact the responsibility clearly lies in the hands of ICNIRP as the organization who initially set up these guidelines to which WHO, and national government agencies worldwide refer to!
As stated above, our local power company is proposing a new project and for this it is hereby urgently and kindly requested that the ICNIRP secretariat is releasing an interim public statement that the guidelines are presently be reviewed and that is expected that the guidelines will be lowered based on new scientific/medical studies. In our local case, this would help to more or less force the power company to opt for another although little more expensive but safer route for the transmission line and a safer alternative place for the substation.
Power companies world wide and utilities commission/regulatory agencies must be stopped to play with the ICNIRP ”830 milliGauss safety threshold” ball!
Please, your immediate response is urgently needed, and if you please also would answer my questions in my June 20 e-mail (shown below).
Sincerely and concerned,
(copy of this e-mail will be forwarded to many members and associations of the independent EMF campaign)
From: hans karow [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:41 PM
To: 'Gunde Ziegelberger'
Subject: RE: EMF exposure guidelines
Dear Mrs. Ziegelberger,
Thank you for your response enclosed below.
You indicated that ICNIRP has began the process to revise the EMF exposure guidelines. May I kindly ask you for the list of organizations and/or names of all experts involved in this revision, if possible with a brief professional background/history of those persons. I would also be interested in the names of persons/organizations that do assist (i.e. assisting in draft. Reviewing the draft etc) the experts who are doing the actual review, in addition any observers, and whether any media are being allowed to observe and report the review process.
Where and how is the review being done?
Thank you for your understanding and taking the time,
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
From: Gunde Ziegelberger [mailto:GZiegelberger@bfs.de]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:08 AM
To: hans karow
Subject: Re: EMF exposure guidelines
Dear Mr. Karow,
thanks for contacting ICNIRP regarding your health concerns.
1. Yes, ICNIRP has began the process to revise the exposure guidelines
for static and also for low frequency fields. As you might be aware,
ICNIRP´s guidelines for limiting exposure to fields up to 300 GHz are
based on the scientific knowledge of the years 1997/1998. Research has
been going on since then and ICNIRP has issued an in depth review of the
scientific evidence concerning the relevance of low frequency electric
and magnetic fields for human health (2003). The WHO is going to publish
an Environmental Health Criteria Document on this topic in 2006. In view
of new resaerch data and their reviews, the ICNIRP guidelines will be
revisited. The process will not be finalized before the end of the year.
2. and 3. I could not open the ppt. presentation by Dr. Havas, but
according to the title I suggest, that it deals with the inconsistency
between the known biophysical effects of low frequency fields and the
results from experimental studies on one hand, and the epidemiologic
results on childhood leukaemia on the other hand. Also this apparent
conflict will be addressed during the revision process.
I hope, I could provide you with the information you have been looking for.
Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger
ICNIRP Scientific Secretary
c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
hans karow schrieb:
>Dear Dr. Ziegelberger,
>With regards of my questions (please see below) Dr. Ahlbom referred me to
>May I kindly ask to please respond to my three questions as stated below.
>Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
>From: Anders Ahlbom [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:31 PM
>To: 'hans karow'
>Subject: SV: EMF exposure guidelines
>To get the official ICNIRP view I suggest to contact the secretariat in
>Please note new e-mail below:
>Office: + 46 8 5248 74 70;
>Från: hans karow [mailto:email@example.com]
>Skickat: den 1 april 2006 20:07
>Kopia: Magda Havas
>Ämne: EMF exposure guidelines
>Dear Dr. Ahlbom,
>1. During the oral hearing (as indicated below), while
>cross-examining industry consultant
>I learned that ICNIRP just had a meeting in Berlin/Germany.
>Could you please inform, whether the exposure EMF guidelines will be
>reviewed in the near future and the guidelines possibly adjusted?
>2. May I kindly ask you whether you agree with
>the statements presented by Dr. Magda Havas at a Hydro One Workshop on EMFs,
>Children at risk with residential and school exposure to EMFs” source:
>If there is anything you do not agree with, could you please state where and
>3. A particular question would be: do you agree with slide 12,
>“Exposure Guidelines vs Effects” ?
>Thank you for taking the time to respond please,
From: Anders Ahlbom
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:01 AM
To: 'hans karow'
Subject: SV: 2 generation family home exposure to high transmission line EMR
There is still scientific uncertainty about this association and IARC (WHO cancer agency) classified the exposure as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Also the involved risk, if any is small and would affect a small fraction of the population. Yet, I would try to avoid a home with the exposure level you mention, particularly with children at home.
Please note new e-mail below:
+ 46 8 5248 74
hans karow [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Skickat: den 15 januari 2006 01:31
Ämne: 2 generation family home exposure to high transmission line EMR
Dear Dr. Ahlborn,
In your personal opinion, not reflecting the ICNIRP opinion or position, could you please inform me, whether you and your assumed family, with children aged 1 and 3, and expecting a third child in two months, would you live in a house that is exposed to magnetic fields ranging between no less than 10 and 20 milliGauss AC magnetic field and above, 24 hours a day, year-round for the next 25+ years. This with your wife always staying home and not working anywhere else, and having mind that you once will retire in this home, and one of your kids will move in and raise a family of two or three children?
Your response would be very much appreciated.