Betreff: Mis-reporting the Russian Cell Phone Conference: Lies, Damn Lies and the WHO
Von: Don Maisch
Datum: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:08:46 +1100


Apologies for the long posting but sending attachments on this free 
list is not possible.

In late September I attended the International Conference: Mobile
Communications and Health: Medical, Biological and Social Problems,
Sept 20 - 22, 2004, Moscow, Russia.
http://www.pole.com.ru/conference/conference_eng.htm After that meeting I compiled my notes into an informal report on the proceedings, dated October 10, 2004. That report has since been updated (below) to include my concerns over the final conference statement, received on Dec.10 from a member of the Russian scientific community. When I left the Russian Cell phone conference on the final day, Yuri Grigoriev, the Russian conference chairman as well as chairman of the RNCNIRP, stated the firm view that the conference committee organizers would draft a final conference statement that specifically addressed the Russian concerns on hazards to children from their mobile phone use. This concern was expressed at the conference by representatives from three out of the four conference organizers. These were: 1) The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP). 2) The Russian Academy of Science. 3) The Russian Academy of Medical Science. (Note: The fourth organizer, who did not share the other's concerns was the WHO, represented by Michael Repacholi ) Yuri Grigoriev , was very insistent on the importance of getting out the statement on children and mobile phone use. When I last corresponded in October with Eugenia Bichelday, the conference secretary, she said that a statement on children had been written and she would send me a copy but it was in Russian only. She has since left for other employment and did not send the Russian statement that she referred to. That statement now seems to have ceased to exist and has been replaced by a statement that reads more like being written by the publicity department from the WHO. The final conference "statement" departs substantially from what actually transpired at the conference. It DOES NOT represent the vast difference of scientific viewpoint between "East " and "West" in regards to RF standard setting that was clearly expressed at the conference. The final statement only represents the viewpoint expressed at the conference by the WHO's Michael Repacholi and ICNIRP's Paulo Vecchia, NOT what was stated by speakers from RNCNIRP, RAS and the RAMS. * Specifically, Even though much of the conference was about Russian concerns over children's use of mobile phones, absolutely nothing is mentioned about this in the final statement. Yuri Grigoriev's statement on the children's issue with mobile phone use was entirely left out. … The overall structure and wording of the final statement is very similar to statements previously put out by WHO / ICNIRP writers. … The Russian scientists at the conference DID NOT AGREE that the so called ICNIRP "international guidelines" ensure adequate protection against all established health effects - in fact their view was just the opposite - that ICNIRP did NOT provide adequate health protection. … The final statement boldly says: "Independent and scientifically qualified institutions should be identified and made legally responsible for providing unbiased information". If the major omissions and un-truths in the final statement are examples of "unbiased information" then who can be trusted to give "unbiased" information? Probably the same organizations that decide what are "science-based standards". All viewpoints presented at the conference that departed from WHO / ICNIRP paradigm have been edited out of the final statement. What is concerning about this "statement" is that it will now be used by WHO and ICNIRP to give the impression that the Russians are coming on side with ICNIRP's EMF guidelines. This is not science but spin doctoring at its worst. If anything the final conference statement is an example of George Orwell's "Newspeak", a technique that unfortunately seems to have become the norm in Western RF standard setting. What now needs to be answered is exactly WHO wrote the conference statement and whether the Russian scientific community is really in agreement with it. Don *********************************************************************************************** Notes on the International Conference
Mobile Communications and Health: Medical, Biological and Social Problems
Sept 20 - 22, 2004, Moscow, Russia

October 10, 2004
Updated December 10, 2004

Don Maisch

Section I: The Conference notes
Section II: Recommendations: An oversight committee is needed
Section III: Does WHO/ICNIRP get the final say?
Section IV: The final conference "Statement"




Section I
The Conference notes

Note: The following was prepared from conference notes, discussions,
and the conference book of abstracts. In some cases I have summarized
the presentations for clarity, in others I have tried to make as
little changes as possible. Exact quotes are in quotation brackets.
Photocopies of the book of abstracts (English section only) and my
handwritten notes are available upon request.

This being my first conference in Russia I cannot comment in detail
on the earlier three conferences in the series of meetings except for
what has been reported on the conferences. What is apparent from
people who have attended the previous meetings is an ongoing conflict
between the differing rationale between the Russian (and Chinese)
radio-frequency/microwave (RF/MW) exposure limits and those of the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP).

ICNIRP has long sought "harmonization" with the Russian RF standards
but the Russians have maintained that ICNIRP's thermal effects only
approach is not protective of workers and the public. Their preferred
approach is to also to take into account possible long term-low level
(non-thermal) adverse biological effects (including immunological)
from RF exposure - something ICNIRP steadfastly refuses to
acknowledge. As such, Russia's RF standard is far stricter than those
of most Western countries and is set at levels that are less than
levels emitted by most cell phones.

The very existence of the Russian and Chinese RF standards brings
into question the scientific validity of ICNIRP's guidelines and the
ongoing series of meetings has been, and is, an attempt to resolve
the differences.

This latest Russian conference centered around a possible way to
resolve the barriers to harmonization. - a joint Russian / French
study to try to verify the basis for the Russian RF standard (Section
3).

At this latest conference the Russian and ICNIRP opposing viewpoints
quickly came to the forefront of discussion, with the following main
players:

Russia: Represented by roughly 2/3 of the conference attendees.
Spokespersons included: Yuri Grigoriev, Chairman of the Russian
National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP);
Dr. O.A. Grigoriev, Deputy Chairman RNCNIRP; Dr. N.B. Rubtsova,
Russian Academy of Medical Science, RNCNIRP; Dr. N. Izeerov, Russian
Academy of Medical Science and Institute of Occupational Health; Dr.
E. Bichelday, RNCNIRP; DR. G. Onischenco, Federal Service for
Consumer's Rights and Social Welfare, Russian Academy of Medical
Science, Johnson Liakouris Ana PhD (USA), etc. (See book of abstracts
for full listing)

Though numerically the larger side, the Russian viewpoint was
hampered by the inevitable language barrier. The majority of their
presentations and Powerpoint displays were in Russian with a live
headphone translation service available. Unfortunately many of the
finer points of their presentations were difficult to follow in the
translation process even though the translator did an excellent job
under the circumstances. Of course, from the Russian's viewpoint they
could say much the same about the English only speakers! However it
being an International conference to help bring the Russian
scientific expertise to the "West" the language gap was an
unfortunate barrier to fuller understanding, especially for technical
texts. To their credit the Russians are going to publish their
research in English soon in the future.

ICNIRP/WHO: Represented by Dr. Michael Repacholi, WHO's EMF Project.,
Paulo Vecchia, ICNIRP, Dr Bernard Veyret, ICNIRP, Professor Lawrence
Challis, AGNIR/NRPB, and Mays Swicord, Motorola.

Although a smaller number, the ICNIRP/WHO team were well organized
and supported each other with a well practiced precision. They
expressed an unwavering conviction that ICNIRP was the best science
had to offer - while at the same time being careful not to offend
their Russian hosts.

1) Some of the translated Russian viewpoints:

FIRST DAY

"With the rapid roll out of telecommunications technology [globally]
officials not prepared and unaware - unawareness deeper than
awareness in respect to health". Dr. G. Onischenco

"Important to separate myth & reality in regards to preventing
harmful effects - progress must be used for our benefit - and harmful
effects are not to our benefit" Dr. S. Pugacher

Urgent need to address the EMF health issue, especially great
attention must be made to overall effects on the population and
children. The effects on children are of concern to the Ministry of
Health.
Dr. N. Izmerov

"Assessment on possible risks of EMF from cellphones on health and
communication to the public must guarantee complete safety of
cellphones. It is a new situation for safety with high profits and
mass advertising with no consideration of our advice [RNCNIRP] on
children and cell phone use. Medical and sanitary situation for cell
phones sees a sizable gap between adults and children who voluntarily
subject themselves (brain-neural track-vestibular apparatus) to
damage. Possibility of damage to the inner ear a concern because of
its complexity." Dr. Yuri Grigoriev

"For the first time in the history of humans we have a mass EMF
effect on the human brain [from cellphones] which cannot be compared
to other sources, such as ionizing radiation". Dr. Yuri Grigoriev

"Children are more sensitive to EMF than adults". Dr. Yuri Grigoriev

Serious disagreement with WHO and ICNIRP on determining health
effects of EMF pathology on daily, long-term use of cell phones
(chronic low internsity) leading to somatic diseases, somatic
response changes on exposure. Dr. Yuri Grigoriev

Cellphones - modulated fields - effects grows - the lower the
intensity the higher the role of modulation. This is not being
considered internationally in standards. Considering modulation
effects the thermal effects only school is doubtful. Dr. Yuri
Grigoriev

"The thermal effects for criteria or standards is not a suitable
approach" Dr. Yuri Grigoriev

"Important to limit time talking and proximity to antenna. . . Limit
strictly the use of mobile phones by children and limit advertising -
Educate the population". Dr. Yuri Grigoriev


[From presentation titled: Progress of Mobile Phone EMF Effects on
Human Nervous System] Nikitina V. , pages 111-112.
CNS sensitive to EMF resulting in clinical effects: headache, sleep
disorder, heartache, irritability, dizziness, memory disturbances,
sweating, epigastric pains, disorders in menstrual cycles, memory
retention, increased level of lipids, gynaecological diseases,
vegetative dysfunction. EMF considered as a "regulation disease".


From: [Approaches to studies of mobile communication equipment
effects on users' health] Budyanskaya E., Rezinkina M., Nikolenko E.,
pages 84-86.
: This study looked at long tern VDU computer operators 1hr. per
day/40 hrs week/ 60/80/160 calculations on different types and levels
of EMF exposure. Long tern effects: stress observed on main life
support systems, CNS, cardiovascular and immune system. First years
of VDU work: Reduction of the adaptive capacities, reduction of
anti-oxidant systems - free radical oxidation, suppression of immune
reactivity. Calls for research into effects on brain activity with
cell phones.

********************

From: [The Radiowave Sickness Syndrome: The Question of Medical
Entity vs. Non-existent Illness] Liakouris A , pages 103-104.

"The recognition of the RF sickness syndrome as a medical entity is
relevant to concerns about environmental EMF safety. The syndrome was
first identified in the USSR as an occupational illness and named the
Neurotic Syndrome. It was defined as a pathological condition
resulting from chronic exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation,
consisting of signs, symptoms and clinical manifestations mostly of
neurological and endocrine origin. Substantive, modern research on
the biological effects of RF radiation in the Russian Federation has
not changed the scientist's views on RF Sickness as a medical entity.

In the USA, there is a limited, but potentially important level of
recognition. The US Congress adopted the "Radiation Control for
Health and Safety Act of 1968', PUBLIC LAW 90-602. This law was later
transferred to Chapter 9 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
of 1994. Furthermore, the New York Appellate Court, relaying ib part
on the studies performed for the United States government, by Dr.
Milton Zaret, recognizes an occupational disease identified as
"microwave radiation sickness". Nevertheless, researchers disregard
RF Sickness on the basis of three main objections. First, there is no
specific clinical picture attributable to the syndrome. Second,
epidemiological studies do not show a statistically significant
correlation between exposure to specific RF and the manifestation of
the syndrome. Third, when a statistically significant correlation is
attained, it is explained by an "awareness bias". This author has
addressed the issue of epidemiological studies in a previously
published work.

The objection addressed in this paper is the first one. The data
comes from a small sample of clinical reports by physicians,
available in the English literature. The patient's exposure to RF
radiation was confirmed. The clinical reports include short-term
acute and long-term occupational exposures as well as non-lethal and
lethal exposures. The period covered is 34 years, starting in 1957.

The methodology is adapted from interdisciplinary case studies. The
literature on other medical syndromes also lacking a specific
clinical picture is taken into account. Then, the clinical reports
are cross-referenced for regularities or the lack of it. If
regularities are found, a rationale is presented for testing these in
the laboratory, using modern tools and methods.

The broader context for analysis indicates that the lack of a
conventional clinical picture is also characteristic of syndromes
involving immune system responses. The analysis of the data indicates
that one symptom is consistently reported in all cases of non-lethal
exposures. . . The clinical reports answer Western objections.

**************************

From: [Psychophysiological Analysis of EMF Effects From Cellular
Communications Equipment on CNS Function] Polyakova S.P. pages
112-113

Study using 20 healthy professional users of mobile phones.
10 men, average age of 38, 10 women, average age of group 34. Average
of 4 years use, approximately 20 minutes daily. Tested an assessment
of mental functions - memory, intellection, attention, definition of
biological age, etc. - significant changes in brain EEG activity -
dropped intellection, attention. long term use of mobile phone gives
trend in build up of biological age. "It is possible to assume, that
the long-term using a mobile communication can give in a trend to a
build-up of biological age with increase the period of using mobile
devices of cellular communication". . . It is low grade hypoergia, a
low-grade parasympathotonia, a strain of immunodefence, restricted
type of an organism regulation, break-down of adaptation with a
parameter 4,3, incomplete adaptation, stress - reaction and reaction
of an activation.
Note: Yuri Grigoriev mentions from the chair that "The mobile phone
studies are lagging behind the roll-out of the technology and
designers and technocrats are defining the meaning of a 'safe' mobile
phone".
*********************

Round Table Discussion "Mobile phones and children"

Yuri Grigoriev started off deriding the cell phone industry for
"placing quick money and profits as paramount, using mass advertising
techniques". Yuri stated that "we cannot ignore the potential of
damage to children's health because of quick profit". He expressed
his (and RNCNIRP) concern over the possibility of "long term loss"-
meaning for children. Yuri said' "Corporations talk about absence of
health effects, these scientists are conduits of the corporate line".

Yuri sees the WHO as being "insufficient on the precautionary
principle" and went on to mention much of the information why
children are a special case for precaution, as detailed in
< http://www.emfacts.com/papers/children_mobiles.pdf >This paper was
compiled by this author in 2003 with the help of Vladimir Bindi and
sent to Yuri Grigoriev.

Yuri then accused Michael Repacholi of avoiding the issue of children
and mobile phones. He went on to list studies and the microwave
sickness symptoms, which he said depend on duration and number of
calls. "Children are at high risk - cut down sharply their use".

Later that day Yuri makes the point that children are more sensitive
than adults to RF exposures and it should be possible to protect
children by making recommendations limiting their duration of calls
and making calls only when necessary. He wanted to see a joint
statement on children and mobile phone use by the conference
committee at the end of the conference but as of this writing it is
unknown if such a statement was given. It would be unlikely given the
involvement of ICNIRP.

SECOND DAY

Speakers Yuri Grigoriev , O. Gregoriev, Dr. G. Onischenco
Yuri starts by comparing the cell phone industry with the tobacco
industry, where the industry disguised the hazards of tobacco and hid
the cancer connection.

The Ministry of Health and Social Development aims to devise
practical objectives to eliminate hazards and provide society with
reliable, scientifically sound information on health issues. Develop
information for the public with basic documents and develop
educational program. Develop standards for safety / technical
regulations for participation of developers [industry] in safety for
the public. Russian research sees direct effects on the immune
system. Need for studies on chronic exposure of mobiles.

Yuri: "For the first time in history children are at risk from EMF
technological development"

********************

From: [News in Russian Hygienic Standardization of Mobile
Communications] Rubtsova N., Pal'tsev, pages 114-115.
In 1994 Russia developed its "temporary permissible levels (PL) for
mobile phone communications in the frequency range 400 to 1200 Mhz. ,
including a system of EMF evaluation for power density measurements
of near zone of cellular phone antenna radiation. This document can
no longer be considered correct as it does not reflect the real
picture of electromagnetic energy radiation.

The Russian Federation therefore carried out development of new
hygienic norms (standards) which included complex researches on
mobile communication permissible level substantiation including:
experimental studying of intensity and time dependencies of modulated
EMF biological effects; computer modelling of mobile phone EMF
interaction with bioobjects (rat) character; development of an
adequate technique of mobile phone EMF measurement; physiological
evaluation of cardiovascular and nervous systems parameters in
volunteers before and after using a mobile phone. Experiments used
450, 900 and 1800 MHz with 0.5 and 2.0 mW/cm2 (rats, 1 hour per day
- 40 sessions exposure, and 2-weeks after exposure) to body weight
changes, CNS (on parameters of free behaviour and morphology of a
brain), cyto-genetic parameters, eye lens crystalline epithelium
(cataracts) and specific and non-specific effects on immunity.

Results have allowed us to establish a threshold of unfavourable
effect under EMF exposure, equal to 0.5 mW?cm2 power density. With
application of hygienic safety factor of 5 this gives 0.1 mW/cm2 PD
accepted as mobile phone EMF temporary permissible level. (for mobile
phone base stations) This value is recognized in new sanitary norms
and regulation 2.1.8/2.2.41190-03 "Hygenic requirements to siting
and maintenance mobile radio communication means", commissioned on
01/06/2003.

For an estimation of mobile phone EMF levels (handset exposures) as
the most adequate is accepted a method of their measurement on the
distances appropriate to far field zone with return recalibration in
sizes in a near zone. For maintenance of this principle of EMF level
control at sanitary and epidemiologic examination of cellular phones
the calculations establishing (installing) distances from the device
on which EMF controllable levels providing established Permissible
Levels in far field zone should not be exceeded were carried out. The
distances, appropriate to far field zone were determined, allowing
EMF levels adequately estimate in >300-2400 Mhz frequency range with
return recalibration in values in a near zone. Power density
controllable level to 100uW/cm2 Permissible Level, on these distances
has made 3.0 uW/cm2.

Use of this principle of EMF levels estimation created by mobile
phone near to user's head shows, that the overwhelming majority of
cellular phones delivered on the Russian market and made in
conformity with requirements of standard ENV 50166-2, do not satisfy
our country's hygienic requirements that causes complexities with
their sanitary-and epidemiologic examination on parameters of safety.
The unique way of the decision of this question represents the
further realization of modulated in accordance with cellular
communication standards EMF biological effects dependence researches.
with the purpose of an opportunity of a principle of protection by
time definition of realization for case of enough a powerful
modulated EMF source exposure near to a head of the person
(structures of the brain, eye).

The special attention is deserved with questions of categories of
persons of the increased risk safety: children, ill, pregnant women.
It also has found reflection in new sanitory norms and regulations
2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03. For these contingents the following actions are
recommended the greatest possible reduction of mobile phone using
time; restriction of an opportunity of mobile phone use by the
persons younger than 18 years, women during pregnancy, people having
different types of pacemakers.

************************


From: [Threshold of hazardous effects of EMF ], Research Institute of Hygene.
Use criteria to minimise EMF at levels that effect human disability.
Russian standards recognize "compensatory responses",

Standard limit--------ý Compensatory response---------ý Health effect.

Strongly advise against raising the limits to above the compensatory
response levels.

From: [ Russian Information project for population "Mobile
communications and Health ]
Dr. Eugenia Bichelday

Mobile communications electromagnetic safety a priority. 40 million
subscribers in Russia. Lack of data available - risk of unfavourable
effects - and lack of assurance of either risk or safety. Economic
and social benefits increases risks. The primary exposure overall is
at the head. "A precautionary policy may be insufficient without
fully rejecting the technology". Precautionary approach must include
community awareness - society should know the implications as an
involved partner. When communication fails between stake holders and
communities distrust arises over all technologies.

Aims (RNCNIRP):
* Awareness and joint involvement.
* Education necessary for all users and those involved.

Developing an education program (involving)
*Adequate societal perception of risk
* Conflict resolution
*Internet resources
*Books
*An information centre that will have the results of scientific
studies made freely available, various scientific measures [to reduce
exposures], and organisations such as RNCNIRP, IEEE, WHO , ICNIRP,
etc.

"There is a constitutional right of Russian population for factual
information to protect health from cellular technology".

Yuri Grigoriev: Mentioned that the Moscow city RF standard for Cell
sites is 3 uW/cm2. He listed three Russian web sites for information:
http://www.tesla.ru/ ( English version:
http://www.tesla.ru/english/index.html )
http://www.pole.com.ru/ (Russian only)
http://www.ecopole.ru (Russian only)

************************

From: [The Forecast of Ecological-Economic Development of Networks of
Mobile Communication at Introduction of the Tax for Influence of
Electromagnetic Radiation , Somov A et al , pp118-119

In this rather contentious presentation Somov proposes a possible way
to solve the problem of cellular technology emissions being in excess
of the Russian standard. For all transmitting facilities, even if
not exceeding the allowable limits, authorities would charge an
'ecological tax" for using a "national resource" (the electromagnetic
spectrum). If it was then found that any facility was exceeding the
allowable limits, charge them an excess fee for the breach of the
limits! (Perhaps 5 times the base rate). It was claimed that this
would encourage the operators to increase the amount of base stations
therefore reducing each facility's emission levels.

This presentation provoked a heated argument amongst the Russians
because, as one speaker interjected, it was allowing economic
considerations to take precedence over health. Two other comments
were:
" We see a very nasty presentation that has been made" and, "Its like
legalising law breakers".

Grigoriev's concluding remarks at the conference

* "Agreement amongst colleagues that the standards must be grounded
properly and we will do all we can in that direction."

* Grigoriev said that "for children and mobile phones the picture is
perfectly clear" - he then suggested drafting a memorandum concerning
children's use of mobile phones that called for restrictions on
children's use of mobile phones.


**************************


2) ICNIRP representative's viewpoints

WHO update on the EMF Project, Health Effects of Radiofrequency
Fields from Mobile Telecommunications and Recommendations to National
Authorities, Michael Repacholi, Pages 66- 69.
The EMF Project evaluates health impacts from 0 to 300 GHz. It includes:
* Creates and disseminates info on health impacts from EMF exposure,
* Includes standards harmonization on national standards to that of ICNIRP,
* Conducts scientific reviews,
* Studies risk perception - A handbook on risk soon available on web site,
* Psychosocial impacts of EMF exposure (Graz 1998),
* Child sensitivity to EMF (Prague 2004),
Mobile phone base station impacts ( Geneva),
* TNO study.

Harmonization

"One of the major initiatives of the EMF Project is to provide a
framework for standards that should lead to their harmonization world
wide. Many countries are considering new EMF standards and
globalization of trade and the rapid introduction of mobile
telecommunications worldwide have focused attention on the large
differences existing in national standards. Differences in the EMF
limit values between standards in some Eastern European and Western
countries are, in some cases, over 100 times. This has led to
increased public anxiety about EMF exposures from new technologies.
The objective of this activity is to work towards, and hopefully
achieve, international agreement on a framework for developing
guidelines on protection of the public and workers from exposure to
EMF. The framework is now complete and being edited prior to posting
on the EMF Project web site."

Repacholi mentioned that approx 12 Russian studies on RF exposure
that reported effects on the CNS, immunological effects serve as a
main basis for the Russian RF standard (and the Chinese one as well).
He stated that there is the need to evaluate these studies in light
of modern methods. He said that there was a necessity of doing good
research - design and quality criteria- peer reviewed and published.
If studies pass this criteria then they are of the quality to be
incorporated into a health risk assessment. . .

"WHO promotes research that is useful"

"Single studies cannot set policy" Mentions his Adelaide study as a
(+) study but then the Utteridge one as a (-) one. Suggesting that
one cancels out the other?

Repacholi mentioned the INTERPHONE study of 13 countries studying
head and neck cancers.

Note: A major lack of the INTERPHONE study is that the criteria for
inclusion starts at 30 years of age, so it has absolutely no
relevance to the issue of children and mobile phone use

WHO criteria for study evaluation

* In depth - weight of evidence is crucial
* Review - world wide review of research by WHO
* Detailed description of methods used
* Replication
* Assess both + and _ studies for quality.

Repacholi on base station emissions

* Under 1 uW/cm2 - usually lower than radio and TV emissions
* Difficult to distinguish individual sources of emissions
* Pregnant women not at risk because microwaves do not penetrate deeply.
* Children - more research needed on cell phone use.

ICNIRP is a useful partner with WHO - ICNIRP exposure standards
(guidelines) based on known health effects (including IEEE) .
Emission standards based on the need of the device ( such as
microwave ovens @ 5 cm = 5 mW/cm2.
Limits set should not be lower than the exposure standards. There
should be international agreement on emissions (harmonization).

"WHO recommends ICNIRP, which uses WHO methods."

The EMF project is developing a Precautionary Framework (Page 67). A
case study for ELF fields has been done and one is being developed
for RF fields - case studies in other areas of scientific uncertainty
will also be drafted.
When dealing with the public - minimise risk but there can never be zero risk.

Risk publications available on WHO web site.

Mentioned EMF effects on children - Stewart report and then the
Health Council of the Netherlands - COST - dosimetry on absorption -
Istanbul workshop.
" RF exposure from base stations involves aesthetics and public
sensibilities - need for "open communication" and "effective
communication".

"WHO is developing model legislation for base stations. . ."

Repacholi / WHO on RF health effects:

" Hazards of exposure to high levels of RF fields, which result in
tissue heating, are basically understood and form the basis for
current international standards (ICNIRP, 1998). Thermal hazards are
associated with acute exposures and are thought to be characterised
by threshold exposures, below which no health effects occur. There is
no confirmed evidence that exposure to RF fields has any long-term
health consequences."

**********************

Overview of mobile telephony and Health, Dr Bernard Veyret

Most people's concerns are about base stations not the phones
themselves - half the energy from a phone is absorbed by the head,
ICNIRP SARS = 2 W/kg/10 Gram averaged / 0.08 W/kg for whole body.
Typical base station is 1/10,000 the ICNIRP limit. Cell phones 1/10 the limit.
Veyret mentioned the various phone studies, such as Perform, A&B,
Reflex, Cemfec, Ramps, Guard, EMF-NET, Interphone.

* Veyret supports heating effects only but other effects investigated.
* Exposure systems are now adequate.
* Western research shows no overall evidence of genotoxicity from RF exposure.
* All observed effects are due to thermal increases.
* SAR effects only seen above 4 W/kg.
* With human studies there are no conclusive evidence of effects.
* Supports WHO / ICNIRP.
* No impact on health below ICNIRP guidelines.

" The weight of scientific evidence does not support health concerns
or indicate any health risks from mobile phones in normal use".

However there is yet "no answer to the children's issue on phones".

Studies in the RF Data Base Relevant to the Use of Mobile Phones by
Children. Swicord M, Elder J, page 88 -89

After the authors list a number of animal studies that it was claimed
found no evidence of ill health effects they conclude that "The RF
literature does not provide support for the developing animal, as a
surrogate for the developing human, being more sensitive than adults
to RF exposure. This conclusion is in agreement with the 2004 report
from the health Council of the Netherlands stating that there is "Šno
reason for recommending limiting the use of mobile phones by
children" and advice from the O.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
stating that "The scientific evidence does not show a danger to users
of wireless phones, including children and teenagers".

AND:

A Review of the Western In Vivo and Epidemiological Literature
Related To Immunological Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure, Swicord
M, Morrissey J, Elder J, Chou C, Page 120

Extensive evaluation of the published radiofrequency biological
effects literature is necessary to determine the health risk and
levels of safe exposure. Standard setting organizations must begin
such a health risk assessment by considering all possible adverse
health outcomes before providing guidance to the public. This paper
considers only one endpoint, immunological effects, due to health
questions raised in Russia. This report concentrates on the 70 or
more in vivo and epidemiological studies in the Western literature
addressing immune effects. In vitro studies are not reviewed because
adverse health outcomes cannot be established through in vitro
studies although in vitro studies can serve to generate hypotheses
for further analysis.

A number of the studies report no change in immune response to RF
exposure or report effects only at thermal levels. A few studies in
the Western literature, however, do report changes at exposure levels
that would not cause temperature elevation; however, the results of
the studies reporting effects at low-level exposures are generally
inconsistent with each other as well as with the larger body of
evidence reporting no effects at similar RF exposure levels."

***********************

Health Implications of TETRA, Challis L pages 86-88.

". . . The view of the Uk's Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing radiation
(AGNIR) that was published in 2003 is broadly in line with the views
of many other groups. It believes that the weight of evidence does
not suggest there are adverse health effects from RF exposures below
ICNIRP guidelines. However, since mobile phones have only been in
widespread use for a relatively short time, the possibility remains
open that there could be such effects. So for TETRA we need to ask
whether there is any reason why exposure from TETRA signals should be
more likely to produce adverse health effects than those from GSM
signals at 900 or 1800 MHz or those from analogue radios previously
in use. . . The emission from TETRA phones (though not base stations)
is pulsed at 17.6 Hz. . .There is no reason to suppose that
pulsing-switching the RF on and off-should lead to additional
biological effects unless it can be demodulated to produce electric
fields at 17.6 Hz greater than around 2 mVm2 (ICNIRP guidelines) . .
. A review of TETRA by the UK's AGNIR Group (2001) concluded that "it
is unlikely that the special features from the signals from TETRA
mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health, Furthermore
research is desirable however to establish this more firmly. . ."

* Challis said that he accepts Bernard Veyrets conclusions.
* He is of the Calcium Efflux studies (Adey, Blackmore 1979, 1992,
Kettel 1996) that would indicate that the 17.6 Hz pulsing may be
hazardous.
* He thought that demodulation in biological tissue was unlikely .
* Health complaints are psychosomatic illness only - worrying can
make you sick.

Challis later mentioned that he supports ICNIRP because "we need to
depend upon good science". He blamed both the UK government and
industry for not getting the proper information out to the public.

***********************

>From the Round Table Discussion "Mobile phones and children"

Michael Repacholi: Children identified as stage 1 for health
protection. - Identified when the evidence for health risks is judged
suggestive, but insufficient to meet the criteria for assessing
health risks. - established on the basis of unconfirmed effects
having applications for health - and replication of studies essential.

Why children?

* Children are generally more sensitive to many environmental agents.
* EMF magnetic fields classified as a 2B possible carcinogen, based
on childhood leukaemia studies - weal evidence according to Repacholi.
* IEGMP - Repacholi mentions the precautionary recommendations on
children's extra sensitivity in that report but then goes on to state
the:
* US FDA advice on children and mobile phones (no effects at all )
* Health Council of the Netherlands (no effects at all)

Repacholi mentioned that it was unethical to test for EMF effects on children.

Repacholi said that the WHO has not recommended any precautionary
advice to children and cell phone use. Current studies not suggestive
of any special sensitivity of children from exposure to EMF.

Repacholi claims that the current evidence isnot sufficient for
conclusions to be made.

Repacholi on the WHO
* Precautionary measures being looked at.
* Research agenda being developed.
* Workshop reports almost complete.

Shortly later Repacholi stated that " children in-utero receives more
microwave radiation from the mother than all artificial sources of
EMF".
*Repacholi said that they (the WHO) don't have the science to make
recommendations based on science, not fantasy. (in regards to
children & mobile phone use)

**********************

International Standards for Children, Paulo Vecchia, ICNIRP.

ICNIRP uses a two level protection system, basic restrictions and
reference levels.

" Only solid science taken into consideration in setting guidelines".
. . "quality of study and consideration of results".

ICNIRP process and children? (questions)

* Are there any health effects or biological effects relevant for
health (RF exposure) that is specific for children?
* If so, do they occur at lower levels than for adults?
* Is the threshold for any given effect lower for children than adults?
* Is dosemetry for children different from adults?

My comment: These questions were conveniently answered by Motorola
in the negative.

Vecchia then claimed that children are taken into account by ICNIRP
but in regards to children and mobile phone use it is not the
responsibility of ICNIRP.

"Therefore there is no need or justification for a special approach
to children".

***********************
Second Day

Futire developments in ICNIRP , Paulo Vecchia

"ICNIRP only considers acute effects in its precautionary principle
approach. Consideration of long term effects not possible".

Then Vecchia made the astonishing statement:

"Precautionary actions to address public concerns may increase rather
than mitigate worries and fears of the public. This constitutes a
health detriment and should be prevented as other adverse effects of
EMF"

My comment: I suppose from this we could conclude that ICNIRP
considers precautionary actions as a thermal effect!

Vecchia's conclusion: "There are no reasons on present evidence to
revise existing guidelines".

**************************

Later that day Repacholi called on Russia to publish their research
that the Russian RF standards are based on so that the WHO and ICNIRP
could do an assessment on the data. He said that it was important to
have their standards based on "good science".

In reply Yuri Grigoriev stated that Russia will soon start publishing
its data in English.

Repacholi pointed out what is the use of the Russian standards if the
millions of phones sold in Russia met the ICNIRP guidelines but not
the Russian ones? And later he asked: "How can you tell the public
to give up their phones because they are in excess of the standards?"

**************************

Repacholi's concluding remarks at the conference

* The conference seen as a sharing of information between East / West
scientists.
* WHO wants to make sure people are properly protected from all forms
of radiation.
* WHO wants all information Russia has for their rationale their
standards - we want to know all information through the WHO.
* WHO will help translate key studies.
* Countries at this point are getting their national authorities to
review their standards.
* Russian authorities urged in a full way to also review their
standards as it is important to maintain "scientific credibility". .
. "Science must be the basis for developing health based standards".
* Russian colleagues must recognize we live in a global community -
"we" (WHO, ICNIRP) can "help your national authorities".

3) Joint Russian - French Study

The basis for both the Russian and Chinese RF standards are largely
based on 9 (or possibly 12) RF studies (1975 to 1986) that examined
semi-chronic, low intensity RF effects on the immune system. It is
claimed by the Russians that the results of these studies found a
statistical significance for an unfavourable process in the immune
system of rats exposure at pulsed microwaves at levels 50 to 500
uW/cm2. Effects were seen on brain tissues, blood serum, and effects
on the foetus. Exposure times were 30 days, with some at 15 days.

It is claimed that long term exposure can cause adverse health
effects in the population at levels 50 - 500+ uW/cm2. Heating effects
do not play a role, which is in direct contradiction to both WHO and
ICNIRP's thermal-effects-only doctrine and is the fundamental
stumbling block in the ongoing series of conferences between Russia
and ICNIRO / WHO, etc.

In this latest conference discussions centred around a planned joint
Russian - French study to confirm (or not) the Russian RF studies
that their standard is largely based upon. The French effort will be
under the guidance of Bernard Veyret, The main topics which he has
addressed recently concern the effects of pulsed low-power microwaves
on the immune system of mice; the effects of strong pulsed magnetic
fields on the proliferation of tumour cells in culture; and on the
growth of tumours in vivo. He is currently investigating the effects
of mobile telephones on biological systems. He has been an ICNIRP
member since May 2000.

The Project will be animal studies using chronic low intensity
microwaves at 2450 MHz. Repacholi expressed the importance of
confirming the Russian studies "WE want to know if this effect
exists". Repacholi said that RF immune system studies in the US and
Europe are uniformly negative. The WHO is not interested in exact
replication but use the best available dosimetry to determine if
immune responses to RF from mobile phone use are real.

Veyeret favours a confirmation study because they consider a
confirmation as more realistic as the Russian exposure systems used
in the time frame of 1975 to 1986 are now antiquated with far more
accurate systems now used in the West. Yuri Grigoriev favours an
exact replication.

Objectives of study

1) Evaluation of 30 day low-level 2450 Mhz microwave exposure at 0.6
W/kg. On rats, using immunological parameters.

2) A determination of mechanisms.

Exposure

Phase 1= Dose assessment on mode of exposure.

Phase 2= Design of a new exposure system or use available whole-body
exposure systems.

Phase 3= Exposure of animals - protocol to be established.


Biology

1) Russian studies - Assay level od antibodies against various
antigens. Opening of the BBB? Inflammation of the microglia?

2) Infiltrating lymphocytes, Lymphocyte sub populations, use ELISA
Assays (1/2) and (2/2).

3) Schedule funding: Scheduled to start in 2005 and run for two
years. Funding from: National Institutions, Industry, USAF in Europe,
Swiss Research Foundation on Mobile Communication.

Personnel for study

Michael Geffard, Isabelle Lagroye, (slide then removed) through
Barnard Veyret's PION labs in France.

External advice to the Project by the WHO, Brookes AFB, Rosa Sypniewski (?)

Yuri Grigoriev mentioned that CW not pulsed microwaves will be used
for the study. CW at 2450 MHZ. However with sufficient funding pulsed
microwaves could be used as well.

END OF CONFERENCE

Section II
Recommendations: An oversight committee is needed
October 10, 2004

Russian Roulette

Consider the two possible outcomes, and implications for the
Russian-French study.

1) The study fails to confirm the Russian studies, ie. no effects are
found on immune system function from RF exposures:

It would then be argued by WHO and ICNIRP that this invalidates the
main basis for both the Russian and Chinese RF standards and
therefore if they wanted to maintain any scientific credibility they
should accept ICNIRP and the thermal effects only paradigm. A likely
victory for ICNIRP's global harmonization.

A fantastic outcome for ICNIRP

2) The study does find an adverse effect on the immune system that
re-confirms the Russian studies:

This would give a great boost to the Russian non-thermal viewpoint,
and give worldwide credibility to their standards. At the same time
it would be a serious blow to ICNIRP and its long-standing acute
effects only mantra, and its global push for harmonization. It would
also bring the credibility of all those Western thermal-effects-only
scientists into question and the entire basis for many national RF
exposure standards that follow ICNIRP, IEEE, etc. Additionally any
assurances of safety from telecommunications would be out the window
and provide a great boost for community activists campaigning over
health grounds.

Of course ICNIRP could then state that one study cannot set policy
and that this finding now has to be replicated - giving some years
time to do damage control. Even so, the process of harmonization
would be dead in the water for some time to come.

For ICNIRP this would be a disastrous outcome.

Therefore, it is my opinion that ICNIRP has too much at stake to be
impartial in this study, while at the same time it will be deeply
involved in designing the criteria and conduct of the study.

What is urgently needed is an "oversight committee" a small group of
independent radiation experts not tied to WHO, ICNIRP, the
telecommunications industry, or the RNCNIRP, and having the expertise
to ensure that all is above board so that the results of the study
cannot be questioned. They would not take part in the study but act
as external monitors, similar to what we see the UN do in some
country's national elections.

Members of this committee should only be included if they meet with
the approval of both the Russian and French teams. This process
should take place in the public arena.

The Russian scientific community should insist upon such an oversight
committee for their scientific credibility may ultimately depend upon
it. (October 10,2004)

Section III

Does WHO/ICNIRP get the final say?
December 10, 2004

On December 10th 2004 I received the final conference statement (see
Section IV) from the conference committee.

When I left the Russian Cell phone conference on the final day, Yuri
Grigoriev, the Russian conference chairman as well as chairman of the
RNCNIRP, stated the firm view that the conference committee
organizers would draft a final conference statement that specifically
addressed the Russian concerns on hazards to children from their
mobile phone use. This concern was expressed at the conference by
representatives from three out of the four conference organizers.
These were:

1) The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (RNCNIRP).

2) The Russian Academy of Science.

3) The Russian Academy of Medical Science.

(Note: The fourth organizer, who did not share the other's concerns
was the WHO, represented by Michael Repacholi )

Yuri Grigoriev , was very insistent on the importance of getting out
a firm statement on children and mobile phone use. When I last
corresponded in October with Eugenia Bichelday, the conference
secretary, she said that a statement on children had been written and
she would send me a copy but it was in Russian only. She has since
left for other employment and did not send the Russian statement that
she referred to. That statement now seems to have ceased to exist and
has been replaced by a statement that reads more like being written
by the publicity department from the WHO or ICNIRP

The final conference "statement" departs substantially from what
actually transpired at the conference. It DOES NOT represent the vast
difference of scientific viewpoint between "East " and "West" in
regards to RF standard setting that was clearly expressed at the
conference.

The final statement only represents the viewpoint expressed at the
conference by the WHO's Michael Repacholi and ICNIRP's Paulo Vecchia,
NOT what was stated by speakers from RNCNIRP, RAS and the RAMS.

* Specifically, Even though much of the conference was about Russian
concerns over children's use of mobile phones, absolutely nothing is
mentioned about this in the final statement. Yuri Grigoriev's
statement on the children's issue with mobile phone use was entirely
left out.

… The overall structure and wording of the final statement is very
similar to statements previously put out by WHO / ICNIRP writers.

… The Russian scientists at the conference DID NOT AGREE that the so
called ICNIRP "international guidelines" ensure adequate protection
against all established health effects - in fact their view was just
the opposite - that ICNIRP did NOT provide adequate health
protection.

… The final statement boldly says: "Independent and scientifically
qualified institutions should be identified and made legally
responsible for providing unbiased information". If the major
omissions and un-truths in the final statement are examples of
"unbiased information" then who can be trusted to give "unbiased"
information? All viewpoints presented at the conference that
departed from WHO / ICNIRP paradigm have been edited out of the final
statement.

What is concerning about this "statement" is that it will now be used
by WHO and ICNIRP to give the impression that the Russians are
coming on side with ICNIRP's EMF guidelines.

This is not science but spin doctoring at its worst. If anything the
final conference statement is an example of George Orwell's
"Newspeak", a technique that unfortunately seems to have become the
norm in Western RF standard setting.

What now needs to be answered is exactly WHO wrote the statement and
whether the Russian scientific community is really in agreement with
it.


Section IV

The final conference "Statement"
Received December 10, 2004

Mobile Communication & Health: medical, biological & social problems
Moscow, Russia
20-22 September 2004
Electromagnetic safety of mobile communication base stations

The conference "Mobile Communication and Health: medical, biological,
and social problems" was held in Moscow on September 20-22, 2004. It
was jointly organized by the Russian National Committee on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection within the World Health
Organization's (WHO) International EMF Project. Representatives of
WHO, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP), and scientists from 14 different countries
discussed the topic of "Electromagnetic safety of base stations of
mobile communication."
The development of mobile communications, and the consequent need for
global coverage networks has led to the installation of large numbers
of mobile communication base stations. As a result there has been a
need to fully characterize exposure levels around base stations, to
check compliance with national and international exposure standards,
and to assess possible health risks of public exposure.
These issues were debated within the conference and experience on the
handling of base stations in some of the participating countries was
also discussed.

After comprehensive discussion, the following conclusions were agreed
by the participants:
… The level of safety of electromagnetic sources, including base
stations for mobile communication, should be evaluated with reference
to accepted, science-based standards;
… From a comprehensive review of the large body of scientific
literature, a consensus exists that international guidelines
[ICNIRP], as well as Russian national regulations, ensure adequate
protection against all established health effects of radiofrequency
fields according to current knowledge level;
… However, large discrepancies exist between Russian and
international standards - in particular in the frequency region of
interest for mobile communication - that justify actions towards
harmonization;
… To this purpose, participation of Russian scientists in the actions
for world-wide harmonization of standards promoted by WHO's
International EMF Project, is highly recommended;
… In view of the continuous development of telecommunications - and
of mobile telephony in particular - it is recommended that further
research be promoted and international collaboration and information
exchange be encouraged;
… In setting research needs and priorities, reference should be made
to WHO's research agenda; active contribution of Russian scientists
to the periodical update of such agenda is sought;
… Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields radiated from base
stations are well below limits recommended by international and
national standards; this has been supported by the results of surveys
conducted in various countries, and presented at the Conference;
… Noting the public sensitivity towards base stations, it is
recommended that mobile communication operators, as well as national
agencies, consider the possibility of precautionary actions; the
Precautionary Framework suggested by WHO provides useful guidance for
such actions;
… It is imperative that open and transparent communications occur
between all parties involved and easy access of the public to the
relevant information be provided;
… Independent and scientifically qualified institutions should be
identified and made legally responsible for providing unbiased
information, checking compliance with the standards, and providing
advice in cases of controversy.
The above recommendations should be brought to the attention of all
parties interested in the development of mobile communication,
including international organisations, national authorities,
manufacturers and operators, and the public.