H e A lt H e f f e C t s o f e l e C t R o M A g N e t i C f i e l D s
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Contents
1. Introduction 7
2. WhatareElectromagneticFields? 8
3. FrequentlyAskedQuestions 93.1. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromliving
nearbasestationsorusingmobilephones? 9
3.2. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances? 12
3.3. Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed? 14
3.4. Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather? 15
3.5 Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoelectromagneticfields? 18
3.6 WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects? 19
3.7 TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure? 20
3.8 ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure? 21
3.9 HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure? 23
4. ScienceReview 254.1. RadiofrequencyFields 25
4.2. PowerLine&ExtremelyLowFrequencyFields 28
4.3 StaticFields 31
4.4 NewWirelessTechnologiesandHealth 32
4.5 ElectromagneticHypersensitivity 35
4.6 ChildrenandEMF 37
4.7 RiskCommunication 39
4.8 Ultravioletlight 42
4.9 Lasers 43
5. References 45
6. Annexes 496.1. Annex1:ExpertGroupMembership 49
6.2. Annex2:BaseStationsandWirelessTechnologies 51
6.3 Annex3:ElectromagneticHypersensitivity 53
6.4 Annex4:GuidelinesfromtheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareConcerningtheTreatmentofPatientswhoAttributetheirDiscomforttoAmalgamandElectricity 55
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Thisreportwascompiledbyagroupofexpertsonelectromagneticfields(EMF).TheExpertGroupwasestablishedandfundedbytheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResourceswiththefollowingtermsofreference:
1) TheExpertGroupwillfocusonissuesofpublicexposure,ratherthanexaminingoccupationalexposure.
2) ThereportproducedbytheExpertGroupwillbeaimedattheGovernmentandthepublic,ratherthanthescientificcommunity.
3) TheExpertGroupwillconsultwithIndustry,recognisednationalandinternationalexpertsandthewidercommunityinordertocompleteitsreport.
4) Infuture,theExpertGroupmayberequestedtotakepartinsomeongoingmonitoring;inordertoupdatetheIrishGovernment’spositioninlightofnewscientificpublicationsorreports.
MembersoftheExpertGroupwere:DrMichaelRepacholi(Chair),formerCoordinator,RadiationandEnvironmentalHealthUnit,WorldHealthOrganisation;
DrEricvanRongen,ScientificSecretary,HealthCounciloftheNetherlands;
DrAnthonyStaines,SeniorLecturer,UniversityCollegeDublin;
DrTomMcManus,formerChiefTechnicalAdvisertotheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources;
DetailsofthemembershipoftheExpertGroupcanbefoundinAnnex1.
Thisreportprovidesscience-basedinformationonnon-ionisingradiationwithparticularreferencetoEMF,andincludesresponsestofrequentlyaskedquestionsaswellasabriefreviewofthescientificliteraturethatsupportstheconclusionsandrecommendations.RecommendationstoGovernmentonhowbesttodealwiththeEMFandplanningissuesarealsoincluded.
Responsestothefollowingfrequentlyaskedquestionsaregiveninthisreport:
1. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearbasestationsorusingmobilephones?
2. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances?
3. Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed?
4. Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather?
5. Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoelectromagneticfields?
6. WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects?
7. TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure?
8. ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure?
9. HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure?
Thesciencereviewchapterincludesasummaryofthebiologicalandhealthconsequencesofexposureto:
1. Radiofrequency(RF)fieldsproducedmainlybyradio,televisionandtelecommunicationssystems;
2. Extremelylowfrequency(ELF)electricandmagneticfieldsfromanydeviceusingelectricity;and
3. StaticfieldsgeneratedmainlybymagneticresonanceimagingusedinmedicineandtransportationsystemsthatoperatefromDCpowersupplies.
ConclusionsTheconclusionsoftheExpertGroupareconsistentwiththoseofsimilarreviewsconductedbyauthoritativenationalandinternationalagencies.
Radiofrequency FieldsTrafficaccidents:Theonlyestablishedadversehealtheffectassociatedwithmobilephoneuse,(bothhand-heldandhands-free)isanincreaseintrafficaccidentswhentheyareusedwhiledriving.
RFfieldsactonthehumanbodybyheatingtissue.HealtheffectsfromRFarelimitedbyinternationalguidelinesonexposurelimits.RFfieldsnormallyfoundinourenvironmentdonotproduceanysignificantheating.Whilenon-thermalmechanismsofactionhavebeenobserved,nonehavebeenfoundtohaveanyhealthconsequence.
ExecutiveSummary
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Sofarnoadverseshortorlong-termhealtheffectshavebeenfoundfromexposuretotheRFsignalsproducedbymobilephonesandbasestationtransmitters.RFsignalshavenotbeenfoundtocausecancer.Howeverresearchisunderwaytoinvestigatewhethertherearelikelytobeanysubtle,non-cancereffectsonchildrenandadolescents.Theresultsofthisresearchwillneedtobeconsideredinduecourse.
Sitingofmasts:WhensitingmaststhemaximumRFintensityalwaysoccursatsomedistancefromtheantennas.Whiletherehavebeensuggestionstolocatephonemastsawayfromplaceswherechildrengather,orawayfromhospitals,itshouldbeunderstoodthatformobilephonenetworkstooperateefficiently,aminimumlevelofsignalstrengthisneeded.Thisappliesirrespectiveofthelocationofthephonemast.Ifphonemastsarelocatedinsuboptimalpositions,thisresultsinhigherRFsignalsfromboththemastandmobilephonestocompensateforthis.ThenetresultcanbethatpeoplearesubjectedtohigherRFexposuresintheseareas,althoughthelevelsarestillsafe.ArecentfactsheetissuedbyWHOindicatesthattheRFsignalsfrombasestationsandwirelesstechnologiesaremuchtoolowtoaffecthealth(Annex2).
Mobilephoneusebychildren:Therearenodataavailabletosuggestthattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisahealthhazard.However,inSwedenandtheUK,theauthoritiesrecommendaprecautionaryapproachtoeitherminimiseuse(essentialcallsonly)orminimiseexposure(byusingahands-freekit).IntheNetherlandstheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisnotconsideredaproblem.Noresearchhasfoundanyadversehealtheffectsfromchildrenusingmobilephones,butmoreresearchonthisissuehasbeenrecommendedbyWHO.
Extremely low frequency (ELF) fieldsELFfieldsinduceelectricfieldsandcurrentsintissuesthatcanresultininvoluntarynerveandmusclestimulation,butonlyatveryhighfieldstrengths.Theseacuteeffectsformthebasisofinternationalguidelinesthatlimitexposure.However,fieldsfoundinourenvironmentaresolowthatnoacuteeffectsresultfromthem,exceptforsmallelectricshocksthatcanoccurfromtouchinglargeconductiveobjectschargedbythesefields.Noadversehealtheffectshavebeenestablishedbelowthelimitssuggestedbyinternationalguidelines.
Cancer:ThereislimitedscientificevidenceofanassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldsandchildhoodleukaemia.ThisdoesnotmeanthatELFmagneticfieldscausecancer,butthepossibilitycannotbeexcluded.Howeverconsiderableresearchcarriedoutinlaboratorieshasnotsupportedthispossibility,andoveralltheevidenceisconsideredweak,suggestingitisunlikelythatELFmagneticfieldscauseleukaemiainchildren.Neverthelesstheevidenceshouldnotbediscountedandsonoorlowcostprecautionarymeasurestolowerpeople’sexposuretothesefieldshavebeensuggested.
Sitingofpowerlines:Asaprecautionarymeasurefuturepowerlinesandpowerinstallationsshouldbesitedawayfromheavilypopulatedareastokeepexposurestopeoplelow.Theevidencefor50Hzmagneticfieldscausingchildhoodleukaemia
istooweaktorequirere-routingofexistinglines,andsothesemeasuresshouldonlyapplytonewlines.AnexampleofhowtheNetherlandshasdealtwiththisisavailableat:
www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=/docs/20051004_letter_to_municipalities.pdf
www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=/docs/20051004_elaboration.pdf
www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=/docs/20051004_guideline.pdf
Static fieldsNeitherstaticmagneticnorstaticelectricfields,atthelevelsmembersofthepublicarenormallyexposedtointheenvironment,areashort-termoralong-termhealthhazard.However,micro-shockscausedbythedischargeofelectrostaticfieldscancauseaccidentsifthepersonaffectedfallsordropssomethingbeingcarried.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)EHSisacollectionofsubjectivesymptoms,suchasheadaches,sleeplessness,depression,skinandeyecomplaints,thatsufferersattributetoEMFexposure.SymptomssufferedbyEHSindividualsarerealandcanbedebilitatingandrequireappropriatetreatment.ResearchhasnotestablishedanylinkbetweenEMFexposureandtheoccurrenceofEHSsymptoms.ArecentWHOfactsheetonthisprovidesmoredetailsandacopyisinAnnex3.
Are children and the elderly more sensitive to EMF?Currentlythereisnoscientificevidencethatchildren,diseasedadultsortheelderlyareanymoresensitivetoEMFexposurethanhealthyadults.However,theICNIRPinternationalguidelineshaveincludedanadditionalsafetyfactorof5intotheirexposurelimitstotakeaccountofthispossibility.AtarecentWHOworkshopconvenedtodeterminewhetherchildrenweremoresensitivethanadults,itwasconcludedthattheydonotappeartobemoresensitivethanadultsafterabout2yearsofage,andthatthecurrentICNIRPguidelinesseemtoprovidedsufficientprotectionforchildrenfromEMFexposure.
Risk perceptionManyfactorscaninfluenceaperson’sperceptionofariskandtheirdecisiontotakeorrejectthatrisk.However,oneveryimportantfactoriswhetherexposuretotheriskisvoluntaryorinvoluntary.AWHOreportpublishedin2002givesmoredetailsonhowpeopleperceiverisks,howtocommunicatebetteronEMFissuesandwaystomanagetheseissues.
Recommendations
International GuidelinesThereshouldbestrictcompliancewithICNIRPguidelines:TheICNIRPguidelinesonexposurelimitshavebeenrecommendedbytheEuropeanCommissiontoitsMemberStates,andtheyprovidescience-basedexposurelimitsthatareapplicabletobothpublicandoccupationalexposurefromRFandELFfields.Theyalsoprovidesoundguidanceonlimiting
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
exposurefrommobilephonesandmasts,aswellasforpowerlinefields.TheICNIRPguidelinesprovidesadequateprotectionforthepublicfromanyEMFsources.Whiletheguidelineswerepublishedin1998,theyareconstantlyunderreviewandstillhaveappropriatelyprotectivelimits.Theguidelinesarebasedonaweightofevidencereviewfromallpeer-reviewedscientificliteratureandnotontheconclusionsofanysinglescientificpaper.
GovernmentThereshouldbeanewfocusforGovernmenttoaddressEMFissues:CurrentlytheGovernmenthasdividedresponsibilityforEMFamonganumberofagencies.ThishasleadtoalackoffocusandcoordinationonEMFissues.InadditionthereappearstobeaconflictofinterestsincetheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResourceshasresponsibilityforbothpromotionanddevelopmentofmobilecommunications,aswellasprovisionofhealthadvice.ThefollowingrecommendationsaredirectedattheCentralGovernment:
Centralgovernment,itspolicymakersandregulators,shouldtakeamoreproactiveroleinprovidinghealthadviceinrelationtoEMFandmanagingthisissuethroughasingleagency.Thisagencyshouldbeestablishedandproperlyresourcedwithamandatetocoverbothionisingandnon-ionisingradiations.Thenon-ionisingradiationsshouldincludeelectromagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrange0-300GHz,infra-red,visiblelight,ultraviolet,lasersandultrasound.
Ideallythisagencyshould:
1. Haveamandatetocoverallradiationsandfieldsintheelectromagneticspectrumandultrasound
2. Provideadvicetolocalandcentralgovernment,andotherpublicbodies,onallappropriateradiationissues.Thisincludesadviceonregulationsandstandardsforthesafeuseofionisingandnon-ionisingradiations
3. Provideinformationtothegeneralpublicandthemediaonhealthandsafetyaspectsofradiation
4. Monitorradiationexposurestothepublic
5. Conductormanageresearchonradiationhealthandsafetyissues
Therationaleforhavingasingleagencyresponsibleforallradiationhealthandsafetyissuesisasfollows:
nTheskillsrequiredaresimilarforaddressingallradiationsandfieldsintheelectromagneticspectrum.
nWhileitwouldbepossibletoestablishseveralagenciestodealwiththeradiationhealthandsafetyissues,thecostsofthiswouldbesubstantial.Asingleagencywouldprovidevalueformoney.
nThisagencycanactasa‘onestopshop’forthepublic.
nInmanydevelopedcountriesnationalauthoritieshaveestablishedasingleagencytoprovidethisservice(e.g.someNordiccountries,Australia,NewZealand,Singapore,Malaysia,Germany)
nTherearemanyhealthconcernswithvariousradiationsthatarenotcurrentlybeingadequatelyaddressedbygovernment.NogovernmentagencyisresponsibleforthecontrolofUVexposure;forexamplefromsunbedsorlasersusedbythepublicorinindustryandmedicine.NogovernmentagencyhasaregulatoryroleforpublicexposuretostaticmagneticfieldsorELFfields.
nSimilarregulatoryissuesandpublicconcernsariseforbothionisingandnon-ionisingradiations.
nThisagencywouldeliminatethecurrentconflictofinterestwithintheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources.
Whilethisagencyshouldhaveemployeeswiththeknowledgeandexperiencetomanageradiationissues,itshouldalsoinclude:
nAScientificAdvisoryCommittee.Thisindependentscientificcommitteeshouldbeappointedtoreview,fromtheIrishperspective,thepublishedscientificdata.Itshouldbeservicedbytheagency,drawingonskillsintheCivilService,HSE,Irishuniversities,andinternationalbodies,andbemodelledontheUKAdhocGrouponNonIonisingRadiation(AGNIR)
nAnEMFSafetyUsersGroup.ConsultationwithstakeholdersonEMFissuesisanimportantpartoftheprocesstowardsequitablesolutionsWeproposethattheagencyandtheIrishScientificAdvisoryCommitteeshouldorganiseregularmeetingsandconsultationswithstakeholdersontopicalissues.ThiswouldbeespeciallyimportantwhenmajornewEMForotherradiationemittingfacilitiesweretobeestablished,suchasmajorpowerlinecorridors.
nAPolicyCoordinationCommitteeonHealthEffectsofEMF.OnthisCommitteethereshouldberepresentativesfromrelevantgovernmentdepartmentsandstateagencieshavingresponsibilityforEMFrelatedissuesandshouldbeoverseenbytherelevantGovernmentauthority.
Mobile telephonyToensurethatreadersunderstandwhatisbeingdiscussed,itisimportanttodefinethetermsusedinthisreport.AntennasaretheRFradiatingelements,mastsarethestructuressupportingtheantennas,andthebasestationsincludealltheantennasandtheirsupportstructuresaswellasthecommunicationelectronicsandtheirhousingstructure.
Sitingofmasts.Thisissuehasbeenoneofthemainreasonswhytherehasbeensomuchconcernexpressedaboutbasestations.InputsprovidedtotheExpertGroup,throughthepublicsubmissionsprocess,suggestthatthe
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
planningguidelinesforsitingbasestationsareseenaslackingtransparencyandlackinganyinputfromstakeholders(especiallythepublic),andthatinsufficientinformationisprovidedtolocalauthoritiestomakeinformeddecisionsforapprovalofnewbasestations.ThishasleadtoaperceptionofhealthrisksfromtheRFsignalsemittedfromtheantennasthatisoutofproportionwiththescientificevidence.
WhilethescientificevidencedoesnotindicateanyhealtheffectsfromexposuretotheRFfieldsemittedbybasestations,therehasbeenahighleveloffrustrationandanxietyaboutthelackoftransparencyintheapprovalprocessfornewbasestations.Partoftheproblemseemstobewiththeexemptionprocessthatappliestotheconstructionofreplacementmastsandtheplacementofantennasandbasestationsonexistingbuildings.Inadditionmanylocalauthoritieshaveadoptedtheirownplanningguidelinesfortheapprovalofnewbasestations,withdifferentrequirementsontheirlocation.
Itisstronglyrecommendedthatnationalguidelinesbeagreedontheplanningandapprovalprocessfornewantennasonexistingmastsandfuturebasestationsthroughapublicconsultativeprocess.OnceagreementhasbeenreacheditshouldbeimplementeduniformlythroughoutIreland.ExamplesofNationalAgreementsinUKandtheNetherlandsareavailableat:
www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144926
and
www.antennebureau.nl/index.php?id=185
respectively.
Resultsofemissionmonitoringonwebsite.Theresultsofmeasurementsmadenearover400antennasarepublishedontheComregwebsite(www.askcomreg.ie),andwerecommendthattheybemadeavailableinamoreuser-friendlyform,tofacilitatecomparisonwithsimilarmeasurementsmadeinothercountries,andcomparisonbetweensites.ThesedatashouldbelinkedwiththeindexofmastsitesmaintainedbyComReg.Iftherecommendedsingleagencytakesresponsibilityformonitoringpublicexposurestheyshouldmaintainthisdatabaseandwebsite.
Mobile phonesSARnotificationonmobilephonesisavoluntaryrequirement.AfullexplanationofSARisgivenintheresponsetoquestion1.Howevermanufacturershaveacceptedthatthepublicneedsthisinformationandmakesitavailableatthepointofsaleofmobilephones.ThesedataarealsoavailableontheMobileManufacturers’Forumwebsiteathttp://www.mmfai.org.AllphonessuppliedintheEuropeanUnionhaveaCEmark,whichindicates,amongotherthings,thattheycomplywiththeICNIRPguidelines.
Certification.ThisisinplacethroughtheNationalStandardsAuthorityandtheircertificationprocessthatcomplieswiththeEUregulationsinthisarea.
Power linesSitingofpowerlines:Wherepossiblenewpowerlinesshouldbesitedawayfromheavilypopulatedareassoastominimise50Hzfieldexposure.Wheremajornewpowerlinesaretobeconstructed,thereshouldbestakeholderinputontherouting.Thiscouldtaketheformofopenpublichearingsormeetingswithinterestedparties.TheinvolvementoftheEMFSafetyUsersGroupmentionedabovewouldbeappropriateforthisprocess.
GeneralIssuesUseprecautionarymeasures.Precautionarymeasuresarerecommended.WHOisdraftingaframeworkfordevelopingprecautionarymeasuresthatcouldbeappropriateforIreland.ItisimportanttonotethatloweringthelimitsininternationalguidelinesasaprecautionarymeasureisnotrecommendedbyWHO.
TreatmentofEHSindividuals.WhilesymptomssufferedbyEHSindividualsarenotdirectlyrelatedtoEMFexposure,treatmentshavebeendevelopedinanumberofcountries.AnexampleisgiveninAnnex4(Swedishtreatmentregime).ItisrecommendedthatGPsinIrelandbeprovidedinformationabouttheappropriatetreatmentforEHSsymptomsandbeinformedthatthesymptomsarenotduetoEMFexposure.
EMF research in IrelandTheGrouprecommendsthatsufficientfundsbemadeavailableinIrelandforscientificresearchonthehealtheffectsofexposuretoEMF.ArequirementforthisshouldbethattheresearchisperformedwithexpertiseavailableinIreland–theprincipalinvestigatorsshouldbeIrishscientists–butinternationalcollaborationshouldbeencouragedandinsomecasesisanecessity.ResearchshouldaddresstopicsintheResearchAgendasoftheWHOInternationalEMFProject,sincetheseprovidethemostcomprehensiveandup-to-datelistofgapsinknowledge.
Theresearchprogramshould:
nbemanagedthroughanestablishedagency.Thisbodywouldscientificallyandadministrativelymanagetheprogram,andfunctionasabufferbetweenthefinancingbodiesandtheresearchers,soastoguaranteethescientificindependenceoftheresearch.
nrunforatleast5yearswithabudgetco-fundedbygovernmentandtheindustry(e.g.mobiletelecomoperators,electricitycompanies).
Thereareanumberofbenefitstothis.Itwill
nincreaseglobalknowledgeaboutEMFeffects
nexpandtheexpertiseonthissubjectinIreland
nbebetteracceptedbypeopleastheygenerallyplaceahighervalueonresultsfromnationalresearchthanfromothercountries.
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
ThefollowingaresomeresearchtopicstheExpertGroupconsiderstobefeasibleandneededinIreland:
nAsurveyofEMFexposureofthepopulation.BothELF(50Hz)andRFexposure(arangeoffrequencies)needstobeconductedatavarietyoflocations,bothurbanandrural.
nApilotstudyontheuseofmobiletelephonesbychildrentodeterminepatternsofuse(texting,messaging,calling)andtheassociatedEMFexposures.
nTheeffectofmobilephoneuseontrafficsafety.Non-hands-freeuseofamobiletelephonewhiledrivinghasrecentlybeenprohibitedinIreland.However,thereissomescientificevidencethatroadsafetyisnotonlynegativelyinfluencedbyusingaphonewhiledriving,butalsobydiminishedconcentrationonthetrafficenvironmentwhenmakingamobiletelephonecall.ItcouldbeinvestigatedwhethertherecentmeasureshaveimprovedroadsafetyinIreland.
ContinueparticipationinInternationalprogrammes:TheIrishGovernmenthasbeeninvolvedininternationalinitiativesconcerningtheEMF-healthissueovermanyyears.Itproducedreviewsonthetopicin1988and1992.In1996itwasafoundermemberoftheWHOInternationalEMFProjectandoneoftheproject’sfirstandcontinuingfinancialsupporters.IthasparticipatedinallEUresearchinitiativesandlegislationconcerningEMFexposureeffects.In1997expertmedicaladvicewasprovidedtotheEUinvestigationontheextentofEHSinEurope.IrelandwasafoundermemberoftheEuropeanCo-operationonScienceandTechnology(COST)Action281,whichsoughtabetterunderstandingofthehealtheffectsofemergingcommunicationandinformationtechnologies.IrelandalsoprovidedtechnicalexpertisetoanEURecommendationonlimitingpublicexposuretoEMFandtotwooccupationalDirectivesdealingwithlimitingexposurestoEMFandOpticalRadiation.
Communication on EMF RisksItisrecommendedthatthepublicbeprovidedwithinformationabouttherisksofEMFexposureandkeptinformedofrecentscientificdevelopments.Thiscanbeachievedthroughanumberofavenues:
nAcentralcontactpersonwithintheproposedsingleagencyshouldbeappointedtoprovidetothepublicresponsesaboutEMFissuesandtorespondtoquestionsfromthemediaandotherparties
nAnactive,informativeanduser-friendlywebsitegivingdetailsofthehealtheffectsofEMF,whatthegovernmentisdoingtoensurecompliancewithEMFstandardsandothertopicalissuesofconcern.
nAbrochureaboutEMFthatcanbeprovidedtoconcernedcitizens.Thefrequentlyaskedquestionsectionofthisreportcouldbepublishedandmadeavailabletointerestedparties.
Optical radiationWhilethisreportdealsmainlywithlowerfrequencyEMF,opticalradiation(ultraviolet,lightandinfrared,includinglasers)alsoformpartofthenon-ionisingelectromagneticspectrum.Thereareimportanthealthissuesrelatedtoexposuretoopticalradiationthatshouldbeaddressed.Ultrasoundemissionsshouldbeaddressedwithinthesameframeworkespeciallyinthecontextofitssafeuseinindustryandmedicine.
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Chapter1
Introduction
ManypeopleinIrelandhaveexpressedconcernthatexposuretoelectromagneticfields(EMF)frommobilephonebasestations(generallyreferredtobypeopleinIrelandasmasts)andhighvoltagepowerlinesmayhaveadverseeffectsontheirhealth.TheJointOireachtasCommitteeonCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources(JointOireachtasCommittee),examinedtheissueofnon-ionisingradiationandpublishedareport“Non-ionisingradiationfrommobilephonehandsetsandmasts”,inJune,2005.AtthesametimethisissuewasbeingdealtwithbystaffattheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources.AsaresultanInter-departmentalCommitteeonHealthEffectsofElectromagneticFields(Inter-departmentalCommittee)wasappointedbytheGovernmentinSeptember2005.ThisInter-departmentalCommitteeestablishedanExpertGroupontheHealthEffectsofEMFinNovember2005toprovideconclusionsandrecommendationsaboutEMFexposureunderthetermsofreferencegivenintheExecutiveSummary.
TheExpertGroupidentifiedquestionsrequiringdetailedconsiderationfromfoursources.Thesewerethetermsofreference,therecommendationsoftheJointOireachtasCommittee,thepublicconsultationprocessandtheInter-departmentalCommittee.
QuestionsarisingfromthisprocessaregiveninChapter3.
IssuesarisingfromtheExpertGroup’stermsofreferenceincluded:
nAretheelderlyandchildrenmoresensitivetoEMF?
nHowshouldtheissueoflocatingnewmastsbeaddressed?
nShouldpowerlinesbelocatedawayfromschools?
nWhatchangesinGovernmentstructureshouldbemadetobetteraddressEMFissues?
nWhatresearchshouldbeconductedinIrelandtobetteraddressandunderstandlocalissues?
nHowcanwebettercommunicateanyrisksfromexposuretoEMF?
Reviewswereconductedofscientificreportsonthehealtheffectsofexposureto:radiofrequency(RF)fields(frequenciesfrom300Hzto300GHz),includingthoseassociatedwithmobiletelecommunications,radioandtelevision;extremelylowfrequency(ELF)fields(frequencies>0to300Hzthatexistwhereelectricityisgenerated,distributedorusedinelectricalappliances;andstaticfields(frequency0Hz)associatedwithsuchdevicessuchasMagneticResonanceImaginginmedicineordirectcurrent(DC)usedfortransportationsystems.BriefreviewsofthehealtheffectsofexposuretoUVlightandlaserlightwerealsoprepared.
Consultationswereheldwithrepresentativesofcentralandlocalgovernment,concernedcitisensgroupsandindustry.Inaddition,thedraftreportwassubjectedtoaninternationalpanelofrecognisedscientificexpertsandreviewedbytheInter-departmentalCommittee.MembershipoftheExpertGroup,theInternationalPanelofexperts,andthoseinterestedpartiesconsultedbytheExpertGrouparelistedinAnnex1.
Thisreportprovidestheconclusionsfromthereviewofthescientificliterature,addresseskeytopicofconcern,andmakesrecommendationson:
nAdoptionandcompliancewithinternationalstandards
nParticipationininternationalprogrammes
nAppropriategovernmentstructurestobestmanagetheEMFissuesandtorespondtopublicandlocalauthorityconcerns
nUseofprecautionarymeasures
nPlanningforthelocationofnewbasestations
nSitingofnewpowerlines
nAssistanceforhypersensitiveindividuals
nEMFresearchthatwouldbeusefultoIreland
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Electromagneticfields(EMF)areallaroundus.Weneedthemtosee,tolistentoradioandwatchtelevision,tocommunicateusingmobilephones,andwegeneratethemeverytimeweturnonalightswitchoruseanelectricappliance.
Ionisingversusnon-ionisingradiationAnelectromagneticfieldisagenerictermforfieldsofforcegeneratedbyelectricalchargesormagneticfields.UndercertaincircumstancesEMFcanbeconsideredasradiationwhentheyradiateenergyfromthesourceofthefields.Electromagneticwavesperiodicallychangebetweenpositiveandnegative.Thespeedofthechanges,orthenumberofchangespersecond,iscalledthefrequencyandisexpressedinhertz(1Hz=1fullcycleofchangepersecond).
OftenwhenpeoplethinkofEMF,theythinkofradiationthatisassociatedwithX-rays,radioactivityornuclearenergy.Whatpeopleconsideras‘radiation’isionisingradiationthatcontainssufficientenergytocauseionisation;thatis,theycandislodgeorbitingelectronsfromatomsorbreakbondsthatholdmoleculestogether,producingionsorchargedparticles.Productionofionsorionisationintissuesmayresultindirectdamagetocellscausinghealtheffects.Thesetypesofhigh-energyradiation,thatincludeX-rays,gammaraysandcosmicrays,arecalled“ionisingradiation”.
Butthesearenottheonlytypesofradiationintheelectromagneticspectrum:thereisacontinuousspectrumoffields(seefigure2.1).Allothertypesofradiationdonothaveenoughenergytoresultinionisationandsoarereferredtoas“non-ionisingradiation”.Thisfullspectrumofelectromagnetic
radiationandfieldscanbedividedintodiscretebandshavingdifferentinteractionsonlivingorganisms:ultravioletradiation,visiblelight,infra-redradiation,microwaves,radiofrequencyfieldsandlowfrequencyfields(figure2.1).
Thisreportcoversthreemaintypesofnon-ionisingEMFs–radiofrequency(RF)fields(definedasEMFswithfrequenciesintherangeof300Hzto300GHz),extremelylowfrequency(ELF)fields(EMFsinthefrequencyrangebetween0and300Hz),andstaticfields(electricandmagneticfieldsthatarenotvaryingwithtimeandthereforehaveafrequencyof0Hz).
Ultraviolet(UV)radiation,visiblelight,andinfraredradiationareonlybrieflycoveredinthisreport,butitisimportanttoemphasisethatthemainpublichealthimpactsofnon-ionisingradiationcomefromexposuretoUV,fromsunexposureandtheuseoftanningsalons.
Units:Hz hertz,cyclespersecondkHz kilohertz,103HzMHz megahertz,106HzGHz gigahertz,109HzTHz terahertz,1012HzPHz petahertz,1015HzV volt,unitofpotentialV/m voltpermetre,unitofelectricfieldstrengthA ampere,unitofcurrentA/m2 amperepermetresquared,unitofcurrentdensityW watt,unitofpowerW/m2 wattspermetresquared,unitofpowerdensityW/kg wattsperkilogram,unitofspecificabsorptionrate(SAR)
ionisingradiation
opticalradiation
radiofrequencies
Frequency300 Hz 300 GHz 3 PHz
1000 km
wave length
1 mm 100 nm
0 Hz
extremely lowfrequencies
Figure 2.1 The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Chapter2
WhatareElectromagneticFields?
�
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Chapter3
FrequentlyAskedQuestions
IntroductionThefollowingninequestionsreflectspecificconcernsexpressedbyindividuals,groupsandorganisationsthatrespondedtotheDCMNR’srequestforsubmissionstotheExpertGroup.ThematerialusedinthepreparationoftheseresponsesistakenfromtheScienceReviewsectionofthisreport(Chapter4)thatgivesamoredetailedoverview.
GeneralbackgroundinformationonEMFisgiveninchapter2ofthisreport.Howeveritisveryimportanttorecognisethatnotallbiologicaleffectsresultinhealthconsequences.WhileexposuretoEMFmayresultinadetectablechangeintheexposedorganism,thiseffectwillonlyhaveaneffectonthehealthoftheorganismiftheeffectisoutsideitscompensatorymechanism.Forexample,ariseintemperatureresultsfromRFexposure.However,suchatemperatureincreasewillonlyhavedetrimentalhealthconsequencesifthetemperatureriseexceedsabout2-3°C.
Thefollowingquestionsarediscussed:
Question1:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearbasestationsorusingmobilephones?
Question2:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances?
Question3:Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed?
Question4:Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather?
Question5:Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoEMF?
Question6:WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects?
Question7:TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure?
Question8:ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure?
Question9:HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure?
Question1:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearbasestationsorusingmobilephones?Response:Fromalltheevidenceaccumulatedsofar,noadverseshortorlongtermhealtheffectshavebeenshowntooccurfromexposuretothesignalsproducedbymobilephonesandbasestationtransmitters.Howeverstudieshavemainlyinvolvedlookingatcancerandcancer-relatedtopics.Amongotherstudiesbeingplannedareprospectivecohortstudiesofchildrenandadolescentmobilephoneusersandstudiesofhealthoutcomesotherthanbraincancerincludingmoregeneralhealthoutcomessuchascognitiveeffectsandsleepquality.
Theonlyestablishedadversehealtheffectassociatedwithmobilephonesiswithtrafficaccidents.Researchhasclearlydemonstratedanincreaseintheriskoftrafficaccidentswhenmobilephones(eitherhandheldorwithahands-freekit)areusedwhiledriving.
Tofunction,amobilephonemustcommunicatebyradiosignalswithanearbybasestation.AmobilephonecallfromIrelandtoamobilephoneinAustraliaismadeupoftwolocalwirelessconnections:acalltothenearestbasestationinIrelandplusasecondcallfromthebasestationinAustralianearesttotheothermobilephone.Theworldwidecommunicationsnetworklinksthetwobasestations.
Eachofthe4500basestationsinIrelandisatthecentreofacell.Eachcellinturncanhandlealimitednumberofconcurrentphonecalls.Adjoiningcellsuseslightlydifferentfrequenciestopreventinterference.Howeverbecausethereareonlyalimitednumberoffrequenciesavailableformobiletelephonytheymustbereusedinothercells.Todothisnoimmediatelyadjacentcellsusethesamefrequencies.Becauseofthelimitednumberofcallsthatcanbehandledbyabasestationatonetime,thenumberofbasestationsinagivenareahastobeincreasedtoaccommodategreatermobilephoneuse.Asaresult,thesignalstrengthfrombasestationsandmobilephoneswillbereduced.Moreover,signalsbetweenthebasestationandthephoneconstantlyadjusttothelowestlevelnecessaryforefficientoperation.
Box 3.1 How a Mobile Phone Works
�0
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Mobile phone useMobilephonesarenowanintegralpartofmoderntelecommunications.Insomepartsoftheworldtheyaretheonlyreliablephonesavailable.InIrelandtheirpopularityisduetotheeasewithwhichtheyprovidecontinuouscommunicationwithoutinhibitingfreedomofmovement.Worldwide,thenumberofpeopleusingmobilephonesisapproachingtwobillion.InIreland,overfourmillionmobilephonesarenowinuse.Withoutbasestationsthesephonescouldnotfunction.
Exposure characteristics: mobile phonesAperson’sexposuretoamobilephoneismeasuredintermsofSpecificAbsorptionRate(SAR).Thisisameasureoftherateofenergydepositioninaperson’sbodyduringacallandisexpressedinwattsperkilogram(W/kg).TheSARvariesdependingonthedistancetothenearestbasestationandwhetherthereareRFsignalabsorbingobstaclesbetweenthecallerandthebasestation,suchasbuildings,tunnelsetc.TheSARexposurefromthemobilephonewillbehighestwhenthebasestationisdistantand/ortheuserisinabuildingorastationaryvehiclethatimpedesthephonesignal.Thephonewillthenoperatewithmaximumsignalstrength.AllphonesareprovidedwithdetailsofthemaximumSARtheywillproducewhenoperatingundersuchconditions.TheSARvaluesareallmeasuredinexactlythesamewayinEUapprovedlaboratoriestoensurethevaluesobtainedareaccurateandcomparable.
SARvaluesforthemostwidelyusedphonesrangefrom0.1to1.2W/kg.
ThemaximumSARlevelsforexposureofthegeneralpublicrecommendedinthe1999RecommendationoftheEUCouncilofHealthMinisters(EU,1999)arecomparedtothetypicalmobilephoneSARsinBox3.2.
Frequency(MHz)
EUSARlimit(W/kg)
TypicalphoneSAR(range)(W/kg)
900 2.0 0.7(0.2–1.2)
1800 2.0 0.7(0.2–1.2)
1900 2.0 0.3(0.1–0.5)
Box 3.2 Comparison of EU SAR limits and actual mobile phone handset SARs
Exposure characteristics: phone mastsUnlikemobilephones,wheretheuser’sexposuretoRFfieldsislocalisedtothatpartofthebodyclosesttothephoneantenna,aperson’swholebodyisexposedtotheRFemissionsfromphonemastantennas(basestation).Exposuretoamobilephonebasestationismeasuredintermsofpowerdensity.ThisisameasureoftherateatwhichRFenergyisreachingapersonfromthatbasestation.Theunitofpowerdensityis‘wattpersquaremetre’(W/m2).Theactualexposureofanindividualdependsontheheightofthetransmittingantennasonthemast,thepoweroutputandgainoftheantennas,thedirectionofthebeam,andthedistanceoftheindividualfromtheantennas.
Onatypicalphonemasttheantennasaremountedatthetopofatriangularmetallatticetower20to30metresinheight.Antennascanalsobefoundmountedonshorterplatformsontheroofsofbuildings.Thepowerinputtotheantennasisoftheorderof20to30W.Theantennasshapeandemittheradiosignalsintoanarrowbeamthatisdirecteddownwardsatanangleofbetween5and10degrees.Thepeakexposureatgroundlevelistypicallyfound50to300metresfromthebaseofthetower,dependingonitsheight,andwhetherthegroundisflatandtherearenointerveningbuildingsorotherbarriers.Becausetherecanbemanyobstaclestothebeam,especiallyinurbanareas,thecalculationofpublicexposurestobasestationsiscomplex.ItisusuallysimplertodeterminethestrengthoftheRFfieldfromaphonemastbydirectmeasurement,althoughseveralmeasurementsaregenerallyrequiredbeforethehighestfieldstrengthanditslocationareidentified.
Publicexposuresinthevicinityof400phonemastsinIrelandweremeasuredin2004and2005(ComReg,2004).Measurementsrarelyexceeded0.01W/m2andmoreoftenwerearound0.001W/m2orless.Themaximumallowablepublicexposurelevels(EU,1999)arehundredstothousandsoftimesgreaterthanthis–4.5W/m2at900MHz.Onlybyapproachingthephonemastantennastowithinafewmetresandwithinthemainbeamisitpossibletoexceedthislimit.Suchaccessshouldbepreventedbybarriersorothermeans.
Health concerns: mobile phones in generalGiventhelargenumberofphoneusers,evensmalladverseeffectsonhealthcouldhavemajorpublichealthimplications.AlthoughpublicexposuretoRFfieldsfrommobilephonesarewithintheEUlimits,theseexposuresarestillmuchhigherthanthosepreviouslyexperiencedbythegeneralpublic.ThishasledpublichealthauthoritiesandtheWorldHealthOrganisationtopromoteresearchintothepossibleadversehealtheffectsofmobilephones.TheINTERPHONEstudy(http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCA4.php)isaleadingexample.
RFfieldspenetratetissuestodepthsthatdependonthefrequency.AtmobilephonefrequenciestheRFenergyisabsorbedtoadepthintissueofaboutonecentimetre.RFenergyabsorbedbythebodyisconvertedintoheatthatiscarriedawaybythebody.Allestablishedadversehealtheffectsarecausedbyheating.WhileRFenergycaninteractwithtissuesatlevelsthatdonotcausesignificantheating,thereisnoconsistentevidenceofadversehealtheffectsatexposuresbelowtheinternationalguidelinelimits.
Health concerns: mobile phones and cancerCurrentscientificevidenceindicatesthatexposuretoRFfieldsemittedbymobilephonesisunlikelytoinduce,progressorpromotecancer.SeveralstudiesofanimalsexposedtoRFfieldssimilartothoseemittedbymobilephonesfoundnoevidencethatRFcausesorpromotesbraincancer.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
TheINTERPHONEstudyisamajorepidemiologicalstudytodetermineifthereisanyrelationshipbetweenmobilephoneuseandtumoursinthehead.Itisbeingco-ordinatedbyWHO’sInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC)andinvolves14studiesconductedin13countries,allusinganidenticalstudyprotocol.Nothinguntowardhasemergedfromtheresultspublishedsofar,althoughreportsofanincreasedincidenceofacousticneuroma(abenigntumouroftheacousticnerve)amongpeoplewhohavebeenusingmobilephonesformorethantenyearswillrequirefurtherinvestigation.HoweverthisresultswasnotconfirmedinarecentstudyconductedinDenmark.
AnanalysisofasetofSwedishstudiesconductedbythesameinvestigatorssuggestsanassociationbetweenmobilephoneuseandbraintumours,butthesestudieshavebeencriticisedtotheextentthattheresultstheyhaveproducedarenotconvincing.Otherrecentepidemiologicalstudieshavefoundnoconvincingevidenceofanincreaseintheriskofcanceroranyotherdiseasewithuseofmobilephones.
Health concerns: mobile phones and other health risksSomescientistshavereportedothereffectsofusingmobilephonesincludingchangesinbrainactivity,reactiontimes,sleeppatternsandself-reportedwell-being.Theseeffectsaresmallandhavenoclearhealthsignificance.Morestudiesareinprogresstotrytoconfirmthesefindings.
Drivingwhileusingamobilephoneisaprovencauseoftrafficaccidents.Theuseofahands-freekitdoesnotsignificantlyreducetherisk.(IEGMP,2000)
Whenmobilephonesareusedclosetosomemedicaldevicessuchaspacemakers,implanteddefibrillatorsandcertainkindsofhearingaid,thereisapossibilityofcausinginterference.Thereisalsoapossibilityofsuchinterferencewithaircraftguidancesystems.TheseconcernsaregraduallybeingovercomewithbetterdesigntostopthisequipmentbeinginterferedwithbyRFsignals.
Health concerns: phone masts in generalAconcernamongthepublicaboutbasestationsisthatwholebodyexposuretotheRFsignalstheyemitmayhavelong-termhealtheffects.TodatetheonlyacutehealtheffectsfromRFfieldshavebeenconfinedtooccupationalover-exposuresinindustrialsituations.Nopublicexposurefallsintothiscategory.Phonemastexposuresarebroadlysimilartoorbelowthosefromradioandtelevisionstationsthathavebeenbroadcastingworldwideforoversixtyyears.(WHO,2006)
FewstudieshaveinvestigatedgeneralhealtheffectsinindividualsexposedtoRFfieldsfrombasestationsbecauseofthedifficultydistinguishingtheirverylowsignalsfromotherhigherstrengthRFsourcesintheenvironment.Pagingandothercommunicationsantennassuchasthoseusedbythefire,Gardaí,andemergencyservicesoperateatsimilarorhigherpowerlevelsthanbasestations.
Someindividualsreportnon-specificsymptomsuponexposuretoRFfieldsfrombasestations.AsrecognisedinarecentWHOfactsheet(WHO,2005),EMFhasnotbeenshowntocausesuchsymptoms.Nonethelessitisimportanttorecognisetheplightofpeoplesufferingfromthem.
Health concerns: phone masts and cancerTherehavebeenmediareportsofcancerclustersaroundbasestationsthathaveheightenedpublicconcern.Generally,cancersaredistributedunevenlyamonganypopulation(National Cancer Registry,2005).Giventhelargenumberofbasestationsandtheirdistributionaroundcentresofpopulationitcanbepredictedthatsomeconcentrationsofcancerorotherdiseaseswilloccurinthevicinityofabasestation.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthebasestationisthecauseofthecancercluster.Investigationsofsuchclustersoftenshowthatthereisacollectionofdifferenttypesofdiseasewithnocommoncharacteristicorcause.
Overthepast15years,severalepidemiologicalstudieshaveexaminedthepotentialrelationshipbetweenRFtransmittersandcancer(NRPB,2004;WHO,2005;HCN,2005).ThesestudieshaveasyetprovidednoevidencethatRFexposurefromthetransmittersincreasestheriskofcancer.LikewiseanimalstudieshavenotestablishedanincreasedriskofcancerfromexposuretoRFfields,evenatlevelsthataremuchhigherthanthoseproducedbybasestations.
ConclusionsItremainsuncleartowhatextentthelong-termuseofamobilephoneisrelatedtotheoccurrenceofacousticneuromabecauseonestudyhasidentifiedanassociationandanotherhasnot.Further,iftheassociationisreal,thisappearstorelateonlytotheuseoftheolderanaloguephonesandnotthecurrentlyuseddigitaltypessuchasGSMphones.Thereissomeevidencefromoneseriesofstudiesofanassociationbetweenbraintumoursandmobilephoneusebutthesestudieshavebeenthesubjectofconsiderablecriticism.ForbothtypesoftumourtheresultsoftheINTERPHONEstudyandthepooledanalysisoftheseresultsbyIARC,whichwillbeavailablein2007,willprovideamorereliablepicture.
Whilethereisnoevidencethatmobilephonesaredetrimentaltohealth,theUKNRPB (2004)endorsedtherecommendationoftheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000)thattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenbelimited.IntheNetherlands,however,theHealthCouncilsawnoreasontorecommendthatmobilephoneusebychildrenovertheageoftwoberestricted(HCN,2002;2005).
Thequestionofwhetherlivingintheproximityofabasestationisassociatedwithanincreasedriskofdevelopinganillnessconcernsmanyofthepeoplewhofindthemselvesinthissituation.However,consideringtheverylowexposurelevelsandthescientificevidenceavailabletodate,itappearshighlyunlikelythattheweaksignalspeopleareexposedtofrombasestationscouldcausecanceroranyotheradversehealtheffects(WHO,2006)
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Question2:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances?Response:PowerlinesandelectricalappliancesaresourcesofExtremelyLowFrequency(ELF)fields.TheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC)concluded,onthebasisoflimitedevidenceinhumansthatELFmagneticfieldsareapossiblyhumancarcinogen.ThisdoesnotmeanthatELFmagneticfieldsareactuallycarcinogenic,simplythatthereisthatpossibility.EvidencefortheassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandchildhoodleukaemiaderivesfromepidemiologicalstudies.Thesestudies,takenindividuallyorascollectivelyreviewedbyexpertgroups,areinsufficienteithertomakeaconclusivejudgementoncausalityortoquantifyappropriateexposurerestrictions.ApartfromthistherearenootheridentifiedharmfulhealtheffectfromELFexposure,wheresuchexposuresarebelowtheinternationallimits.
Exposure characteristics: power linesEveryoneinIrelandwhouseselectricityisexposedto50Hzelectricandmagneticfields.Thesetwotypesoffieldareassociatedwiththetransmission,distributionanduseofelectricpower.Theelectricfieldisrelatedtothevoltageofthepowersupplyandthemagneticfieldtotheelectriccurrentflowingthroughthewires.Thestrengthofthefieldsincreasewithincreasingvoltageandcurrentrespectively.Howeverthefieldsfalloffveryrapidlywithdistancefromsource.
Themaximumelectricfieldstrengthdirectlyunderthemid-spanofanESB220kVtransmissionlineis5kilovoltspermetre(kV/m).Thecorrespondingmaximummagneticfieldstrengthisabout7microtesla(µT).At30metresdistancefromthispoint,thestrengthoftheelectricfieldfallsfourteen-foldandthemagneticfieldten-foldto350V/mand0.7µTrespectively.Whilethewallsofahousewillshieldtheoccupantsfromtheelectricfield,themagneticfieldisnotimpededandpassesthroughbuildingswithlittleattenuation.
Exposure characteristics: electrical appliancesThefieldsclosetooperatingelectricalappliancescanbehigherthanthosefoundnearpowerlines;magneticfieldsfalloffatarateinverselyproportionaltothecubeofthedistancefromtheappliance.Forexample,anelectriccanopenercanproducefieldsof20µT,ahairdryercanexposetheusertomagneticfieldsof7µT,cookinghotplatesto4µTandaTVsetto2µT.Howevereveninabusykitchen,themagneticfieldinthecentreoftheroomwillrarelyexceed0.2µT.
Magneticfieldexposureslastonlyforaslongastheappliancesremainswitchedon.Ofthemorecommonelectricalappliances,electric(analogue)bedsideclocksandelectricover-blanketsprobablycontributemosttoanindividual’soverallaverageexposuretoappliancefields.Theuserofanelectricblanketwillbeexposedtofieldsofaround1µTto2.5µT.
Inmanyhomesthelevelofmagneticfieldexposurewilldependonthewiringconfigurationsemployedtosupplythepowersocketsandlightingcircuits.Intheelectricalsupplytopowersocketstheliveandneutralwiresusuallyruntogetherintheonecableandsothemagneticfieldsfromthewireslargelycanceloneanother.However,inmanylightingsystemstheliveandneutralwiresarecontainedinseparatecablesandthemagneticfieldsarenolongercancelledbutmaybeadditive.
Health concerns: power linesTheoriginoftheconcernoverexposuretohighvoltagepowerlinesisdiscussedintheScienceReview,section4.2.In1979thisconcernwascentredonanapparentincreasedincidenceofleukaemiaobservedamongchildrenlivinginresidencesclosetooverheadpowerlinesandtransformerscarryinghighcurrents.ThisledtofurtherstudiesintheUnitedStatesandinothercountries,todetermineiftherewasanassociationbetweenchildhoodleukaemiaandlivingnearpowerlines.Italsoledtostudiesinvestigatingwhetherothercancersandnon-cancerhealtheffects(Alzheimer’s,Parkinson’sdisease,miscarriage)amongvariouspopulationgroups(adults,electricalindustryworkers,workersusingelectricalmachinery)wasassociatedwithexposuretoelectricandmagneticfieldsfromvarioussources;powerlines,electricalsubstations,electricalappliances,industrial
Typesoftransmission
lines
Usage Magneticfield(µT)
MaximumonRight-of-Way
Distancefromlines
15m 30m 61m 91m
115kV Average 3 0.7 0.2 0.04 0.02
Peak 6.3 1.4 0.4 0.09 0.04
230kV Average 5.8 2.0 0.7 0.18 0.08
Peak 11.8 4.0 1.5 0.36 0.16
500kV Average 8.7 2.9 1.3 0.32 0.14
Peak 18.3 6.2 2.7 0.67 0.30
Box 3.3 Electric and Magnetic Field Strengths in the vicinity of power lines (NRPB, 2001)
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
machineryandelectrictransportationsystems.Inaddition,studieswereconductedonlaboratoryanimals,mainlyratsandmice,exposedfortheirlifetimetofieldsuptoathousandtimesstrongerthanthoseexperiencedbythegeneralpublic.
ThereisthereforesubstantialknowledgenowavailableonthehealtheffectsofELFelectricandmagneticfields.Healthoutcomesrangingfromreproductiveeffectstocardiovascularandneurodegenerativediseaseshavebeenexamined.However,theonlyconsistentevidencetodateconcernstheassociationwithchildhoodleukaemia.In2001,anexpertscientificgroupfromIARCreviewedstudiesrelatedtothecarcinogenicityofstaticandELFelectricandmagneticfields.UsingthestandardIARCclassificationmethodologythatweighshuman,animalandlaboratoryevidence,ELFmagneticfieldswereclassifiedaspossiblycarcinogenictohumans.Whilesupportforthisclassificationcamefromtheepidemiologicalstudiesofchildhoodleukaemiaanimalstudiesdidnotprovideanyconfirmatorysupport.TheIARCclassificationsystemissummarisedintheScienceReview,section4.2.
“Possiblycarcinogenictohumans”isaclassificationusedtodenoteanagentforwhichthereislimitedevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansandlessthansufficientevidenceforcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Evidenceforallothercancersinchildrenandadults,aswellasothertypesofexposure(i.e.staticfieldsandELFelectricfields)wasconsideredinadequatetoclassifyeitherduetoinsufficientorinconsistentscientificinformation.DespitetheclassificationofELFmagneticfieldsaspossiblycarcinogenictohumansbyIARC,forthisclassificationitispossiblethatthereareotherexplanationsfortheobservedassociation.AnexampleofasubstanceclassifiedbyIARCas‘possiblycarcinogenictohumans’iscoffee,whichmayincreasetheriskofkidneycancer.
TheevidenceisunconvincingthatELFisacauseofadversebirthoutcomesinhumans,noracauseofAlzheimer’sdisease,motorneurondisease,suicideanddepression,orcardiovasculardisease.ThereisveryweakevidencethatmaternalorpaternaloccupationalexposuretoELFcausesreproductiveeffects.
Conclusions on health effectsAcuteeffects,asdiscussedbelow,havebeenestablishedforexposuretoELFelectricandmagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrangeupto100kHz.Sincethesemayleadtohealthhazards,exposurelimitsareneeded.Internationalguidelines(ICNIRP,1998;IEEE,2004)existthathaveaddressedthisissue.Observingtheseguidelinesprovidesadequateprotectionagainstestablishedacuteeffects.
ThereisconsistentepidemiologicalevidencesuggestingthatchroniclowintensityELFmagneticfieldexposureisassociatedwithanincreasedriskforchildhoodleukaemia.However,laboratorystudiesdonotprovideconvincingevidenceforacausalrelationshipsotheimpactonpublichealthisuncertain.Exposurelimitsbaseduponthisepidemiologicalevidencearenotrecommended.
ThehealthriskassessmentcarriedoutintheScienceReview,section4.2,concerningELFhealtheffectsconcludedthatif,theassociationbetweenincreasedchildhoodleukaemiaandmagneticfieldexposureiscausal,then,usingtheresultsoftheUKchildhoodcancerstudyasabasis,approximatelyonecaseofchildhoodleukaemiain150mightbeduetomagneticfields.ThiswouldrepresentoneadditionalcaseinIrelandeverythreetofiveyears.HoweverthereisnoknownmechanismthatwouldexplainhowexposuretoELFmagneticfieldscouldleadtocancer.Apartfromthechildhoodleukaemiaissuethereisnoevidencethatthereareanyadversehealtheffectsassociatedwithexposuretosuchfieldsatenvironmentallevels.
TherehavebeenfewextensivestudiesoftherelationshipbetweenuseofappliancesandpersonalexposuretoELFmagneticfields.Sleepingonorunderanelectricblanketwhileitisswitchedoncanbeamajorcontributortomagneticfieldexposure.Atonetimetherewasconcernthatwomensleepingwithanelectricblanketswitchedonwouldbeathigherriskfrombreastcancerandpossiblereproductivedisorders.However,despiteanumberofresearchstudiesthereislittleornoevidenceforanassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandanincreasedriskforbreastcancer(IARC,2002).
Appliance Distance=25cm Distance=56cm
95thpercentile 5thpercentile Median 95thpercentile 5thpercentile Median
Non-ceilingfan 9.2 0.03 0.3 1.6 0.04
Canopener 32.5 0.2 21.0 3.2 0.2 2.4
Clock-radio(digital) 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.02
Clock-radio(analog) 2.5 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.2
Ceilingfan 1.6 0.03 0.3 0.3 <0.01 0.1
Electricrange 1.9 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.04 0.2
Microwaveoven 6.7 1.7 3.7 1.7 0.5 1.0
ColourTV 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2
Refrigerator 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1
Box 3.4 Magnetic fields associated with the use of appliances (NIEHS, 1998)
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
IARC (2002)concludedthatELFelectricfieldsare“notclassifiableastotheircarcinogenicitytohumans”.Thismeansthatthereisnoscientificevidencetosupportthehypothesisthatelectricfieldsmightcausecancer.
Question3:Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed?Response:TherearealargenumberofnoveltechnologiesbeingdevelopedusingRFsignalsforvariouspurposes.ExamplesincludeWiFi,Bluetooth,Ultra-wideBand,andothers.AlloftheseareassessedforsafetybythestrengthandfrequencyoftheirRFemissions.Theseemissionsarethencomparedwiththelimitsallowedintheinternationalstandards.Ifthenewtechnologyemitsfieldslessthantheselimitstheyareconsideredsafe,andvice-versa.ThustheadvantageofhavingadoptedinternationalexposurelimitsisthattheyprovideinformationonsafelevelsofEMFexposurefromanyexistingdeviceoranydeviceproducedinthefuture,butalsoprovidesmanufacturerswiththeexposurelimitswithinwhichtheymustmanufacturetheirdevices.WithintheEuropeanUnion,deviceshavingthe“CE”markareconsideredtobesafefortheirintendedpurpose.
Theintroductionofanewtechnologyraisesquestionsofatechnical,legal,financialandmoralnature:
nIsthetechnologynew?
nIsthetechnologyuntested?
nWhataretheauthoritiesdoingtoensurepeople’shealthisprotected?
ThesequestionscanbeaddressedtoallthenewwirelesscommunicationtechnologiesdiscussedintheScienceReview,section4.4.
Is the technology new?Mobilewirelesscommunicationshaveexistedsince1910whentheyfirstbegantobeusedonships.ThesinkingofTitanicin1912gaveahugeboosttotheMarconicompany:withoutradiocommunicationmanymorewouldhaveperishedthatAprilnight.Police,thearmedforcesandtheemergencyserviceshavebeenusingmobilewirelesstelephonysincethelate1930s.Thetechnologyatthattimecouldneverhavehadwidespreadapplicationamongthegeneralpublicformanyreasons:thelimitedavailabilityofradiofrequencybands,theweightofthetransmittingandreceivingequipmentthathadtobecarried,andtoavoidbeingoverheardbyotherswithradioreceiversoneneededtotransmitmessagesincode.
Beforetheadventofthemicrochip,pocketsizedmobilephoneswereadreamfromthepagesofsciencefiction.Ifoneweretobuildamobilephonewithitspresentcomputingpowerusing
1960stransistorsonewouldneedalargetruckinwhichtocarryit.ThemodernGSMphonetransformstheuser’sspeechintoaseriesofencodeddigitalpulses.Thecodeischangedeveryfewsecondstopreventeavesdropping.Theresponsefromthepartyreplyingissentinasimilarlycodedformonacarrierwavefromthenearestphonebasestationwithsparecapacity.TheuseofdigitalradiotransmissionbyGSMphoneswasthefirsttimesuchtechnologyhadbeenemployedinacommercialapplication.Aconcernthatthepulsefrequencymightmimicsomenaturalfrequenciesthatoccurinthebody(e.g.brainsignals)andsoadverselyaffectsomebodilyfunctionshasbeendiscounted(Foster and Repacholi,2004).Therearenoknowndecodingmechanismsthatcouldaffectthebodyusingdigitaltransmissionsfrommobilephones.
So,isthetechnologynew?Themobilephonecombinesapowerfulcomputerwitharadiotransmitterandreceiver.Theelectriccurrentsflowinginthephonearemeasuredinmilliamps–ifhighercurrentswereneededthephonewouldforeverneedrecharging.ThepoweroftheRFsignalsfromthephoneisonlyafractionofawatt–illustratingtheefficiencyofdigitalradiotransmission.So,thetechnologyisnewinthatneverbeforehasitbeenpossibletocommunicatesomuchtosomanywithsolittlepower.
TheforegoingcommentsareequallyapplicabletothevariousnewapplicationsofwirelesstelephonydiscussedintheScienceReview,section4.4.
Is the technology untested?NountestedwirelesstechnologycanbeplacedonsalewithintheEuropeanUnion.Allsuchequipmentmustmeetabatteryofstandardsforelectricalsafety,electricalcompatibility,electricalinterference,performanceandfitnessforuse.
TheCEmarkisappliedtoalltestedelectricalgoodsmarketedwithintheEU.MobilephonesandotherwirelesshardwaremeetstheElectromagneticCompatibilityDirective89/336EEC,theLowVoltageDirective73/23EEC,theCE(Mark)Directive93/68EECandtheR&TTEDirective1999/EC.InadditionmobilephonesaredesignedandmanufacturednottoexceedthelimitsforexposuretoRFfieldsrecommendedbyinternationalguidelines.TheseguidelinesweredevelopedbyICNIRP,anindependentscientificcommission,throughperiodicandthoroughevaluationofscientificstudies.Theexposurelimitsintheguidelinesincludeasubstantialsafetymargindesignedtoensurethesafetyofallpersons,regardlessofageandhealthstatus.
What are the Irish authorities doing?AlthoughnoresearchonthehealtheffectsofEMFhastakenplaceinIreland,theIrishauthoritieshavebeenactiveparticipantsintheEMF-healthissueformanyyears.In1988.concernoverpowerlinemagneticfieldsledtheMinisterforEnergytostoptheenergisingofanewlyconstructed220kVlinefromArklowtoCarrickmines.Followinganinvestigation(McManus,1988)thelinewasenergised.HoweveracommitmentwasmadetocloselymonitorallscientificandtechnicaldevelopmentsconcerningEMFexposureand
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
participateininternationalforumsdealingwiththeissue.AfurtherreviewofthesciencewascompletedandpublishedbytheGovernmentin1992(McManus,1992).
InresponsetogrowingpublicconcernoverpossibleadversehealtheffectsfromanincreasingnumberanddiversityofEMFsources,theWorldHealthOrganisationlauncheditsInternationalEMFProjectin1996.IrelandwasafoundermemberoftheProject,providedasignificantfinancialcontributiontotheProjectandprovidedthefirstChairmanoftheProject’sInternationalAdvisoryCommittee.IrelandcontinuestoprovidefinancialsupporttotheProjectandtoparticipateinnumerousworkinggroupsandcommitteessetupbytheProject.
TheInternationalEMFProjectbringstogetherthecurrentknowledgeandavailableresourcesofkeyinternationalandnationalagenciesandscientificinstitutionsinordertoassessthehealthandenvironmentaleffectsofexposuretostaticandtime-varyingelectricandmagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrange0–300GHz.TheProjecthasbeendesignedtofollowalogicalprogressionofactivitiesandproduceaseriesofoutputsthatallowimprovedhealthriskassessmentstobemade.TheProjecthasproducednumerousWHOFactSheetsdealingwithmanysourcesandaspectsofEMF,includingseveraldealingwithmobilewirelesstelephony.In2006anEnvironmentalHealthCriteriamonographonstaticfieldswaspublished(WHO2006).FurtherEnvironmentalHealthCriteriahandbooksonthehealtheffectsofELFandRFfieldsarescheduledtobepublishedby2007and2009,respectively.
NoscientificresearchintopossiblehealtheffectsofmobilephonetechnologyhasyetbeencarriedoutinIreland.However,IrelandparticipatedinexpertgroupsinvolvedinthreemajorEUinitiativesrelatingtotheprotectionofthepublicandworkersfromtheadversehealtheffectsofexposuretonon-ionisingradiation.TheseweretheCouncilRecommendationonlimitingexposureofthepublictoelectromagneticfields(EU,1999),andthetwoPhysicalAgentsDirectivedealingwithlimitingoccupationalexposuretoelectromagneticfields(EU,2004)andopticalradiation(EU,2006).IrelandalsocontributedmedicalexpertisetoanEUsponsoredinvestigationofself-reportedelectricalhypersensitivityinEurope(Bergqvist,1997).
COSTistheacronymfor“EuropeanCo-operationintheFieldofScientificandTechnologicalResearch”.Itprovidesaframeworkforinternationalresearchandscientificco-operation,facilitatingtheco-ordinationofnationalresearchattheEuropeanlevel.COSTdoesnotfundresearchbutwasestablishedandisfinanciallysupportedbytheEuropeanCommissiontoco-ordinatejointresearchprojects,inareasofimportancetotheEUMemberStatesandotherEuropeancountries.COSTAction281,inwhichIrelandparticipatedasafoundermemberandasanExecutiveCommitteemember,wasanactionwithintheCOST-TelecommunicationInformationScienceandTechnology.ThemainobjectiveofCOST281,whichranfromSeptember2001toSeptember2006,wastoobtainabetterunderstandingofpossiblehealthimpactsofemergingtechnologies,especiallythoserelatedtocommunicationandinformationtechnologies
thatmayresultinexposurestoEMF.IrelandhostedamajorCOST281conferenceonmobilephonesandbasestationsatDublinCastlein2003.TheresultsoftheworkundertakenbyCOST281anddetailsofitsmanyresearchinitiativescanbefoundonthewebsitewww.cost281.org.
The“400Sites”surveyofmobilephonebasestationsconductedbyComRegtomeasurepublicexposuresfromthissourcewascompletedin2004.ItwasthenthelargestsurveyofitskindundertakeninEurope.In2005IrelandhostedtheannualmeetingoftheInternationalCommitteeonElectromagneticSafetyatDublinCastle.
TheleadroleinaddressingtheseissuesiscurrentlybeingtakenbytheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources.AtthistimeresponsibilitiesarespreadoveranumberofGovernmentDepartments.Itisfeltthatthesituationcouldbeimprovedbyhavinganexistingornewagencytakeoverallresponsibilityforprovidingscientificandpolicyadvice.Thisreportisoneelementofthatinitiative.
What are other authorities doing?OneofthemostimportantresearchinitiativesisthatbeingundertakenbyWHOthroughIARC.IARCisco-ordinatingtheINTERPHONEstudy.Thisisamulti-centrestudytodeterminewhethertumoursofthebrain,acousticnerve,andparotidglandareassociatedwithRFemittedbymobilephones.Thestudyinvolvesepidemiologistsin13countriesstudyingtheassociationofthesediseaseswithmobilephoneuse,underacommonresearchprotocol.Theprojectisoneofthelargesteverundertakenonanytopicandthefirstresultsarenowbeingpublished.SevenreportsarenowavailableontheIARCwebsitewww.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCA4.php.IrelandisnotaparticipantinINTERPHONE.
Alargenumberofcountrieshavecontributedtomajorresearchprojectsonmanyaspectsofwirelesstelephony.MajorresearchprojectsareunderwayintheUnitedStates,Canada,UK,Sweden,Denmark,Finland,Norway,Russia,Germany,Poland,Hungary,Austria,Switzerland,Slovenia,theCzechRepublic,theNetherlands,Belgium,France,Spain,Australia,Japan,ChinaandKorea.
Question4:Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather?Response:Thereisnodataavailabletosuggestthattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisahealthhazard.Thetimeinchildren’sdevelopmentthatmightmakethemparticularlyvulnerabletoRFexposurestotheheadiswhentheyareagedtwoyearsandyounger.IntheUKandSwedentheauthoritiesrecommendaprecautionaryapproachtoeitherminimiseuse(essentialcallsonly)orminimiseexposure(useahands-freekit).IntheNetherlandstheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisnotconsideredaproblem.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Thereisnoestablishedscientificbasisorevidenceofadversehealtheffectsaffectingchildrenoradultsasaresultoftheirexposuretomobilephonebasestations.Thisappliesirrespectiveofthelocationofthephonemast.
Children and mobile phonesThequestionconcerninghealthhazardsthatmightbefacedbychildrenusingmobilephoneswasfirstraisedintheUKbytheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000).
WhiletheStewartreportconcludedthatthebalanceofevidencesuggestedthatexposuretoRFbelowtheinternationalguidancelevelsdoesnotcauseadversehealtheffectsinthegeneralpopulation,itdidrecommendthatthewidespreaduseofmobilephonesbychildrenfornonessentialcallsshouldbediscouraged.Thereasongivenforthisrecommendationwasputintheseterms:
“If there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer time of exposure.”
TheUKGovernmentacceptedthisrecommendationanddirecteditsChiefMedicalOfficertoliaisewiththeStewartCommitteetodeterminehowbesttoachieveitsaim.
ThepublicitysurroundingpublicationoftheStewartreport,andparticularlyitsrecommendationconcerningchildren’suseofmobilephones,ledtoinvestigationsofthevariousassumptionsimplicitintherationalefortheStewartreportrecommendationquotedabove.Thekeyquestionswere:
nArethereunrecognisedadversehealtheffectsfromtheuseofmobilephones?
nDoesthedevelopmentofchildren’snervoussystemsattheageswhentheymightbegintousemobilephonesmakethemmorevulnerablethanadults?
nDoesachild’sheadabsorbagreaterproportionoftheRFenergyfrommobilephonesthananadulthead?
Therewasalsotheconcernthatiftherewerelongtermhealtheffects,theearlieronestartsusingamobilephone,thelongerwillbethelifetimeexposuretoitsfields,andsothegreatertheopportunityforharm.
SincethepublicationoftheStewartreportinMay2000,asubstantialamountofresearchworkrelevanttochildren’sexposuretoRFsourceshasbeencompletedandmoreisongoing.Amongtheorganisationsthathavedevotedconsiderableefforttoappraiseandinterpretthiswork,aretheSwedishRadiationProtectionInstitute(SSI),theHealthCounciloftheNetherlands(HCN),theNationalRadiologicalProtectionBoard(NRPB)andWHO.
ThemostrecentSwedishreview(SSI,2006)concludedthatworkoncognitivefunctionsinvolunteers(includingchildren)exposedtoRFfieldshadbeennegative;butmethodologicallimitationsinthestudiespreventedfirmconclusionsbeingdrawn.HowevertheywereabletoconcludethattherewasenoughevidencetoshowthatexposuretoGSMmobilephonesdidnotaffecthearing.
TheresultsoftwoepidemiologicalstudiesfromtheINTERPHONEprojectsuggestedthattherewasnoincreasedriskofbraintumoursfromeithershorttermorlongtermuseofmobilephones,althoughdataonlongtermusewassparse.However,therewasaconcernovertheassociationofacousticneuroma,abenigntumouroftheacousticnerve,withlongtermuse.
TheSwedishposition,asreflectedinthereportofSSI’sIndependentExpertGroup(SSI,2004)isthatwidespreadexposureofchildrentomobilephonesisrecentandthatnotenoughisknownaboutthepotentialsensitivityofchildren.Theabsenceofanobservedeffectdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatexposureisharmless,especiallywhencrucialstudiesfocussingonchildrenareyettobedone.TheSSIthereforeadoptedaprecautionaryapproach(SSI,2004):
“The existing knowledge gaps and the prevailing scientific uncertainty justify a certain precautionary attitude regarding the use of handsets for mobile telephony. Due to the widespread use of mobile phones even a very small risk could have consequences for public health. Because of the lack of knowledge in certain fields of research the Nordic authorities find it wise to use, for instance, a hands-free kit that reduces exposure to the head significantly. This information should be addressed to adults, young people and children. It is important that parents inform young people and children about how to reduce the exposure from mobile phones.”
TheElectromagneticFieldsCommitteeoftheHealthCounciloftheNetherlandspublishesregularreviewsandassessmentsofscientificliteraturerelatingtotheEMF–healthissue.Inregardtochildren’sexposuretomobilephonesthemostrecentreview(HCN,2005)referredtoits2002advisoryreporton“Mobiletelephones:ahealth-basedanalysis”(HCN,2002)wheretheHealthCouncilhadstatedthatthereisnoreason,basedontheexistingdataconcerningthedevelopmentoftheheadandbraininchildren,tosupposethattherearestillsignificantdifferencesinsensitivitycomparedwithadultsaftertwoyearsofage.Inthat2002report,theHealthCouncilconcludedthatitsawnoreasontorecommendthattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenovertwoyearsofageshouldbelimitedonaccountoftheavailablescientificevidenceonpossiblehealtheffectsofexposuretoelectromagneticfields.TheHealthCouncilcontinuestoendorsethisposition.
TheBoardoftheUKNRPBrevisitedtheStewartreportin2004toreviewprogressonimplementingStewart’srecommendationsandprovidefurtheradvicetoaddresspublicconcernsaboutmobilephonetechnology(NRPB,2004).TheBoardconcludedthatintheabsenceofnewscientific
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
evidence,therecommendationintheStewartreportonlimitingtheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenremainsappropriateasaprecautionarymeasure.Theyrecommendedthattheusebychildrenofphonesfornon-essentialcallsshouldbediscouraged.Textmessagingandhands-freekitswereseenasgoodwaysforchildrentoreducetheirexposure.
ThemaininitiativeoftheWHOInternationalEMFProjectconcerningchildrenandEMFwastheexpertworkshopheldinIstanbulinJune2004(WHO,2004).Thisworkshopdealtwiththedevelopmentoftheembryo,foetus,andchild,withparticularattentiontothedevelopmentofthebrain.ItalsoexaminedchildhoodsusceptibilitytoenvironmentalagentsandchildhooddiseasesimplicatedinEMFstudies,andtheirexposuretoEMF.Themainoutputsoftheworkshopwerethepublicationofthepresentations(BEMS,2005),asummaryofitsfindings(Kheifets et al,2005),andrecommendationsforanRFresearchprogrammespeciallyaddressedtochildren’sexposure(WHO,2005).Itwillbeafewyearsbeforetheresultsofthisresearchbecomeavailable.
Children and mobile phones: conclusionRecentexpertanalysishasconcludedthattherearenomajoreffectsduetofocussingoftheRFfieldintheheadortootherpropertiesofachild’sheadthatmightresultinhigherabsorptionofRFenergy(Christ and Kuster,2005;Keshvari and Lang,2005).
Eventhoughchildrenareusingmobilephonesatayoungerandyoungeragetherearefewusersundertheschoolageoffive.Childrentendtousetheirphonesforsendingtextsratherthanvoicecalls;thisreducestheirexposure.Theuseofhands-freekitsalsoreducesexposuresbutthesearenotpopularamongchildren.
Threeexpertgroupshavereviewedthequestionofwhetherthereshouldberestrictionsonchildrenusingmobilephones.Twohaverecommendedthatthereshouldbesomerestrictions,whileonehassuggestedthatitwouldmakenodifference.Giventhisdisagreementitseemsprudenttosuggestthatmobilephoneuseshouldbelimitedinyoungerchildren.However,thereisnospecificscientificjustificationforthisadvice.
Children and base stationsItiscommonforthepublictoobjecttoproposalstobuildphonemastsintheirneighbourhood.Whentheproposalinvolvesthephonemastbeinglocatednearaschoolorcrècheorhealthcentreorindeedanywherechildrengatherthenumberofobjectionswillusuallyincrease.
InIrelandthereare4500basestationsinanareaofjustover70,000km2.Ifthesemastswereevenlydistributedgeographicallynoonewouldbemorethan2.5kmfromamast.Howeverbecausethedistributionofmastsreflectsthedistributionofthepopulation,inurbanareasnooneislikelytobemorethanakilometrefromthenearestmast.ThiscanbeconfirmedbyaccessingtheCommunicationsRegulator’swebsitewww.ComReg.ie.Itisclearthatitisnolongerpossibleforanyone,includingchildren,toliveanywhereinIrelandand
notbeexposedtotheRFfieldsemittedbyphonemasts.HoweveritisequallythecasethatthereisnowhereinIrelandwhereachildisnotexposedtotheRFfieldsproducedbylocal,nationalandinternationalradioandtelevisionbroadcastingstations.Indeedtherearenowfewadultswhohavenotbeenexposedtoradiobroadcastsalloftheirlives.FurthermorethefieldsfromTVandradiostationsareusuallystrongerthanthosefrommobilephonemasts.
OnereasonfortheabsenceofconcernregardingradioandTVisthatbroadcastingtransmittersaremorepowerfulthanbasestationphonemasts,sofewerofthemarerequiredtocoveranarea.Howeverover500transmittersarestillrequiredtoprovidenationalTVcoverage.AnotherexplanationisthatradioandTVtransmittersaregenerallylocatedonhighgroundthatisusuallyunpopulated;inthecaseofthemostpowerfultransmittersexclusionareasareemployedtorestrictpublicaccessfromtheareaswheretheRFfieldsmightexceedinternationalguidelinelimits.
Thelevelsofpublicexposuretophonemastsareusuallythousandsandoftentensofthousandstimesbelowtheinternationallimits.Thehighestexposuresatgroundlevelarefoundsome50mto300mfromthephonemast.Fieldsatgroundlevelatthesiteandwithin50mofthemastaregenerallylowerthanthoseat200mto300mdistance.
Nationalandinternationalhealthadvisoryauthoritieshaveconcludedthatexposuretobasestationphonemastsisnotassociatedwithadversehealtheffects.ThepositionissummarisedinaconclusionoftheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000):
“The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.”
ThefactthatexposuresareverysmallfractionsoftheinternationallyacceptedguidelinesofICNIRPhasbeendemonstratedbytheCommunicationsRegulator’s“400SiteSurvey”(ComReg,2004).TheWHOworkshoponchildren’sexposuretoEMF(WHO,2004)alsoconcludedthatfromthelowexposuresandthescientificevidencecollectedtodate,itappearedhighlyunlikelythattheweaksignalstowhichpeopleareexposedfrombasestationscouldcausecanceroranyotheradversehealtheffects.ThiswasexplainedintheWHOfactsheetonmobilephonebasestationsandwirelessnetworks(WHO,2006).
Children and base stations – conclusionsThereisnoscientificbasisfor,orevidenceof,adversehealtheffectsaffectingeitherchildrenoradultsasaresultoftheirexposuretoRFfieldsfromphonemasts.
Thisappliesirrespectiveofthelocationofthephonemast.Whilethemaximumexposuresfromaphonemastwilloccuratsomedistancefromthemast,andnotinitsimmediatevicinitynorunderneathit,theexposuresaresolowastomakeitimmaterialwheremastsarelocatedwithrespecttoschools,playgrounds,healthcentresorotherplaceswherechildrengather.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Theforegoingstatementsarenotinaccordwiththepositionsadoptedbysomemembersofthepublicoverwhataresuitableandunsuitableplacestolocatephonemasts.Thepubliccanhavelegitimateconcernsoverthephysicalappearanceofsuchmastsintheirneighbourhood.Itisalsotruethatsomewillbeworriedaboutthepossibleeffectsthemastmayhaveonthehealthoftheirfamily,butthescientificevidencedoesnotsupporttheirconcerns.
Question5:Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoelectromagneticfields?Response:Theshortanswertothequestionposedisessentially“No”.
NostudieshaveestablishedthatEMFexposureleadstothesubjectivesymptomsreportedbyEHSindividuals.SeveralstudieshaveshownthatwhilethesymptomsreportedbyEHSsufferersarereal,theyarenotlinkedtoEMFexposure.EHSsufferersdonotexperienceworsesymptomswhenexposedtoEMFfields.
ThisresponsedoeslittletohelpthosesufferingthesymptomstheyattributetoEMF.
AmongtheexpertspresentattheWHO’s2004PragueworkshoponhypersensitivitywereanumberofclinicianswhodealspecificallywithEHSpatientsintheirmedicalpractices.Thisgroupprovidedadviceonthecharacterisation,diagnosis,managementandtreatmentofEHSindividuals(Hillert et al,2004).TheiradviceisavailabletointerestedpartiesinIreland.
InFebruary2006theExpertGroupmetrepresentativesofgroupsprovidingsupportandassistancetofellowsufferersfromEHS.Duringthediscussionsthatfollowed,twothingsbecameveryclear.Thefirstwasthattheaffectedindividualswerenotimaginingtheirpainandsuffering.ThesecondwasthatallattributedtheirillnesstoexposuretoEMFfromoneormoresources.Manyofthepeopletheyrepresentedhadtakenextraordinarymeasurestoreducetheirexposuretotheparticularfieldstheybelievedwerethecauseoftheirhealthproblems.Forsome,aparticularradiofrequency,whichtheyclaimedtobeabletodetect,wasidentifiedasthecausalagent.
TheattributionoftheillnessestoexposuretoEMFhasgeneratedwidespreadinternationalconcernsincethefirstcasesbegantoreceivemediaattentionin1987.ThefirstmajorinternationalstudyofelectromagnetichypersensitivitywascommissionedbytheEUandincludedIrishmedicalparticipationintheexpertteam(Bergqvist et al,1997).TheaimofthisstudywastodeterminetheextentofEHSacrossEurope,toreviewthescientificliteratureonthesubject,andprovideadviceonbetterhealthprotectionforaffectedindividuals.ThestudywasunabletoestablisharelationshipbetweenexposuretolowfrequencyorhighfrequencyEMF.IntheabsenceofacommondiagnosisfortheconditionitwasdifficulttocomparethereportedincidenceoftheillnessacrossEurope–the
estimateofseverecasesprovidedbyIrishself-aidgroups,between1000and10000,wasequalledonlyinSweden.ThestudyconcludedthatthelimitednumberofseriouslyaffectedindividualsandtheabsenceofevidenceforEMFasacausalfactordidnotjustifypublicalarmbutthatsubstantialadditionalresearchwasneeded.And,indeed,thelasttenyearshaveseenagreatdealofhighqualityresearchonEHS.
ThescientificfindingsconcerningapossiblelinkbetweenexposuretoEMFandEHShavebeenexaminedrecentlybytheSwedishRadiationProtectionInstitute(SSI,2004),theHealthCounciloftheNetherlands(HCN,2005),andbyWHOataPragueWorkshop(WHO,2004)andinarecentWHOFactSheet(WHO,2005).Theconclusionsoftheseorganisationshavebeenbroadlysimilar.
EHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptoms,whichaffectedindividualsattributetoexposuretoEMF.Thesymptomsmostcommonlyexperiencedincludeskinsymptoms(redness,tingling,andburningsensations)aswellasmoregeneralsymptoms(fatigue,tiredness,concentrationdifficulties,dizziness,nausea,heartpalpitation,anddigestivedisturbances).Thiscollectionofsymptomsisnotpartofanyrecognisedmedicalsyndrome.
EHSresemblesmultiplechemicalsensitivity(MCS):acollectionofsymptomsassociatedwithlow-levelenvironmentalexposurestochemicals.BothEHSandMCSarecharacterisedbynon-specificsymptomsthatlackapparenttoxicologicalorphysiologicalbasisorindependentverification.
StudiesonEHScanonlybemadeonhumans,andareeitherepidemiological(observational)orexperimental(provocation).AnumberofstudieshavebeenconductedwhereEHSindividualswereexposedtoEMFlevelssimilartothosethattheyattributedtothecauseoftheirsymptoms.Theaimwastoelicitsymptomsundercontrolledlaboratoryconditions.ThemajorityofsuchstudiesindicatethatEHSindividualscannotdetectEMFexposureanymoreaccuratelythannon-EHSindividuals.Wellcontrolledandconducteddouble-blindstudieshaveshownthatsymptomswerenotcorrelatedwithEMFexposure.
IthasbeensuggestedthatthesymptomsexperiencedbysomeEHSindividualsmightarisefromenvironmentalfactorsunrelatedtoEMF.Therearealsosomeindicationsthatthesesymptomsmaybeduetopreviousstressfullifeevents,aswellastostressreactionsasaresultofworryingaboutEMFhealtheffects,ratherthanEMFexposureitself.
TheconclusionofWHOisthatEHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptomsthatdifferfromindividualtoindividual.Thesymptomsarerealandcanvarywidelyintheirseverity.Whateveritscause,EHScanbeadisablingproblemfortheaffectedindividual.EHShasnocleardiagnosticcriteriaandthereisnoscientificbasistolinkEHSsymptomstoEMFexposure.EHSisnotamedicaldiagnosis,norisitclearthatitrepresentsasinglemedicalproblem(WHO,2005).
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
AnindependentexpertgroupsetupbytheSwedishauthorities(SSI,2004)cametosimilarconclusions.InstudiesofELFfieldsnoEHSindividualswereabletodetectelectricormagneticfieldsatlevelsthatarecomparabletothoseatwhichtheyclaimtoreact.ToofewRFexposurestudieshadreportedby2004topermitanyfirmconclusionstobemadeconcerningsuchexposure.Howevernostudyhad,sofar,beenabletoshowalinkbetweenEMFandtheoccurrenceofsymptoms.
How the EHS problem is dealt with in SwedenThedilemmaindealingwithEHSindividualsisthatwhiletheirsymptomsarerealandattimesdisabling,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatEMFexposureisthecauseoftheirillness.So,whatcanbedone?
InSweden,wherethereappearstobeagreaterproportionofEHSthanelsewhere,guidelineshavebeenissuedbytheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareconcerningthetreatmentofsuchpatients.Theseareinthemainbodyofthereport(section4.5).ThefocusinSwedenisonthesymptomspresentedbytheafflictedpersonandtherighttosickleave,sicknessbenefits,disabilitypensionetcisbasedonthedegreeofillhealthandfunctionalhandicapofthepersonregardlessofaknownorunknowncauseforthecondition.
Thereisnostandardmedicaltreatmentandsincetheclinicalpicturevariesfromcasetocaseanyrecommendationforinterventionsortreatmentisbasedonabroadevaluationofeachindividual’ssituation,includingmedicalinvestigation,psychosocialsituationandpossiblecontributingenvironmentalfactors.TreatmentsknowntoreducethetypeofsymptomspresentedhavebeenusedinSweden(Annex4).
Itisimportantthatagoodpatient-doctorrelationshipisestablishedandthataphysicianisavailabletoofferfollow-upvisitstoensure(aftertheinitialexaminationaimedatexcludingknownmedicalconditions)thatnewmedicalevaluationsaremadewhenrequiredbyachangeinsymptoms,forexample.EHShasnotbeenacceptedasaworkinjuryinSweden.
Initsmostrecentreview(HCN,2005)theHealthCounciloftheNetherlandsconcludedthattherewerenoscientificgroundsatpresentforsupposingthatphysicalcomplaintsofEHScanbedirectlycausedbyexposuretoEMF.ThishasbeenfurtherconfirmedbyarecentdetailedreviewandhighqualitystudybyRubin et al (2005,2006).
Question6:WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects?Response:Therearethreemainreasonsforthis:
nStudiesthatreportpositivefindingswillalwaysreceivemorepublicitythanreportswhosefindingsarenegative.
nStudieswhosefindingsarenegativefacemoredifficultygettingpublishedinscientificjournals.
nDifferencesintheresultsofbroadlysimilarscientificresearcharetobeexpected,givendifferencesinstudymethodology,analyticaltechniquesandtheexperienceandexpertiseoftheresearchersinvolved.
Scienceadvancesonthebasisofweightofevidenceasrepresentedbystudiespublishedinthemostauthoritative(peer-reviewed)journals.ThisweightofevidenceisnotnecessarilyreflectedinpopularreportsofEMFhealtheffects.
Foroverthirtyyearsnow,scaresinvolvingEMFhavegeneratedheadlinesaroundtheworld.TheheadlinescaresaregeneratedbystudiesthatsuggestanassociationbetweenEMFexposureandillness;bypoorlyconductedstudiesthatwouldneverpassthepeerreviewstageofanyreputablescientificjournal;andbyexaggeratedrumourandgossipthatthemediamightchoosetoreiterateonadaywhenlittlehardnewsisavailable.AgoodexampleofthelatterwaswhenabannerheadlinewaspublishedinaDublineveningnewspaperinMay1992.
ItannouncedanepidemicofcancerinthesuburbofBallymun,saidtobecausedbyexposuretooverheadandburiedelectricitydistributionlines.ThearticleinquestionledtoquestionsintheDáilaswellastomuchcommentinthemedia.Inresponsetheauthoritiesundertookanassessmentofindoorandoutdoorelectricandmagneticfieldsinthearea.TheMedicalOfficerofHealthoftheEasternHealthBoardmadeadetailedstudyofallthereportedcancersandofcancerincidenceinthesuburb.
TheinvestigationfoundthatpublicexposuretoelectricandmagneticfieldsinBallymunwaslowandtypicaloffieldsfoundelsewhereinIrelandinurbanareas(McManus,1992).TheHealthBoardreportfoundthatmanyofthereportedcancersweredoubleortriplecountedoroftendidnotexist.Theonlyexcessofcancerwasfoundamongheavysmokersaged50to69.ThemainconclusionsoftheHealthBoardreportwere(O’Donnell et al,1992):
nTheoveralldeathratefortheBallymunareawassimilartothatforDublinasawhole.
nTheoveralldeathrateandthecancerdeathrateswereslightlyincreasedinonlyonedistrictfortheyearsstudied.Oneobviouscausewasthehighincidenceoflungcancer.
nThepatternofdeathsdidnotsupportacommonenvironmentalagentasacause.
nElectromagneticradiationlevelswerewithinnormallimits.
nThelocalpopulationcanbecompletelyreassuredaboutelectromagneticradiationlevelsandtheirimpactonhealth.
ItwasdisappointingbuthardlysurprisingthatthenewspaperthatstartedthepanicfailedtogiveanymentiontotheHealthBoardreportoritsfindings.Therewasnocoverageprovidedelsewhereinthemediaeither.Althoughthiscasestudyof
�0
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
howthemediadealswithstoriesthatcanbecategorisedas‘healthscares’isperhapsanextremeexampleofunbalancedreporting,themediawillgivemorespacetoastudythatispositiveorsuggeststhatexposureisathreattohealththanonewhichisnegativeorfailstoconnectanexposuretoathreattohealth.Therefore,onthebasisofheadlines,columninches,andinvestigativetelevisionprogrammes,theaveragememberofthepublicwillseemoreadversecommentonEMFexposurethanwouldanexpertreviewofscientificpublicationsindicate.
Thereisafurtherfactorthatleadstoimbalanceinthemedia’sapproachtohandlinghealthscares.Thisarisesfromtheself-publicisingactivitiesofsomescientistswhoby-passthepeerreviewassessmentofthequalityoftheirworkandtaketheirfindingsdirectlytothepress.Muchoftheresearchreportedinthiswayisneverpublishedinpeer-reviewedjournals.Authorities,inassessingthescientificliterature,canconsideronlythosepapersthatmeetcertainstandards.InhercoveringlettertotheDutchMinisterfortheEnvironment,whichaccompaniedthe2005ElectromagneticFieldsUpdateReport(HCN,2005),theHealthCouncilVice-presidentstated:
“I would like to add that many publications on the influence of electromagnetic fields on health appear on closer scrutiny to be based on research that does not rise up to current scientific standards. This is specifically pointed out by the Committee in the present report.”
AnInternationalEvaluationCommitteesetupbytheItalianGovernmenttoinvestigatethehealthrisksofexposuretoEMF,onthequestionofwherecannationalauthoritiesseekreliablescientificadvice,stated(Cognetti et al,2003):
“It is important for governments that they obtain the best advice possible on issues before formulating national policy. When there is a reliance on scientific and technical information to help formulate national policy, there is a hierarchy of levels in science for provision of reliable advice. International or national peer review panels of independent scientists are recognised in the scientific community as providing the most reliable and scientifically supportable information. Individual opinions, even when provided by scientists, are not as reliable as those provided by multi-disciplined panels of experts. This is especially true in the EMF area, which involves many branches of science and where some discordant opinions have been expressed.”
Aswellashavingcriteriaforexpertadvisorygroups,itisalsonecessarytohavecriteriatoassessthescientificvalueofthescientificpaperstobeconsidered.Someoftheaspectstobeemployedinweightingscientificpapersforreviewbyanationalhealthadvisorybodyaresetoutbelow.
Aspectstobeconsideredforscientificreviews
nTheresearchisofadequatequalityaccordingtothestandardscurrentlyprevailinginthescientificcommunity.
nTheresearchhasbeenpublishedininternationallypeer-reviewedjournals,whichareofaqualitythatisgenerallyacceptedasadequateinthescientificcommunity.
nTheresultsoftheresearchhaveprovedtobereproducible(forlaboratoryresearch)orconsistent(forepidemiologicalresearch)basedonresearchofthetypereferredtoabove,whichhasbeenconductedbyotherindependentresearchers.
nTheoutcomeoftheresearchhasbeensubstantiatedbyquantitativeanalysis,whichleadstotheconclusionthatthereisastatisticallysignificantrelationshipbetweenexposureandeffect.
nThestrengthoftheeffectisrelatedtothestrengthofthestimulus;i.e.thereisadose-responserelationship.Thisrelationshipdoesnotalwaysneedtobesuchthattheeffectincreasesasthestimulusbecomesstronger;itmayalsosignifyaresonanceeffect,i.e.thatthereisamaximumeffectforaparticularstimulusandthattheeffectforastrongerorweakerstimulusislessmarkedorperhapsevencompletelyabsent.
(Source: HCN, 2005)
Question7:TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure?
Response:WhentheICNIRPguidelinesaredrafted,thetotalityofthescientificevidenceisassessed.Studiesonbothshort-termandlong-termexposuresareevaluatedtoreachconclusionsonhealtheffects.Onlyshort-termacutehealtheffectshavebeenestablishedbythescientificevidence.HowevertheICNIRPlimitvaluesapplytoallexposuresituations,includinglong-termexposures.
ICNIRPICNIRPistheformallyrecognisednon-governmentalorganisationresponsiblefornon-ionisingradiationprotectionforWHO,theInternationalLabourOffice(ILO),andtheEU.AmongotherthingsitprovidesguidelinesonlimitingtheexposureofthepublictoEMF,opticalradiation,ultrasoundandinfrasound.TheICNIRPguidelineslimitingpublicandoccupationalexposuretoEMFareendorsedbytheWHO;havebeenadoptedbyagreatmanycountriesaroundtheworld;andareincorporatedintoanEUoccupationalexposureDirective(EU,2004)andapublicexposureRecommendation(EU,1999).InIreland,theICNIRPguidelineshavebeenadoptedbyboththeCommunicationsRegulatorandtheCommissionforEnergyRegulation.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
ICNIRP guidelines and long-term exposureTheICNIRPguidelinesarebasedoncomprehensivereviewsofallrelevantpublishedpeer-reviewedliterature.Exposurelimitsarebasedoneffectsrelatingtoshort-termacuteexposureastheabovequestionimplies.Howeveritisnotthecasethatlong-termexposuresaredisregardedordiscounted,itissimplythattheavailableinformationonlong-termeffectsisconsideredtobeinsufficienttoestablishexposurelimits.Forexample,therehavebeenseveralverylargelifetimeexposurestudiesinvolvinganimals.ThesestudieshaveinvolvedexposurestobothELFandRFfields,correspondingrespectivelytopowerlinefieldsandmobilephonefields.Sofar,noneofthesestudieshaveestablishedanyadversehealtheffectsatexposurescorrespondingtothepresentguidelinelimitsorathigherlevels.
Threshold levelsInitsappraisalofthescientificliteratureICNIRPmonitorstheaccumulationofnewevidence,leading,asappropriate,toupdatingitsriskassessments.Thelatterarebasedonthetotalityofthescience,notjustonthelatestinformation.InthehealthriskassessmentsthelowestlevelofEMFfieldthatcausesanadversehealtheffectisidentified;thisistermedthethresholdlevel.OvertheEMFfrequencyrangefrom0Hzto300GHz,therearedifferentthresholdsatdifferentfrequencies.ThesedifferencesarisebecausethenatureoftheinteractionofEMFwiththehumanbodychangeswithfrequency.
Thelowestestablishedthresholdlevelsforanadversehealtheffectbecomethebasisoftheguidelines.Toallowforuncertaintiesinscience,thislowestthresholdlevelisreducedfurthertoderivethelimitvaluesforhumanexposure.Forexample,ICNIRPreducesthelevelofthethresholdby10timesfortheoccupationallimitsforworkersandby50timestoarriveattheexposurelimitsforthegeneralpublic.Thelimitsvarywithfrequencyashasbeenexplained(WHO,2002).
EssentiallytheICNIRPguidelinesarebasedonestablishedhealtheffects.Anyevidencethatestablishedanadversehealtheffectatexposuresbelowthecurrentthresholdvalueswouldleadtoare-examinationandreviewofthepresentguidelines.FollowingthepublicationoftheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportsonstatic,ELF,andRFfields,theICNIRPguidelines(ICNIRP,1998)willbesubjecttofurtherreview.
Thermal and non-thermal effectsSometimesitwillbesaid,particularlyinrelationtotheICNIRPguidelinesforRFexposure,thatthelimitsarebasedonthermaleffectsofRFexposureandignorenon-thermaleffects.Whileitistruethelimitsarebasedonthermaleffectsthisisbecausetheyaretheonlyeffectsestablishedtohaveanyadversehealthconsequences.TheEUCo-operationonScienceandTechnologyinitiative,COST281,examinedthisquestioninaworkshopon“SubtleTemperatureEffectsofRF-EMF”(COST,2002).Concerningtemperatureeffects,theconclusionreachedwasthatmanyofthebiologicaleffectsreportedastakingplaceunderisothermalconditionswereinfactresponsestominorchangesinthebulktemperatureoftheinvestigatedsystem(COST,2003).Inlivingcells,temperaturechangesaslowas
threeone-hundredthsofadegreeareenoughtoincreasetheirchemical,andthereforebiologicalactivity.Fewexperimentalsystemscancontroltemperaturetobetterthanonetenthofadegree.Inotherwords,reportednon-thermaleffectsmaybeduetosmallthermaleffects.
ConclusionTheICNIRPguidelinesareemployedbygovernmentsandhealthadvisoryauthoritiesworldwidetoensuretheprotectionofcitizensfromanyadversehealtheffectsthatmightarisefromexposuretoEMF.TheguidelinesareundercontinualreviewandallmedicalandscientificevidencethatmeetsspecifiedcriteriaofscientificacceptabilityistakenintoconsiderationbyICNIRPinthesereviews.
Question8:ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure?Response:ThereisnodoubtthattheprudentuseofprecautionarymeasureswouldhelpreassuremanyinIrelandwhohaveconcernsoverEMFexposure.WHO’sEMFProjecthasbeenworkingtodevelopguidanceforMemberStateswhowanttoadoptprecautionarymeasuresanditishopedthesewillbeavailablesoon.
Precautionary PrincipleThe‘Precautionaryprinciple’wasfirstusedinGermanenvironmentallawintheearly1970sasthe‘Vorsorge-prinzip’.‘Sorge’meanscare,and‘Vorsorge’meansforesightorcareforthefuture.ThePrecautionaryprinciplehassincebeenusedwidelyininternationalpolicystatements;conventionsdealingwithenvironmentalconcernsanduncertainscience;andsustainabledevelopmentstrategies.
Theprinciplewasintroducedin1984attheFirstInternationalConferenceonProtectionoftheNorthSea.Followingthisconference,theprinciplewasintegratedintonumerousinternationalconventionsandagreements,includingtheBergendeclarationonsustainabledevelopment,theMaastrichtTreatyontheEuropeanUnion,theBarcelonaConvention,andtheGlobalClimateChangeConvention(Foster et al.,2000).
TheWorldCommissionontheEthicsofScientificKnowledgeandTechnology(COMEST,2005)hasproducedaworkingdefinitionofthePrecautionaryPrinciplethatisapplicabletoscientificissues.
Whenhumanactivitiesmayleadtomorallyunacceptableharmthatisscientificallyplausiblebutuncertain,actionsshallbetakentoavoidordiminishthatharm.
Morally unacceptable harm referstoharmtohumansortheenvironmentthatis
nthreateningtohumanlifeorhealth,or
nseriousandeffectivelyirreversible,or
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
ninequitabletopresentorfuturegenerations,or
nimposedwithoutadequateconsiderationofthehumanrightsofthoseaffected.
Thejudgementofplausibility shouldbegroundedinscientificanalysis.Analysisshouldbeongoingsothatchosenactionsaresubjecttoreview.
Uncertainty mayapplyto,butneednotbelimitedto,causalityortheboundsofthepossibleharm.
Actions areinterventionsthatareundertakenbeforeharmoccursthatseektoavoidordiminishtheharm.Actionsshouldbechosenthatareproportionaltotheseriousnessofthepotentialharm,withconsiderationoftheirpositiveandnegativeconsequences,andwithanassessmentofthemoralimplicationsofbothactionandinaction.Thechoiceofactionshouldbetheresultofaparticipatoryprocess.
AdefinitiongivenbytheEuropeanEnvironmentAgencygraspstheessentialconceptthatitisapolicyframeworkthatallowsrationalandcosteffectivedecisionstobemadeconcerningpotentialdangerstohealthortheenvironmentinareasofscientificuncertainty(Gee,2001).
When should the precautionary approach be used?Inthepublichealtharena,priorityisusuallygiventocontrollingrisksthatareclearlyestablished;thatis,involvingriskfactorswithaclearcausalrelationshiptoknowndiseases.However,rapidtechnologicaldevelopmentsproduceanever-increasingvarietyofagentsandexposuresituationswhosehealthconsequencesarelessclear,andsocietiesincreasinglywishtoaddresstheseuncertainconsequences.
Waitingforconclusiveevidenceofahealththreatcanhaveunfortunateconsequences(Gee,2001).Therefore,whenanagentisubiquitousorthepotentialharmgreatorthepossibleeffectsareirreversible,itissensibletoconsidertakingprecautionsbeforeacause–effectrelationshiphasbeenquantifiedorevenestablished.Precautioncanbeintegratednaturallyintoexistingpublichealthpolicyandshouldcomplementconventionaldiseasepreventionmeasures,whichareusuallytakenonlyafteracause-effectrelationshiphasbeenestablished.
However,caremustbetakentohaveadueprocesswhenestablishingpoliciesbasedonprecaution.Notallsuggestedhealthrisksarefoundtobereal.Indiscriminateuseofprecautionarymeasuresmaymeanthatinnovationswithundoubtedhealthbenefitswillnotbedeveloped,orthebenefitstheybringwillbedelayed.Further,itmayleadtowidelydifferingnationalpoliciesandtoincreasedpublicanxiety.
What reasons are there for applying a precautionary approach to EMF?ThejustificationforconsideringaprecautionaryapproachtolimitingexposurestotheELFfieldsassociatedwiththetransmission,distributionanduseofelectricityisbased,inpart,
ontheclassificationofELFmagneticfieldsasapossiblehumancarcinogenbyIARC.ICNIRP,inanassessmentofthesameevidencestatedthattheevidenceforELFfieldscausingcancerorotherhealtheffectsatlevelsbelowthosesetoutintheirguidelinesisnotsufficienttowarrantrevisedexposurelimitsat0.3or0.4µT.ICNIRPstatedthatthisstepwasnotappropriatebecause:
1. Thereistoomuchuncertaintyintheinterpretationoftheepidemiologicalstudiestobeconfidentthattheseareindeedtheappropriatelevels.
2. Simplisticapplicationoflimitsattheselowlevelsislikelytohavecostsdisproportionatetoanybenefit.
3. TheycouldunderminetheconsistentadoptionofICNIRPguidelines.
However,giventhatthereisstilluncertaintyaboutwhetherlong-termexposuretoELFmagneticfieldscouldcausechildhoodleukaemia,useofprecautionarymeasurestolowerpeople’sexposure,thatarelowornocost,wouldthereforeappeartobewarranted.
Asecondareawhereprecautionarymeasuresmightbeappliedistomobilephones.Atthistimethereisnofirmevidencetosupportaviewthatmobilephonesareahealthhazard.Indeed,thescientificevidenceforRFfieldscausingadversehealtheffectsatthelevelswherethegeneralpublicarenormallyexposedismuchweakerthanthatforELFmagneticfields(NRPB,2004).Howeveranumberofimportantresearchprojectsonthissubjecthaveyettobecompletedandthesecouldchangethepicture.
TheUKAdvisoryGrouponNon-IonisingRadiation(AGNIR,2003)concludedthatresearchpublishedsincetheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000)didnotgivecauseforconcernandtheweightofevidenceavailabledidnotsuggestthattherewereadversehealtheffectsfromexposuretoRFfieldsbelowtheguidelinelevels.However,becausethepublishedresearchonRFexposuresandhealthwasconsideredtohavelimitationsandbecausemobilephoneshadbeeninuseforarelativelyshorttime,theAGNIRfeltthepossibilityremainedopenthattherecouldbehealtheffectsfromexposuretoRFfieldsbelowtheguidelinelevels;hencemoreresearchwasneeded.Untiltheresultsofcurrentandplannedscientificresearchstudiesbecomeavailableitisprudenttoconsidersomeprecautionaryactions.
How might precautionary measures be applied to EMF?AkeypointthatmustbemadeisthattheadoptionofaprecautionaryapproachtoEMFdoesnotnecessarilymeantakingmeasurestoreduceexposure.Itcanincludeotheractions.Aprecautionaryapproachcancoveramultitudeofmeasures,varyingfrommoderatemeasuressuchasthemonitoringofscientificdevelopmentsortheprovisionofinformation,throughmoreactiveparticipationintheprocessofacquiringknowledgebycarryingoutresearch,uptostrongermeasuressuchasloweringexposurelimits(HCN,2004).
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Ahierarchyofoptionsthatmightbeconsideredwhenapplyingprecautionarymeasuresto(i)ELFfieldsand(ii)mobilephonesisgivenbelow.
InthecaseofELFfields:
nTakenoaction;
nMoreresearch;
nBettercommunications;
nImprovedelectricwiringinhomes;
nImprovedarrangementforthetransmissionanddistributionofelectricpower;
nImprovedelectricalappliancedesign;
nChangesinland-useregime–newplanninglaws.
Formobilephones:
nGreateravailabilityofdataonphoneemissionlevels;
nEncouragementofcontinuedreductionofRFtransmissionlevelsusedbyphones;
nImproveddesignofhands-freekits;
nGreaterprovisionofhands-freekits;
nGreaterencouragementtousehands-freekits.
InthecaseofphonemastsitisdifficulttoidentifyspecificmeasuressincemastsareneededtoprovideRFcommunicationsinthesurroundingenvironment.Theiremissionsaredeterminedbynetworkneeds;toolittlesignalcausesgapsinmobilephonecoverage,andtoomuchsignalwouldcauseinterferencewithneighbouringmasts(cells).HoweverinformationonEMFexposures,publicconsultation,andreducingpublicconcern,shouldbepartofimprovementstobasestationlicensingregimesandplanningpolicy.
Are there drawbacks to precautionary policies?Theprecautionaryapproachcouldbedetrimentalwereittobecomeabureaucraticobstacletoinnovationorencouragehighcostactionsthatprovidedlittlebenefittohealth.
TheEuropeanCommissionResolutionin2000statedthatthePrecautionaryPrinciplecanbeinvokedonlywhentheriskisscientificallyplausible,thatthemeasurestakenshouldbeproportionate(costsshouldrelatetobenefits),andthattheuncertaintiesshouldstimulateappropriateresearch.WhilethePrecautionaryPrinciplecanreassurethepublicbyshowingthateverythingthatcanbedoneisbeingdone,riskmanagementshouldtakeintoaccountriskperceptionandacceptability.
ConclusionThereisnodoubtthattheprudentuseofprecautionarymeasureswouldhelpreassuremanyinIrelandwhoareconcernedoverEMFexposure.ThreespecificareasinwhichthiscouldbeappliedinIrelandaretheuseofmobilephonesbychildren,thesitingofhightensionelectricitysupplycables,andthesitingofmobilephonemasts.
Question9:HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure?Response:ThereisscopeforimprovementsinthePlanningLawanditsapplicationthatcouldleadtoanimprovementinthepublicacceptanceofbasestations.LocalAuthoritiesareresponsibleforhavingthemlocatedwheretheyareleastobjectionablebutstillpermittingahighqualitynetworktooperate.WHOisdraftinganadvisorydocumentforLocalAuthoritiesworldwidetoassistthemindealingwithplanningapplicationsforbasestationsandonhowtobestinvolvetheaffectedcommunityinaneffectivemanner.ThisdocumentshouldprovideusefulandrelevantadvicetoIrishauthorities.
Present planning arrangementsAcommonconcernexpressedbyalmosteveryindividual,groupandorganisationthatrespondedtotheExpertGroup’srequestforsubmissionstoaiditinitsworkwasdissatisfactionoverthepresentarrangementsinIrelandgoverningtheerectionofbasestations.Neitherconcernedcitizens’groups,localauthorityrepresentativesnorthephonecompaniesthemselvesconsideredthesituationsatisfactory.InsomecasesbasestationswerebeingerectedwithoutplanningconsentbyexploitingloopholesinthePlanningandDevelopmentAct(2000)anditsRegulations(S.I.600of2001).Inothercasessomelocalauthoritiesadoptapolicythatplacesrestrictionsonthelocationofmastsinrelationtobuildingssuchasschools,hospitalsandresidences.Thissituationneedstobeaddressedsothatsuchloopholescannotbeexploitedandthepublicfeelthattheapprovalprocessforerectionofnewphonemastsisopenandtransparent,andfollowsagreedrules.
AnexampleofexploitingaplanningloopholeUnderSchedule2,Part1,ofthePlanningandDevelopmentRegulations(2001)antennasplacedonanexistingpylonstructureareanexempteddevelopmentunderPlanningLaw.Thereforeifpylonlightingisinstalledonasportsgroundfollowingplanningconsentandwithoutobjection,itbecomesanexistingpylonstructure.Afewweekslatermobilephoneantennasareattachedtooneofthelightingpylonsasexempteddevelopment.
Issues that concern the publicOnthebasisofthescientificevidence,thereisnohealthconsequenceassociatedwithexposuretotheRFsignalsfrombasestations.Essentially,theRFfieldsemittedbytheantennas
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
arenotonlytoolowtobeahazard,butareofcomparableandoftenlowerstrengthsthanthoseproducedbytelevisionandradiobroadcasting,towhichmostpeoplehavebeenexposedformuchlonger.Howeverthereareotherissuesconnectedwiththelocationofbasestations.Theseareissueswherethelegitimateinterestsofthepubliccouldbebetteraddressed.
Governmentpolicies,togetherwithappropriateplanningregulations,tailoredtoaddresstheissuesthatconcernthepublicwouldhelpprovidethepublicwiththereassurancesitseeks.Itcouldalsoimprovethepublic’sacceptanceofnewwirelesscommunicationtechnologies.Someissuesthathavegivenrisetoparticularconcernsare:
nProposalstolocatebasestationsinareasofgreatnaturalbeauty.Thereisscopeforadisguisedmastthatblendswithitssurroundings.
nProposalstolocatebasestationsinplacesdetrimentaltothelocalurbanarchitectureorstreetscape.Thereisacaseforhousingthebasestationinsideanexistingstructure.Ifnosuitablestructureexiststhenthebasestationshouldbelocatedelsewhere.
nProposalstolocatebasestationsnearplaceswherechildrengather.WhileitisknownthattheRFemissionsshouldnotproduceanyhealtheffectsinchildren,itcreatesunnecessarysensitivitiesandconcernsamongparents.
nInsufficientinformationisprovidedonthephysicalsize,shapeandstyleoftheproposedbasestationandthenumberandkindsofantennastobeattachedtoit;andonfutureplansforadditionalantennaslikelytobeplacedonthemastanddetailsoftheadditionalantennas.
nThereshouldbeenoughinformationontheRFenergyemittedbyeachantennaandaccurateestimatesofthegroundlevelexposuresofthepublicinthevicinityoftheproposedbasestation.Also,onceerectedabasestationbecomesanexistingstructureandfurtherantennasareconsideredanexempteddevelopment;itshouldbearequirementthatsimilardetailsbeprovidedofallpossibleadditionalantennasatthetimeofsubmittingtheplanningapplication.
nInsufficientinformationonpublicexposures,bothoutdoorsandindoors,toEMFfieldsfromphonemastsandthecontributionofotherRFsourcestothepublic’soverallexposureattheselocations;
nInsufficientinformationonthesafedistancesfromphonemasts.ThispointrelatestoaquestionputtotheExpertGroupbyLocalAuthorityrepresentatives.Thequestionwas“Canonecalculatethesafedistancefromaphonemastantenna?”Inotherwords,howclosecanapersongotoaphonemastantennabeforethatperson’sexposureexceedsinternationalexposurelimits?Inmostcasesthedistanceislessthan2m.
nAbsenceofanycentralexpertbodythepubliccanconsultconcerningphonemastsandotherEMFissues.
nAbsenceofregularlyupdateduser-friendlyinformationonEMFissues.
ThefinaltwopointscouldbedealtwithbyabodyinIrelandappointedtoco-ordinateEMFactivities,provideEMFadvice,andpublishinformationontheEMFissueinbrochures,onawebsite,andinregularreviewsofthescientificliterature.ThishasbeenaddressedintherecommendationsoftheExpertGroup.
ConsultationInmanyEuropeancountries,effortstoresolvetheproblemofgainingpublicacceptanceofbuildingnewphonemastshavecentredoninvolvingpeopleintheareasaffectedbytheproposalsinthedecisionmakingprocess.Thedecisionis,however,notusuallyoneof“Shouldthemastbebuilt?”but“Whereshoulditbebuilt?”Publicinvolvementinphonemastdecisionsworksbestwherethereisanacceptancebyallthatthemastneedstobeerectedsomewhereinthearea.WHOisdraftinganadvisorydocumentforLocalAuthoritiestoassistthemindealingwithplanningapplicationsforphonemastsandonhowbesttoinvolvetheaffectedgeneralpublicinaneffectivemanner.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
4.1RadiofrequencyFields
Natural sources of radiofrequency (RF) fieldsOnamorninginFebruary1942Britishradaroperators,scanningtheskiesforenemyaircraft,detectedmassiveinterferenceor“jamming”ontheirscreens.Asthedayprogressedthesourceoftheinterferencemovedtothesouth,thentothewestandfinallyendedaftersunset.Surprisingly,itwasonlyfollowingseveralweeksofsimilarinterferencethatthesourceofthejammingwasfoundtobethesun.Studiesofthesunsomeyearsbeforehadfailedtodetectradiowaves.Conventionalwisdomatthetimewasthattherewerenoextra-terrestrialradiosources.Theexplanationwassunspots!In1942the12-yearsunspotcyclewasatitsmaximum;earliermeasurementshadbeentakenduringasunspotminimum.Thisdiscoveryledtothecreationofanewscience,calledradio-astronomy.Withinthenextthirtyyearsradio-astronomershaddetectedthebackgroundradiosignalsthatprovidedthemostconvincingevidenceofthebig-bangoriginsofouruniverse.
TodaythesunisstillthestrongestnaturalsourceofRFfields.Thesearesufficientlypowerful,attimes,tointerferewithsatellitebroadcastingandevencausedapowerfailureacrossthenorth-easternUnitedStatesandCanadainthe1990s.Anothernaturalsourceofradiowavesislightning,asevidencedbyitsinterferencewithTVandradioreceiversduringthunderstorms.IndeedeveryobjectemitsaconstantmeasurableamountofRFradiationbyvirtueofitstemperature.
Man-made sourcesWorld-widebroadcastingbeganinthe1920sandtherearenowfewpeopleundertheageof80whohavenotspenttheirentirelivesbathedinradiowavesfromtheincreasingnumberofbroadcastingtransmitters.AnexploratorytripalongthewavebandsofagoodradioreceiverwillrevealseveralhundredAM,FMandshortwavestationsvyingforourattention.MostoftheanalogueTVsetsinuseinIrelandhaveavailablesome60channelstoreceiveterrestrialtelevisionbroadcasts.AsthereareonlyfournationalterrestrialstationsplusfourfromtheUKavailable,onemightwonderwhytheTVsetsareprovidedwith60ormorechannels?Theextrachannelsareneededtoensurethatthereisnointerferencefromdifferenttransmittersusingsimilarfrequencies.Whilemostpeopleareawareofthelargenumberofphonemastsrequiredformobilephones(around4500atthelatestcount),fewareawarethatalargenumberofTVtransmittersarealsoneededforterrestrialbroadcasting,withover500transmittersaroundIreland.
BesidesradioandtelevisionthegeneralpublicareexposedtomanyothercommonsourcesofRFfields.Theseincludecomputermonitorsandvideodisplayunits,storeandairport
securitysystems,remotecontrolaccesssystems,inductionheatingelements,mobilephonesandphonemasts,pagingsystems,multi-pointmicrowavedistribution(MMDS)television,microwaveovens,radar,satellitebroadcasting,microwavecommunicationlinks,GPSnavigationsystems,andWLAN,WiFiandotherwirelesstechnologiesusedforin-housecomputeroperationandinternetaccess.
Inmedicaltreatmentanddiagnosis,patientexposurearisesfrommanysourcesincludingdiathermyequipment,electro-cauterydevices,patientmonitors,MRIscanners,hyperthermiamachinesusedforcancertherapyandvarioussurgicaldevices.
Figure 4.1 Photos of mobile phone mast and microcell-antennas.
General health effectsAllestablishedhealthhazardstopeopleassociatedwithRFfieldsoccuratexposurelevelsthatcauseheatingofthebodytissues.Theresultingtemperatureelevationdependsonhowwellthebodycandissipatetheexcessheat.InhighintensityexposuresituationsRFheatingcanbesufficienttoovercomethebody’scoolingabilityandresultintissuedamage.Tissueswithapoorbloodsupplyareparticularlyvulnerable.Inthecaseofthelensoftheeye,whichhasnobloodsupply,cataractscanresultfromhighintensityexposuresthatraisethetemperatureofthelensbymorethanafewdegrees.Howeverthecircumstancesthatgiverisetosucheffectsareveryrareandconfinedtooccupationalenvironmentswhereanaccidentalover-exposuremayoccur(COMAR,2002).
StudiesinvolvinganimalsandhumanvolunteershavefoundthatadversehealtheffectsareobservedonlywhentheheatingproducedbyRFexposureraisestissueorbodytemperaturebymorethanabout1ºC.Inducedheatingofthismagnitudemayprovokevariousphysiologicalandthermoregulatoryresponses,includingadecreasedabilitytoperformcertaintasks.Theeffectsaresimilartothoseexperiencedbypeopleworkinginhotenvironmentsorsufferingaprolongedfever.Thedevelopmentofthefoetusmayalsobeaffectedbyinducedheating,andbirthdefectscouldoccurifthefoetus’temperaturewereraisedby2-3ºCforanumberofhours.Inducedheatingcanalsoaffect
Chapter4
ScienceReview
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
malefertilityand,asdescribedabove,causecataracts.Itisquiteunlikely,however,thatamemberofthepublicwouldeverbeexposedtofieldstrengthsofthemagnitudenecessarytoproducesuchsignificantheating(WHO,1998).
Fromover1300peerreviewedscientificstudiespublishedsince1945hascomeaconsistentandclearconclusionthatadversehealtheffectsariseonlywheretheabsorptionofRFenergygeneratesariseintemperaturethatcannotbeaccommodatedbythebody’scoolingsystem.ThisconclusionhasbeensupportedbyrecentnationalreviewsofRFhealtheffectsundertakeninanumberofcountries:(Australia,2002);(EU,2002);(France,2001,2005);(Netherlands,1997);(Hong Kong,2003);(Japan,2001);(New Zealand,2000);(Canada,1999);(Singapore,2002);(Sweden,2003);(UK,2004);and(USA,2003).
Health effects of mobile phonesThereisnodoubtthatconcernsoverthehealthandsafetyofmobilephonebasestationshavebeenraisedbysomemembersofthegeneralpublic.Thereissignificantlylessconcernoverthemobilephonesthemselves,althoughRFexposuresfromthephonesareconsiderablygreater.
Base stationsAcommonconcernaboutbasestationsisthatwholebodyexposuretotheRFsignalstheyemitmayhavelongtermhealtheffects.Todate,theonlyacutehealtheffectsidentifiedfromRFfieldsarerelatedtoincreasesintemperatureofmorethanabout1ºC,asdiscussedabove.ThelevelsofRFexposurefrombasestations(andotherlocalwirelessnetworks)aresolowthatthebody’stemperatureriseisinsignificant.
ThestrengthofanRFfieldisgreatestatitssourceanddiminishesrapidlywithdistance.Atorneargroundlevel,inthevicinityofatypical25-metrehighbasestationmast,RFexposureismuchlowerthanthatreceivedfromamobilephone.Becausebasestationantennasdonotradiateequallyinalldirections,butinacollimatedbeamtiltedslightlytotheground,themaximumgroundlevelexposureisalwaysatsomedistancefromthebaseofthemast.RecentmeasurementsmadeinIrelandaspartofthe“400Site”survey(ComReg,2004)indicatethatRFexposuresfrombasestationsarethousandsoftimesbelowinternationalexposureguidelinesandaresimilartoorbelowthosefromradioandtelevisionbroadcastingantennas.
Overthepast15yearsasmallnumberepidemiologicalstudieshavebeenundertakentoexaminetheassociationbetweencancerincidenceandlivingnearRFtransmitters(UK,2004;WHO,2005).ThesestudieshaveprovidednoevidencethatRFexposurefromtransmittersincreasestheriskofcancer,eventhoughtheRFexposuresaremuchhigherthanthosefoundnearbasestations(WHO,2006).
ItisofinteresttonotethatmoreoftheenergyfromtheRFfieldsemittedbyTVandFMradiotransmittersisabsorbedinthebodythanthosefrombasestations.ThisisbecausethefrequenciesusedinFMradio(around100MHz)andinTVbroadcasting(around450MHzto600MHz)arelowerthanthoseemployed
inmobiletelephony(900MHzand1800MHz).Attheselowerfrequenciestheheightoftheadulthumanactsasamoreefficientreceivingantenna.Children,becauseoftheirsmallersize,absorbsomewhatmoreRFenergyathigherfrequenciesthandoadults.Whileradiostationshavebeenbroadcastingfor80yearsandTVforover50yearswithoutbeingassociatedwithadversehealtheffects,therehasbeenonlyalimitedamountofresearchundertakeninthisarea.Essentially,therehavebeenfewreasonstocarryoutsuchstudies.
Mobiletelephonyinvolvesthetransmissionofcomplexdigitalsignals.SoonmanyradiostationsandmostTVstationswillalsobetransmittingtheirprogrammesdigitally.Detailedreviewsconductedonthepossiblehealtheffectsofdigitalsignalshave,sofar,notrevealedanyhazardspecifictodifferentRFmodulations(Foster and Repacholi,2004;WHO,2005)
Inadditiontothesestudiestherehavebeenoccasionalmediareportsofcancerclustersaroundmobilephonebasestationsandthesehaveheightenedpublicconcern.Whentheseclustersareanalyseditisoftenfoundthatthereportedclusterdoesn’texist.Thiscanbeduetoanumberoffactorsincludingmultiplereportingofthesamecases;someofthereportedcancershavingoccurredmanyyearsbeforetheexistenceofthebasestation;orthatanumberofthecancerswereclearlyassociatedwithheavysmokingorsomeothermorelikelycause.Indeed,becausecancerisprimarilyadiseasethataffectsolderpeople,over20%oftheIrishpopulationwilleventuallydieofcancer.
Althoughmostcancerclustersreportedinthemediacanbeexplained,thedistributionofcancerinapopulationfollowswhatistermedinstatisticsasa‘Poissondistribution’.Becauseofthis,thedistributionoftheincidenceofcancerinsmallareaswillbeveryuneven,withsomelocationshavingmanymorecasesthantheaverage,andothersfarfewer.Further,sincethereare4500phonemastsinIreland,distributedrelativelyevenlyamongthepopulation,itistobeexpectedthatatanylocationwhereacancerclusterisreported,thereislikelytobeaphonemast.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthephonemastisthecauseofthecluster.
Mobile phonesThereviewsmentionedabovehaveallconcludedthatwhileRFenergycaninteractwithbodytissuesatlevelstoolowtocauseanysignificantheating,nostudyhasestablishedthatanyadversehealtheffectsoccuratexposurelevelsbelowinternationalguidelinelimits.Moststudieshaveexaminedtheresultsofshort-term,wholebodyexposuretoRFfieldsatlevelsfarhigherthanthosenormallyassociatedwithwirelesscommunications.HoweverthealmostuniversaluseofmobilephonesinmanycountrieshasdrawnparticularattentiontothepossibleconsequencesoflocalisedRFexposuretotheheadandbrain.Itshouldbenotedthatcurrentmobilephonesuseadigitalsignal,whileearlierphonesemployedanaloguesignals.Thepoweroutputofthedigitalphonesishalforlessthanthatoftheiranaloguecounterparts.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
SeveralstudiesofanimalsexposedtoRFfieldssimilartothoseemittedbymobilephoneshavefoundnoevidencethatRFcausesorpromotesbraincancer.Whileonestudy(Repacholi et al,1997)foundthatRFfieldsincreasedtherateatwhichgeneticallyengineeredmicedevelopedlymphoma,otherstudieshavefailedtosupportthisfinding(Utteridge et al,2002;Zook and Simmens,2001;Heikkinen,2003).TheHealthCouncilofTheNetherlands(HCN,2003)concludedthatthereisnoconvincingevidencethat,inexperimentalanimals,theincidenceoflymphomasandothertypesoftumoursisinfluencedbylifetime,dailyexposuretoEMFsuchasthoseassociatedwithmobiletelephony.
Thefirstcase-controlstudyofbraintumoursandmobilephoneusewasconductedinSweden(Hardell et al,1999).Itindicatednooverallassociationofphoneusewitheitherbraintumoursoracousticneuroma(abenigntumouroftheacousticnerve),norwasthereanyassociationwithanalogueordigitalphoneuse,whetherconsideredtogetherorseparately,andwhetherphoneusewasmeasuredstarting1,5or10yearsbeforethediagnosis.Subsequentre-analysisofthesamedata(bysideoftheheadthatthephonewasusedversussideoftumouroccurrence)showedanassociation,ofborderlinesignificance,fortumourstooccuronthesamesideoftheheadthatthephonewasused(Hardell et al,2001).WhilepooledanalysesofstudiesconductedbytheHardellgroup(Hardell et al2006a,b)suggestanassociationbetweenmobileandcordlessphone,useandanincreaseintheincidenceofbraintumoursandacousticneuroma,theoriginalstudieswerecriticisedonmethodologicalgrounds(Boice and McLaughlin,2002;Sweden,2003).Moreusefulinformationwillcomefromthepooledanalysesoftheverylarge,13-country,WHO-sponsoredINTERPHONEstudythatisdueforpublicationin2007.
TheresultsofsomeindividualINTERPHONEstudieshavebeenpublishedinpeerreviewedscientificjournals.Theseresultsshowgenerallylittleornoassociationbetweenheadtumoursandmobilephoneuse(SSI,2004).Somestudieshaveshown(Lönn et al,2004)anincreasedincidenceofacousticneuromainthosewhohavebeenusingmobilephonesformorethantenyears.Thisfindingwillrequirefurtherinvestigationandreplication.However,thosewhohaveusedmobilephonesformorethantenyearswerealmostalwaysinitiallyusingtheolderanaloguephones.
Inotherstudiesscientistshavereportedeffectsfrommobilephoneusethatincludechangesinbrainactivity,reactiontimes,andsleeppatterns.Theeffectsaresmallandtransitory,andunlikelytohaveanylong-termhealthconsequences.Furtherstudiesinthisareaareinprogress.
Researchhasclearlydemonstratedanincreaseintheriskoftrafficaccidentswhenmobilephones(eitherhandheldorwithahands-freekit)areusedwhiledriving(IEGMP,2000).
InastudyoftheprevalenceofsymptomsamongmobilephoneusersinNorwayandSweden(Oftedal et al,2000),heavyusersofmobilephonesreportedfeelingsofwarmthon,aroundorbehindtheear,headache,dizziness,fatigueanddifficultyconcentrating.
Howeverthereportedsymptomsdidnotappeartoberelatedtothekindofmobilephonebeingused(analogueordigital).
Standards and WHO responseTheICNIRPguidelinesforlimitingpublicexposurehavebeenadoptedinagreatmanycountries.TheyhavebeenadoptedinIrelandandhavebeenrecommendedbytheEU,initsCouncilRecommendation(EU,1999)andinthePhysicalAgentsDirective(EU,2004).TheICNIRPguidelinesareunderconstantreviewandarelikelytobereissuedwithorwithoutamendmentfollowingthepublicationoftheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportonRF,expectedtobepublishedin2009,aninitiativeoftheWHOInternationalEMFProject.
SummaryWithacknowledgementtothemanyreviewsmentionedaboveandparticularlytotworecentpublicationsfromtheUK(NRPB,2003;2005)thefollowingisasummaryofthefindingssofaronthehealthquestionsraisedbymobiletelephony.
nThescientificevidencesuggeststhatRFfieldsdonotcausemutationintheDNAorinitiate,progressorpromotetumourformation.
nTheepidemiologicalevidencedoesnotsuggestacausalassociationbetweentheoccurrenceofbraincancerandexposurestoRFfields,inparticularfrommobilephones,andradioandTVtransmitters.
nArecent,well-conducted,case-controlstudyfromSweden(Lönn et al,2004)hasidentifiedaslightlyincreasedriskofacousticneuromaamongpeopleusingamobilephonefortenyearsormore.Thisconclusionwasbasedonsmallnumbers.Noassociationwasseenwithuseforlessthantenyears,whichwasconsistentwithpreviousstudies.Epidemiologicalstudiesinprogressshouldprovidemoreinformationonthis.
nAmemberofthegeneralpublicwouldnotbeexposedtoRFfieldsthatexceedtheguidelinelimitsiftheyaremorethanabout1-3metresfromtheantennasofabasestation.
nExposurestoRFfieldsofmembersofthepublicnearmobilephonebasestationsareaverysmallfractionoftheguidelinelimits;currentscientificevidenceindicatesthatsuchexposuresareunlikelytoposeanyrisktohealth.
nExposuresofanimalstoRFfieldscharacteristicofmobilephonesystemshavefoundnoevidenceofgenotoxic,mutagenic,orcarcinogeniceffects.
nRFexposuredoesnotaffectsurvivalortumourincidenceinanimalswhentumoursareinducedbyx-raysorchemicals.Furtherwell-conductedresearchinthisareaissoontobepublished(PERFORM-AstudiesundertheEU’sFifthFrameworkResearchProgramme),althoughpreliminaryresultsreleasedbytheinvestigatorsindicatethatnoneofthestudiesfoundanyincreaseincancerriskfromRFexposure.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
nMalefertilitystudiesinanimalsshowasusceptibilitytoRFexposureatlevelsthatresultinasignificanttemperatureincrease,butnotatlowerlevelsofexposure.
nMostanimalstudieshavenotreportedanyRF-fieldexposureeffectsonthebrainornervoussystem.
nThereismixedscientificevidenceconcerningtheeffectofRFexposureonhumanbrainactivityandcognitivefunction.ArecentstudyintheNetherlandssuggestedsomeeffectsofUMTSsignals(butnotGSMsignals)onself-reportedwell-being,butareplicationstudyinSwitzerlandwithanimproveddesigncouldnotconfirmthis(Regelet al2006).Theevidenceforadirecteffectofmobilephonefieldsoncognitiveperformanceisinconsistentandunconvincing.
nAcuteexposuretohighintensitiesofRFfieldscancausethermalinjurytotissues.Theguidelinelimitshavebeendesignedtoprotectagainstthiseffect.
nSomeindividualsreportsymptoms(mostcommonlyofwarmthoralteredsensationintheearandadjacentpartsofthescalp)whentheyusemobilephones.ItispossiblethatlocalisedheatingoccursasaconsequenceoftheRFfieldsfromthephone’santennaalthoughlackofconductionofthebody’sownheatfromahandsetmadeofthermallyinsulatingmaterials,isamorelikelyexplanation.
nTheepidemiologicalstudiesconductedtodateprovideonlyindirectinformationonRFexposure,andthismayhavedilutedrealeffects,ifthereareany.Thedesignofthestudieshasoftenbeenweak,anddataonpotentialconfoundershavebeenlimitedorabsent.Thepowerofmanyofthestudieshasbeenlow.Hence,althoughthestudieshavenotfoundanyincreasedriskofcancerfromRFexposure,moreinformationisneededfromongoinglargehighqualitystudies.
nTheweightofevidencedoesnotsuggestthatthereareadversehealtheffectsfromexposurestoRFfieldsbelowtheguidelinelimits.Howevermobilephoneshaveonlybeeninwidespreaduseforarelativelyshorttime,lessthan20years.AsevidencedbytheLönnstudy(Lönn et al,2004)thepossibilityremainsthattherecouldbehealtheffectsfromlong-termexposuretoRFfieldswithintheguidelinelimits:hencecontinuedresearchisneeded.Furthertherehavebeenfewstudiescompletedondiseasesotherthancancerorthatinvolvechildren.
4.2PowerLine&ExtremelyLowFrequencyFieldsWhilelifeinIrelandwouldbeclosetoimpossiblewithoutaccesstoelectricityandthesupplyinfrastructurethatdeliversit,ourveryexistenceiscriticallydependentonelectricity.Thekickthatdeliversascoreinafootballgameandthesubsequentreactionsofthespectators,thecryofababyandtheresponseoftheparentarealldependentontheharmonisedoperationofbillionsofcircuitsthatcarrytheelectriccurrentswhichcontrolthesignalssentbackandforthbetweenourbrainandnerveandmusclecells(Hille,1984).
Thesenatural,orendogenous,currentsareasmuchapartofourbodies’functionasareourheartandlungs,andnolessimportant.Theinductionoffurtheradditionalcurrentswithinthebodyasaresultofexposuretoanexternalmagneticfieldisabiologicaleffect.Shouldtheseadditionalcurrentsbeofsufficientmagnitudetoaffectnormalbodyfunctionthenthiscouldresultinanadversehealtheffect.Thestudyoftheseinteractions,betweenexternalELFelectricandmagneticfieldsandtheendogenouscurrentswithinthebody,isamajorelementinthescienceofbio-electromagnetics.
ELF electric and magnetic fieldsELFelectricfieldsexistwhereveratime-varyingvoltage,forexamplemainselectricityat50Hz,ispresent,regardlessofwhetherornotanycurrentisflowing.Almostnoneoftheelectricfieldpenetratesintothehumanbodybecausethebodyisagoodelectricalconductor.Atveryhighfieldstrengths,electricfieldscanbeperceivedbyhairmovementontheskin.Themainsourcesofpublicexposuretosuchelectricfieldsareassociatedwiththetransmission,distributionanduseofelectricity.
ELFmagneticfieldsareproducedwheneveratime-varyingelectriccurrentisflowing.Magneticfieldsreadilypenetratethehumanbodywithlittleattenuation.Exposuretoatime-varyingmagneticfieldwillgenerate,withinthebody,time-varyingelectricfieldsandcurrentsinanyconductingtissue.
Figure 4.2 Power lines: an important source of ELF fields
Health effectsFromitscommencementin1996theInternationalEMFProjectofWHOhasmademajoreffortstopromoteandco-ordinatetargetedresearchprogrammesintothepossibleadversehealtheffectsassociatedwithexposuretoELFfields.Theseprogrammeshaveinvolvedepidemiological,animalandin-vitrostudiesthatexplorepossiblehealtheffectsandinteractionmechanismsatlevelsbelowcurrentinternationalguidelines.
Inrecentyearstherehavebeenanumberofauthoritativereviewsofthisresearch.ThesewerecarriedoutbyICNIRP (1998),the(UnitedStates)NationalInstituteforEnvironmentalHealthSciences(NIEHS,1998),NRPB(2001),HCN(2001,2004and2005),IARC(2002),the(UK)HealthProtectionAgency(HPA,2006)andbyWHO (1998,2001).
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
ThereviewsallagreedthattherewerenoestablishedadversehealthconsequencesarisingfromexposuretoELFatlevelsbelowthelimitssetoutintheICNIRP1998guidelines.
The IARC position on ELFIARCisthespecialisedWHOagencyestablishedtoinvestigateanycancerrisksofthemanychemicals,substancesandphysicalagents.Inaformalassessmentofthescientificinformationavailable,IARC,mainlyonthebasisofepidemiologicalstudiesonchildren,classifiedELFmagneticfieldsasa“possiblehumancarcinogen”.Essentially,aclassificationofasubstanceorenvironmentalagentasa“possiblehumancarcinogen”denotestheagenttobeoneforwhichthereislimitedevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansandlessthansufficientevidenceofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.ThisclassificationistheweakestofthethreecategoriesusedbyIARCtoclassifypotentialcarcinogensbasedonpublishedscientificevidence.Thethreecategoriesinascendingorderofpotentialcarcinogenicityare“possiblycarcinogenictohumans”;“probablycarcinogenictohumans”;and“iscarcinogenictohumans”.
Regulatorypoliciesforagentsclassifiedaspossiblecarcinogensvarybycountryandbyagent.TheclassificationofanagentbyIARCdoesnotautomaticallytriggeranationalregulatoryresponse.Whilepickledvegetablesandcoffeeareamongagentsclassifiedas“possiblehumancarcinogens”therehasbeenlittleefforttolimittheirexposure.
ELF fieldsWHO’sInternationalEMFProjecthasembarkedonthemostdetailedandextensiveanalysisofthescientificliteratureonthepossibleadversehealtheffectsofELFyetundertaken.ThisreportisdueforpublicationinWHO’sEnvironmentalHealthCriteriaSeriesin2007.
Previousreviewsofthescientificevidence(e.g.NRPB,2004)haveconcludedthat:
nPeoplecanperceiveelectricfieldsbyhairmovementbuttherearenoapparentadversehealtheffects,exceptwhensparkdischargesoccur.
nPeoplecannotperceivemagneticfieldsuntilthefieldstrengthisveryhighandinduceselectricfieldsandcurrentssufficienttocausenerveandmusclestimulation.Thesefieldstrengthsarewellabovethoseencounteredinourlivingenvironment.
nNoconsistentorconvincingeffectshavebeenfoundatELFfieldlevelsnormallyencounteredintheenvironmentonthecardiovascular,immuneorhaematologicalsystems,oronreproductionordevelopment.
nIARC(2002)classifiedELFmagneticfieldsasapossiblehumancarcinogenbasedonepidemiologicalstudiessuggestinganassociationbetweenexposuretoELFmagneticfieldsandchildhoodacuteleukaemia.Howevertheevidenceforacausalassociationisweakenedconsiderablybecausethereisverylittlesupportfromlaboratorystudies.Alsotheevidenceforanassociationwithotherchildhoodcancersremainsveryweak.
TheIARCClassificationSystemGroup 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedwhenthereissufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumans.Exceptionally,anagentmaybeplacedinthiscategorywhenevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansislessthansufficientbutthereissufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalsandstrongevidenceinexposedhumansthattheagentactsthrougharelevantmechanismofcarcinogenicity.
Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedwhenthereislimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansandsufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Insomecases,anagentmaybeclassifiedinthiscategorywhenthereisinadequate evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansandsufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalsandstrongevidencethatthecarcinogenesisismediatedbyamechanismthatalsooperatesinhumans.Exceptionally,anagentmaybeclassifiedinthiscategorysolelyonthebasisoflimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumans.
Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedforagentsforwhichthereislimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansandless than sufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Itmayalsobeusedwhenthereisinadequate evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansbutthereissufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Insomeinstances,anagentforwhichthereisininadequate evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansbutlimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalstogetherwithsupportingevidencefromotherrelevantdatamaybeplacedinthisgroup.
Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humansThiscategoryisusedmostcommonlyforagentsforwhichtheevidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. Exceptionally,agentsforwhichtheevidenceofcarcinogenicityisinadequateinhumansbutsufficientinexperimentalanimalsmaybeplacedinthiscategorywhenthereisstrongevidencethatthemechanismofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalsdoesnotoperateinhumans.Agentsthatdonotfallintoanyothergrouparealsoplacedinthiscategory.
Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedforagentsforwhichthereisevidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity inhumansandinexperimentalanimals.Insomeinstances,agentsforwhichthereisinadequateevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansbutevidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity inexperimentalanimals,consistentlyandstronglysupportedbyabroadrangeofotherrelevantdata,maybeclassifiedinthisgroup.
�0
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Health risk assessmentELFelectricandmagneticfieldscaninduceelectricfieldsandcurrentsinthebody.Atveryhighexposurelevelsthiscanaffectthenervoussystemwithconsequencesforhealthsuchasnervestimulationorinvoluntarymusclemovement.Exposureatlowerlevelsmayinducechangesintheexcitabilityofnervoustissueinthecentralnervoussystemthatcouldaffectmemory,cognitionandotherbrainfunctions.Theseacuteeffectsonthenervoussystemformthebasisforinternationalexposureguidelines.Theinternationalguidelinesforpublicexposurearesettoprotectindividualsfromalloftheseeffects.Inanyeventexposurelevelsthatleadtosucheffects,orexceedtheinternationalguidelines,arehighlyunlikelytobeencounteredbythegeneralpublicundernormalcircumstances.
EpidemiologicalstudiesoftheassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandchildhoodleukaemiasuggestthatwheretheaverageexposureexceeds0.3µTto0.4µTtheincidenceofchildhoodleukaemiaisdoubled.HowevertheexposureofchildreninEuropetoELFmagneticfieldsisgenerallymuchlowerthanthis,averaging0.025µTto0.07µT,dependingonthelocationoftheparticularepidemiologicalstudy.Theproportionofchildrenwhoareexposedtomagneticfieldsabove0.3µTinEuropeisestimatedatlessthan1%(Greenland and Kheifets,2006).NoIrishexposuredataareavailable.
TheinterpretationofepidemiologicalstudiesEpidemiologistsstudythecausesofill-healthandtheconsequencesofexposuretopotentiallyharmfulagentsinhumanpopulations.Unlikeanimalstudies,wheregenerallyexposureispreciselycontrolled,andtheanimalsshareenvironmentsidenticalapartfromtheexposurebeingstudied,inhumanstudiesthelevelofexposuretotheagentmaynotbeverypreciselyknown,andthepeopleexposedwilloftenliveinverydifferentenvironmentsandhavedifferentpatternsofexposuretootheragents.Forexample,somemaysmoke,andsomenot;someliveincities,othersinruralareas;somemayberichandotherspoor.
TherearetwomaintypesofepidemiologicalstudyusedtoexplorethehealtheffectsofEMF.CohortstudiesidentifyagroupofpeopleexposedatdifferentlevelstoEMF,andseewhathappenstothemovertime.Case-controlstudiesenrolagroupofpeoplewithaspecifieddisease,andacomparisongroup(controls)without,andbotharethenaskedaboutpreviousexposures.Thesestudieshavedifferentstrengthsandweaknesses.
Interpretingtheresultsofepidemiologicalstudiescanbedifficult.Manyprofessionalsarguethatnosinglestudyissufficientlyreliabletostandalone.Similarresultsfromseveralstudies,especiallyfromstudiescarriedoutinmorethanonecountryaremuchmorelikelytobetrue,thantheresultsfromanysinglestudy.
Itisnotablethatonlyhalfofthechildrenexposedtothehighestlevelsoflowfrequencyfieldsreceivetheirexposurefromoverheadpowerlines.Therestreceivetheirexposuresfromtheelectricitysupplywithinthehomeeitherfromthewaythehouseholdwiringwasconfiguredorfromusingelectricalappliances(HPA,2005).
IftheassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandchildhoodleukaemiawerecausalthen,givendataonthenumberofchildreninIrelandwhoareexposedtofieldsgreaterthan0.4µT,itwouldbepossibletomakeanestimateofthenumberofadditionalcasesthatcouldbeexpectedtoarisefromsuchexposure.UnfortunatelynoreliabledataareavailableonthemagneticfieldexposuresofIrishchildrenthatwouldpermitthisestimatetobemade.If,however,weweretoassumethattheexposureofIrishchildrentomagneticfieldsisbroadlysimilartothatofchildreninEnglandandWaleswhere0.5%ofchildrenareexposedtofieldsabove0.4µT,thenanestimatecanbemadeoftheadditionalchildhoodleukaemiacausedbythisexposure.InEnglandandWalesitwascalculatedthatacausalassociationbetweenmagneticfieldexposureandleukaemiainchildrenwouldexplaintwocasesineveryfivehundredcasesofchildhoodleukaemia(NRPB,2004).InIrelandthenumberofcasesofchildhoodleukaemiareportedannuallyvariesfromaround35to55.OnthebasisoftheUKdata,onecouldconcludethatonecaseofchildhoodleukaemiaeveryfiveyearsmighttheoreticallybeduetomagneticfieldexposure,iftheassociationiscausal.
Alternatively,ifweusetheestimatethatupto1%ofEuropeanchildrenareexposedtofieldsabove0.3µTthenonecanestimatethenumberofIrishchildrensoexposedtobearound10,000.Onthebasisofadoublingoftheincidenceofleukaemiaamongthisgroup,thenwherethenumberofcasesrangesfrom35to55eachyear,onecaseeverysecondorthirdyearmighttheoreticallybeduetomagneticfieldexposure,iftheassociationiscausal.
Uncertainties in the health risk assessmentEvidenceofotherpossibleeffectsassociatedwithEMFexposurederivesprincipallyfromepidemiologicalstudiesandfromsomeexperimentalstudies.Themainbutnottheonlysubjectofsuchstudieshasbeencancer.Thesestudieshavebeenextensivelyreviewedbyanumberofexpertgroups.TheiroverallconclusionisthatcurrentlytheresultsofthesestudiesonEMFandhealth,takenindividuallyorascollectivelyreviewedbyexpertgroups,areinsufficienteithertomakeaconclusivejudgementoncausalityortoquantifyappropriateexposurerestrictions(NRPB,2004).
Exposure standards TheaimoftheICNIRPexposureguidelinesforELFfieldsistoavoidsituationswheretheelectricfieldsandcurrentsinducedbyexternalfieldsovercomeorotherwisecompromisetheendogenousfieldsandcurrentsinthebodyandsocreateanadversehealthsituation.Theguidelinevaluesarebasedonreproduciblethresholdeffectsonhumanvolunteersandexperimentalanimalsandareset50timeslowerthantherelevantthresholdeffect.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
FollowingtheclassificationbyIARCofELFmagneticfieldsasapossiblehumancarcinogen,ICNIRPissuedastatementindicatingthattheevidenceforthesefieldscausingleukaemiainchildrenwastooweaktorecommendanychangestotheirexposureguidelines(ICNIRP,2001).FollowingpublicationoftheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportonELFfields,ICNIRPwillundertakeafurtherreviewofitsELFguidelines.
TheEuropeanUnionhasalsocontinuedtorecommendandusetheICNIRPguidelines:intheRecommendationoftheCouncilofHealthMinisterstolimitpublicexposurestoelectromagneticfieldsinMemberStates(EU,1999)andmorerecentlyinthePhysicalAgentsDirectivelimitingoccupationalexposuretoEMF(EU,2004).
4.3StaticFields
Static magnetic fieldsAtthecentreoftheearththereisasolidcorethatisasbigasthemoonandashotasthesurfaceofthesun.Itprovidestheheatandenergythatmeltsanddrivesthesurroundinglayerofmoltenironmagmawhosemovementcreatestheearth’smagneticfield.Thisnaturalgeomagneticfieldvariesinstrengthfrom35to70microtesla(µT)andisenoughtodeflectcompassneedles,andassistinthenavigationandmigrationofsomebirdsandfish.Staticman-mademagneticfieldsaregeneratedwhereverdirect(DC)currentsareused,asforexampleinDublin’sDARTandLUASsuburbantransportationsystems,andinanumberofindustrialprocessesincludingaluminiummanufactureandgaswelding.
Figure 4.3 Photograph of a LUAS tram in Dublin
Morerecenttechnologicalinnovationshaveledtotheuseofstaticmagneticfieldsoftenverymuchstrongerthantheearth’smagneticfield.Theyareusedinresearchandinmedicalapplicationssuchasmagneticresonanceimaging(MRI)thatprovidethree-dimensionalimagesofthebrainandothersofttissues.Inroutineclinicalsystems,scannedpatientsandmachineoperatorscanbeexposedtostrongmagneticfieldsofupto3T.Inmedicalresearchapplicationsfieldsof10Tcanbeemployedinwholebodyscanning.AsthefieldstrengthsusedinMRIsystemsincrease,sotodoesthepotentialforvariousinteractionsofthefieldwiththebody.
Static electric fieldsCollisionsbetweencosmicraysandairmoleculesintheupperatmosphereproduceachargedlayerofaround300000voltssome25kmabovetheearth’ssurface.Thiscreatesanaturalstaticelectricfieldofaround10to100voltspermetre(V/m)atgroundleveltowhichweareallexposed.Duringthunderstormsthisfieldcanincreaseoverahundredfoldandthepotentialforlightningstrikes,dischargesbetweentheatmosphereandtheearth,canposeaseriousdangertoanyonecaughtoutintheopen.Electrostaticfieldsinahazardousatmospherecaninitiateexplosions.Acommonexperienceindailylifeisthesparkdischargeexperiencedwhentouchingsomethingmetallicafterwalkingoveracarpet.Whiletheseelectrostaticfieldscanmeasuretensofthousandsofvoltspermetreandcanbeanirritation,theyaregenerallynothazardousbecausetheyarenotassociatedwithenoughelectricalchargetocauseinjury.Howeversuchsuddenshockscancauseaccidentswhentheaffectedpersonfallsordropssomethingtheyarecarrying.
Figure 4.4 Photograph of Lightning
TheuseofDCelectricity,asintheDARTandLUASforexample,isanothersourceofstaticelectricfields.Televisionandcomputerscreensemployingcathoderaytubescanalsogenerateelectrostaticfieldsasevidencedbydustparticlesattractedtothescreen.
Health effectsFewstudieshavebeencarriedoutconcerningthepossiblehealtheffectsofstaticelectricfields.
Exceptforlightningstrikesresultingfromthedischargeoftheelectricfieldsassociatedwiththunderstorms,theresultstodatesuggestthattheonlyadverseacuteeffectsareassociatedwiththedirectperceptionoftheelectricfieldthroughitsinteractionwithbodyhairanddiscomfortfromsparkdischarges.Chronicordelayedeffectsofstaticelectricfieldshavenotbeenintensivelyinvestigated,butsucheffectsseemveryunlikely.IARCnotedthattherewasinsufficientevidencetodeterminethecarcinogenicityofstaticelectricfields(IARC,2002).AdetailedexplanationoftheIARCclassificationsystemisgiveninthesectionon‘PowerLineandExtremelyLowFrequencyFields’.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
ThefollowingobservationsaredrawnfromtheWHO’sEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareport,Static Electric and Magnetic Fields (WHO,2006).
Inthecaseofstaticmagneticfields,acuteeffectsareonlylikelytooccurwhenthereismovementinthefield.Thiswouldarisefromthemotionofapersonorofaninternalbodymovement,suchasbloodfloworheartbeat.Apersonmovingwithinafieldabove2Tcanexperiencesensationsofnauseaandvertigo,andoccasionallyametallictasteinthemouthandperceptionsoflightflashes.Althoughonlytemporary,sucheffectsmayhavesafetyimplicationsforworkersexecutingdelicateprocedures(suchassurgeonsperformingoperationswithinMRIunits).
Staticmagneticfieldsexertforcesonmovingchargesintheblood,suchasions,generatingelectricfieldsandcurrentsaroundtheheartandmajorbloodvesselsthatcanslightlyimpedetheflowofblood.Possibleeffectsrangefromminorchangesintheheartbeattoanincreaseintheriskofabnormalheartrhythms(arrhythmia)thatmightbelife-threatening(suchasventricularfibrillation).However,suchkindsofacuteeffectsareonlylikelyinfieldsabove8T.
Withregardtochronicanddelayedeffectssuchascancer,theavailableevidencefromepidemiologicalandlaboratorystudiesisinsufficienttodrawaconclusion.IARCconcludedthattherewasinadequateevidenceinhumansforthecarcinogenicityofstaticmagneticfields,andnorelevantdatawasavailablefromexperimentalanimals.Theyarethereforenotatpresentclassifiableastotheircarcinogenicitytohumans(IARC,2002).
Staticmagneticfieldscanaffectimplantedmetallicdevicessuchaspacemakers,andthiscouldhavedirectadversehealthconsequences.Itissuggestedthatthewearersofcardiacpacemakers,ferromagneticimplantsandotherimplantedmedicalandsurgicaldevicesshouldavoidlocationswherethemagneticfieldexceeds0.5millitesla(mT).Also,precautionsshouldbetakentopreventhazardsfromlooseferromagneticobjectsbecomingprojectilesinareaswherethefieldexceeds3mT.
Standards RecommendedstaticfieldexposurelimitswereissuedbyICNIRPsomeyearsago(ICNIRP,1994).TheselimitsarenowunderactivereviewfollowingtheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportonstaticelectricandmagneticfieldexposure(WHO,2006)andtheEuropeanUnion’sPhysicalAgents(ElectromagneticFields)Directive(EU,2004).Astherewereinsufficientdataavailableonstaticmagneticfields,theEUdidnotincludetheminthisoccupationalEMFdirective.ThereviewbeingundertakenbyICNIRPofitsstaticfieldsexposureguidelinesisparticularlyrelevantinthecontextofthehighstaticmagneticfieldstrengthsnowbeingemployedinmanyMRIimagingsystems.HoweverinthevicinityofMRImachines,exposuresareconfinedtomedicalandsupporttechnicalstaffwhoworknearthemagnetandtopatientsandvolunteerpersonnelundergoingscans.Nomemberofthegeneralpublicwillexperiencesuchfieldsunlessheorshebecomesapatient.ThecurrentstaticmagneticfieldexposurelimitrecommendedbyICNIRPis40mTforthegeneralpublic.
4.4NewWirelessTechnologiesandHealth
Wireless communicationEinstein,whenquestionedbyayoungcorrespondentaboutradio,explained:
“You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.”
IntheseventyyearsthatfollowedAlexanderGrahamBell’sinventionofthetelephonehalfabillionfixedtelephonelineswereinstalledworld-wide.Yetthisimpressivestatisticisdwarfedbytheuptakeofthemobilephone:onebillioninusewithintenyearsofitsintroductionandaroundtwobillionatpresent.Neitherthemotorcar,northetelevisionset,noranyotherinventioninthehistoryofmankindhasbeensoquicklyanduniversallyacceptedorhasachievedsucharateofgrowth.
Einsteinmighthavementionedthatinsteadofthecatyouneededatransmitterandareceiver.Inmobiletelephonythephoneandthebasestationtransmitter(thephonemast)haveantennasthatcanbothtransmitandreceivesignals.Whilethepublic’sloveaffairwithmobilephonesgrows,andtheapplicationsandfunctionsprovidedbythemseemlimitedonlybyourimagination,thenecessarycorollaryofprovidingmoreandmorephonemaststofacilitatetheirusegeneratesanoppositeemotion.
Itisunavoidablethatallnewwirelesstechnologieswillrequiretransmittersandreceivers.Itisalsothecasethatmanynewtechnologieswillrequirelargenumbersofradiotransmitterslocatedinplaceswheretheyarereadilyobservableandgeneratefurtherpublicconcern.Thepurposeofthischapteristohighlightthedevelopmentsinwirelesstechnologymostlikelytoimpactthegeneralpublicoverthenextfiveorsoyearsandidentifyandcommentontheradio-frequencyexposuresassociatedwiththesetechnologies.
The new technologies
GSMTenyearsagotherewerefewerthan400,000mobilephonesinuseinIreland;todaythereare4million.Theserequiresome4500basestationstoprovideanalmosttotalnationalcoverage.ThesebasestationsoperateundertheGlobalSystemforMobileCommunication(GSM).Itisthemostwidelyusedmobilestandardwitharoundtwobillioncustomersin200countries.GSMcanoperateintwomainfrequencybands:onebetween880MHzand960MHz,theotherbetween1710MHzand1880MHz.Thephonescommunicatewiththemastsbymeansofcodedpulsedsignalsandavoidinterferingwithoneanotherbystayingwithintheconfinesoftheirallocatedfrequencybandsor‘carrierwave’.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Typicalmobilephonehandsettransmitterpowerduringacallliesintherangeof0.2to0.6Wwhichcontrastswithotherhand-heldtransmitters,suchas“walkietalkies”thatcantransmitupto5W.Becausethedesignofthehandsetandthecommonpositionofuse(againstthehead),theheadoftheuserreceivesthehighestexposure.
SinceOctober2001,underavoluntaryagreementbetweentheEuropeanindustryassociationsandtheEU,allphonesonsalewithintheEUareprovidedwithinformationontheirspecificabsorptionrate(SAR).TheSARisameasureofhowmuchRFenergyisdepositedintheheadpersecondwhenthephoneisoperatingatmaximumpower.AllmobilephonesonsalemustoperatebelowaSARlimitof2.0wattsperkilogram(W/kg),measuredoverany10gramsoftissue.TypicalSARlevelsforphonescurrentlyonsaleinIrelandrangefrom0.2to1.2W/kg.Theexposurelevelsfalloffveryrapidlywithdistancefromthehandset.Forexample,theRFexposuretoaperson30cmfromatransmittingphoneisonlyone-hundredththatreceivedbythephoneuser(ICIA,2001;WHO,2000).
Thirdgeneration(3G)mobiletelephony–UMTSTheintroductionofa3GnetworkformobiletelephonyiscurrentlyunderwayinIreland.Handheld3GphonesgenerallyoperateatlowerpowerlevelsthanGSMhandsets.Thetypicalpoweroutputfroma3Gphonecanvarybetween0.125Wand0.250W.3GphonesaresimilartoGSMphonesinthattheyutiliseadaptivecontroltechnologythatenablesthemtooperateatthelowestpowerrequiredforgoodradiocommunicationatanytime.TheSARsfrom3GphonesarebetweenonehalfandonetenthofthoseproducedbyGSMphones.
Thebroadbandcommunicationsthat3Gprovideenableshigh-speedaccesstoservicessuchastheInternet,videoconferencingandfastere-mail.The3GnetworkinEuropeisbasedontheUniversalMobileTelecommunicationsSystem(UMTS)standard.Plannedterrestrialoperationwillemployfrequenciesbetween1900and2170MHz.Thefrequencyrangefrom2170to2200MHzisreservedforsatellitephones.
TheaverageRFemissionfrom3Gbasestationtransmitters,around3W,islowerthanfromGSMbasestations.Thereasonforthelowerantennapowerisduetotheuseofsmarttechnologytoencodeinformationonabroadbandradiosignalandtothesmallersizeofthe3Gcell.Maximumpublicexposurelevelsfrom3Gmastsareusuallylessthanonethousandthoftheinternationalexposurelimits.Atadistanceof200metresfroma3Gbasestation,publicexposuresfalltoonefiftythousandthoftheselimits.(Australia,2003)
TerrestrialTrunkedRadio(TETRA)TETRAisadedicateddigitalmobiletelephonesystemforemergencyservicesandparticularlynationalpoliceforces.TETRAwillreplacetheanalogueradiosystemsthatareinusebyAnGardaSíochána.TheadvantageofTETRAisthatitcanprovideclearer,moresecureandextensivecoveragethantheanaloguesystem.TETRAallowsgroupcallstobesetupquicklyanditcancopewithveryhighpeakdemand.AnadditionalbenefitisthatemergencyservicesandGarda
operationswillnotbeimpededduringamajorincident:insuchcircumstancesitisnotunusualforGSMandanaloguecommunicationnetworkstobecomeoverloadedbypublicuse.Thereferenceto“trunked”intheTETRAacronymmeansthatradiochannelscanbesharedbytwoormoreusersatthesametime.
TETRAoperatesatfrequenciesfrom380to399.9MHzandfrom870to921MHz.IntrunkedoperationtheradioequipmentcommunicatesthroughbasestationssimilartotheGSMmobiletelephonesystem.ThetransmissionpoweremployedbyTETRAbasestationscanbe25Wpercarrier.HoweverTETRAalsosupportsdirectmodeoperationwherebyTETRAradioequipmentcanlinkdirectlytootherTETRAradioequipmentwithoutgoingthroughabasestation.
TETRAhandsetscanoperateateither1or3Windatatransmissionmode.Inspeechmodetheoutputsarereducedto0.25or0.75Wdependingontheclassofradioused.TheTETRAbasestationshaveoutputsofafewtensofwattsandaresimilarinthisrespecttoGSMbasestations(UK,2004).HoweverTETRAbasestationsoperatecontinuously,whereasGSMbasestationsoperateonlywhenmobilephoneusersintheareaaremakingcalls.
Wirelesslocalareanetwork(WLAN)andWiFiThefirstWirelessLocalAreaNetworkorWLANbeganoperationin1971asaresearchprojectattheUniversityofHawaii.ALOHANET,asitwascalled,wasdeployedoverfourislandsandconnectedtoacomputeronOahuwithoutusingconventionalphonelines.Today,laptops,personalcomputers,personaldigitalassistantsuseWLAN,orWiFiasitismoreoftencalledinIreland,tocommunicatewithoneanother,toprovideuserswithgo-anywhereInternetaccess,andtoconnecttowirelesshubsthatconnectarangeofhomedevices.(Link,2002)
WhileWiFiwirelessnetworkscanreachuptoonekilometreinrange,themostwidelyusedapplications(inoffices,schools,homesandhotels)haveamuchshorterrange.ComputerswithWiFihaveantennasmountedexternallyorinternallytoeffecttheradiocommunication,whichusesfrequenciesbetween2.4and5.88GHz.EachWiFicellrequiresacentralantenna.Duetothefrequenciesemployedandthegenerallysmallsizeofacellthecentralantennasareusuallyverysmallandlowpowered.
ManymobilephonesnowcontainWiFichipstoallowthemhookuptotheInternetwirelessly.UserswillthenbeabletousetheWiFinetworktomakephonecallsovertheInternetusingVoiceoverInternetProtocol(VoIP).Atatouchofabuttonontheirphones,userswillbypasstheirmobilephonenetworkandconnecttotheWiFinetworkinstead.
WiFiequipmentoperatesinoneoffourdesignatedfrequencybands.Themaximumpoweroutputperdevicerangesfrom0.1Wat2.4GHzto2Wat5.88GHz.WiFiuserscanexpectmaximumtransmissionspeedsofbetween24to35megabitspersecond(Mbps)overopenspacesofabout50metres.Atgreaterdistancesorindoorsinthepresenceofobstacles,WiFi,likeallshortrangeradiosystems,reduces
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
itsdatatransmissionspeedtocompensate.BecauseWiFitransmissionsareintermittent,onatimeaveragedbasis,userexposurewillbeloweranddependontheamountofdatabeingtransmitted.ActualexposureofauserofWiFiequipmentwillalsodependonwherethetransmittingantennasarelocatedwithrespecttotheuser’sbody.IntensitylevelswithinofficesequippedwithWiFiarewellbelowexposureguidelinelimits.However,insituationswheretheantennainalaptopcomputeriswithinacentimetreorsofromthelaponwhichthecomputerisplaced,exposurelevelswillbehigher(Leeper,2002;UK,2004).OnlyonereportonEMFexposureisavailableatthistime(Schmid,2005).
DECT(Digitallyenhancedcordlesstelephones)CordlessphonesoperatinginadomesticenvironmentaresimilartoGSMphonesinthattheyalsoneedabasestation.Howeverthebasestationusuallydoublesasacordlessphoneholderandispoweredbymainselectricity.Thissmallbasestationcommunicateswithuptosixcordlessphoneslinkedtothesystembyradiosignals.
Thesignalsaredigitallyencodedtopreventeavesdropping.DECTsystemsoperateatfrequenciesbetween1880and1900MHz.Theyareextremelylowpowered–theirrangeistypically50metresfromindoors.(Eircom,2003).Thebasestationpoweroutputsarelimitedto12milliwatts(mW)andthephoneoutputsto10mW.AtypicalGSMbasestationcanhaveanoutputbetween20and50W,whichissome2000to5000timesgreaterthanDECT.
BluetoothShort-rangewirelesscommunicationamongelectronicdevicescanbeachievedbyuseofBluetooth(thenamederivesfromthatofatenthcenturyDanishkingwho,unusualforthetime,fosteredpeaceandharmonyamonghisneighbours).Bluetoothisthebestknownofwhatarecalledwirelesspersonalareanetworks(PANs).WirelessPANscanreplacetheUSBandothercablesusedtopassdataamongcloselylocatedelectronicequipment.ThetypicaldatatransmissionspeedofBluetoothisaround700kilobitspersecondoverdistancesupto10metres.DevicesincorporatingBluetoothincludemobilephoneheadsetsandcomputeraccessoriessuchasprinters,keyboards,thecomputermouse,andpersonaldigitalassistants.Thistechnologyisbeingincreasinglyusedinbusinessandinthehome.Bluetoothoperatesinafrequencybandaround2.45GHz.ThemaximumpowerofBluetoothdevicesis100mW,25mWor1mW,dependingonthepowerclassofthedevice.(UK,2004)
Ultra-Wideband(UWB)Fewtechnicaldevelopmentsbetterillustratethemarchofcommunicationstechnologythanultra-wideband(UWB)wirelesstechnology.WhereasonehundredyearsagoMarconi,bymeansofbulkycoilsandcapacitors,couldconveytheequivalentof10bitsofdatapersecond,UWBtechnology,withtinyintegratedcircuitsandtunneldiodes,cansendmorethan100millionbitsofdigitalinformationinthesametime.
UWBwirelessisunlikeothermorefamiliarformsofradiocommunicationsuchasAM/FM,shortwave,emergencyservices,radioandtelevision.Thelatterareallnarrowband
services,whichavoidinterferencewithoneanotherbystayingwithintheconfinesoftheirallocatedfrequencybands,usingwhatiscalledacarrierwave.There,thedatamessagesareimpressedontheunderlyingcarriersignalbymodulatingitsamplitude,frequencyorphase.UWBtechnologyisquitedifferent.Insteadofacarriersignal,UWBmessagesarecomposedofaseriesofintermittentpulses.Byvaryingthepulses’amplitude,polarity,timingorothercharacteristicacrossarangeoffrequenciesinformationiscodedintoastreamofdata.
Becauseoftheirextremelyshortduration–apulseonlylastsforafractionofabillionthofasecond–theseultrawidebandpulsesfunctioninacontinuousbandoffrequenciesthatcanspanseveralGHz.UWBtransceiversarenowabletoprovideveryhighdatatransmissionspeedsintherange100to500Mbpsacrossdistancesoffiveto10metres.Ultrawidebandcommunicationsystemsoperateatpowerlevelssolowthattheyemitlessradioenergythanahairdryeroranelectricdrillorevenalaptopcomputer.Thislowpower,however,restrictstherangeofUWBdevicestousuallyaround10metres.Atypical200microwatt(µW)UWBtransmitterradiatesonlyonethree-thousandthsoftheaverageenergyemittedbya0.6Wmobilephone.(Leeper,2002)
Radio-frequencyIdentification(RFID)SystemsLowpowerwirelesscommunicationiswidelyusedinradio-frequencyidentification(RFID)ofpeopleandobjects.
TherearetwobasictypesofRFID–activeandpassive.Intheactivesystemtheobjectorpersonwhosemovementsarecontrolledormonitoredcarriesaradiotransmitter.Thesignalfromthetransmitterisdetectedbyafixedreceivermountedontheentryorexitundersurveillance.Informationfromthereceiveristhenanalysedbyacomputerthatsendsinstructionstopermitorpreventpassage.
Figure 4.5 Photo of one day old baby wearing RFID tag
Inthepassivesystemtheobjectorpersoncarriesamicrochipattachedtoatinyantenna,calledatransponder.Theradiotransmitterismountedontheentryorexitundersurveillance.Thesignalfromthetransmitterpromptsarespondingsignalfromthetransponder.Thisresponseisthenrelayedtoacomputer,whichtakestheappropriateaction.MostoftheRFIDdevicestowhichthepublicareexposedarepassive(i.e.nonbroadcasting)devices.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
AninterestingnewapplicationinuseinsomeIrishmaternityhospitalsistheuseofRFIDanklebandsonnewbornbabiesasamoresecurealternativetotheirconventionalidentificationbyahandwrittenidentificationtag.Doorscanbeautomaticallyclosedandalarmssoundedshouldanunauthorisedpersonmovethebabyoutofadesignatedarea.
ThepoweroutputofRFIDdevicesisgenerallysmall,oftheorderof10mW.AlargenumberofspecificwirelessfrequenciesareapprovedforshortrangeRFIDdevices,from9kHzto17.3GHz.
Health effects of new wireless technologiesAquestionthatisoftenasked,particularlyinthefieldofwirelesstechnology,iswhynewtechnologiescontinuetobeintroducedwithoutbeingsubjecttoakindofhealthcheck?Newpharmaceuticalproductsmustundergorigoroustestingbeforetheycanbeprescribed.Whyarethesamemeasuresnotundertakenpriortotheintroductionofnewcommercialapplicationsofwirelesstechnology?
Thisimportantquestionisdealtwithindetailelsewhereinthisreport.Theanswerisfoundedonstandards.Essentially,thereexistscientificallywell-supportedexposurestandardsbasedonextensiveandon-goingresearchthatcanbeusedasayardsticktoassessthesafetyofvirtuallyallnewapplicationsofwirelesstechnology.Ifoneknowstheoperationalpoweroutputofthenewdevice,thefrequencyorfrequenciesatwhichitoperates,andtheproximityoftheuserorthegeneralpublictothedevice,thenitispossibletocalculateormeasurethemaximumfieldstrengthandthenatureoftheradio-frequencyfieldtowhichamemberofthepublicissubjected.
Thismeasuredorcalculatedexposureisthencomparedtothemaximumrecommendedexposurelimitssetoutinthestandard.Thestandardsforpublicexposurehavesafetyfactorsofmorethan50builtintotheirvaluesandanyexposurelessthanthislimitisnotharmful.Likewiseanysmallexcursioninexposureabovethelimits,whilerequiringinvestigation,isunlikelytopresentanadversehealthriskbecauseofthesafetyfactorincorporatedintothelimit.
OnewayoflookingatthenewtechnologiesdiscussedaboveistocomparethemtotheGSMmobilephoneexposuresthatarediscussedearlier.UMTS3Gphonesystemsoperatearound2000MHz.ThisfrequencypenetrateslessintothehumanbodythantheGSMfrequencies(900MHzand1800MHz).
ThemaximumpoweroutputofaUMTSphonevariesis0.25W,comparedto2Wat900MHZand1Wat1800MHzfortheGSMphones.HoweverbecausetheUMTShandsettransmitscontinuouslywhiletheGSMhandsetoperatesinpulsedmode,theexposuretoaUMTShandsetisessentiallythesameasthatfroma1800MHzGSMhandset.UMTSbasestationoutputsaresmallerthanthoseofGSMbasestationsbecausetheUMTScellsizeisgenerallysmaller.
TETRAhandsetsoperateateither1or3Windatatransmissionmode.Whenoperatinginspeechmodetheoutputsarereducedto0.25or0.75Wdependingontheclassofradio
used.TheTETRAbasestationshaveoutputsofafewtensofwattsandaresimilarinthisrespecttoGSMbasestations.Measurementsundertakenusinganartificialhead(UK,2004),haveshownthata3Whandsetoperatingatmaximumpower,heldclosetotheheadforlongerthansixminutes,couldresultinthemaximumexposurestandardforamemberofthepublicbeingexceeded.Howeverthisexposurewouldnotexceedtheoccupationalexposureguideline.Theoccupationalexposurelimitsarefivetimeshigherthanthoseforthegeneralpublic,butstillincorporateasafetyfactorof10overthelevelatwhichanyhealthriskmightarise.
DECT,WiFi,Bluetooth,UWBandRFIDtechnologiesinvolveshortrangeradiosignallingwithassociatedlowpoweroutputsandcorrespondinglylowuserexposures.Howevertheseexposurescanbehigherthanexpectedbecauseitispossiblefortheusertogetextremelyclosetothetransmitter.ThisisparticularlythecasewithDECT,WiFiandBluetoothtransmitters.RecallingthatthelimitingSARforGSMphonesis2W/kg,thefollowingpeakspatialSARexposuremeasurementswerereportedattheWHO2005workshoponbasestations(Kuhn et al,2005):
nDECT:Fourdevices,maximumSARs:0.019W/kgto0.052W/kg
nWiFi:Threedevices,maximumSARs:0.06W/kgto0.81W/kg
nBluetooth:Fourdevices,maximumSARs:0.005W/kgto0.466W/kg
4.5ElectromagneticHypersensitivity
What is EHS?Theterm‘electromagnetichypersensitivity’(EHS)isoftenusedtodenoteaphenomenonwhereindividualsexperienceadversehealtheffectswhileusingorbeinginthevicinityofelectric,magnetic,EMFsourcesanddevices,andwhentheindividualsthemselvesattributetheirsymptomstoEMFemissionsfromthesesourcesanddevices.Therearenostandardiseddiagnosticcriteriaavailableand,althoughthesymptomsexperiencedvarysubstantiallyamongtheaffectedindividuals,theyaregenerallynon-specificwithnoobjectivesignspresent.Theseverityoftheconditionvaries;themajorityofcasespresentmildsymptoms,butsomepeopleexperiencesevereproblemswithmajorconsequencesforworkandeverydaylife(SSI,2004).
Thereislittlesupportfortheterm‘electromagnetichypersensitivity’todescribethisconditionamongmedicalspecialists.Thesymptomsandthedistresstheycauseclearlyexist,but,sofar,nostudyhasbeenabletoprovealinkbetweenEMFexposureandtheoccurrenceofsymptoms.AtarecentworkshoporganisedbytheWHOonthesubject(WHO,2004),itwasproposedthat,thetermshouldnotbeused.Insteadtheexpression‘idiopathicenvironmentalintolerance’orIEIwassuggested.TheIndependentExpertGrouptothe
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
SwedishRadiationProtectionAgency,whoalsorecommendagainsttheuseoftheterm‘electromagnetichypersensitivity’,believethatanytermthatcombinesexposuresandhealthconsequenceswillhinderfurtherstudies(SSI,2004).
Prevalence of EHSAssessmentsoftheprevalenceofEHSdependonthemethodsusedtoidentifycases,andthequestionsaskedineachspecificsurvey.ThereportedprevalenceofEHSvariesconsiderablythroughouttheworldandbetweenreports.AtthetimeofamajorinvestigationfortheEuropeanCommission(Bergqvist,1997)EHSwasmostcommonintheNordiccountriesandGermanybutrareornon-existentintheUKandTheNetherlands.AsurveyofthepopulationofStockholmreportedaprevalenceof1.5%(Hillert, et al,2002),whileasurveyinCaliforniaestimatedEHSprevalenceat3.2%(Levallois, et al.2002).However,thereportedprevalenceofEHSindifferentstudiesstronglydependsonthedefinitionofEHSandthemethodusedtocollectthedata.
Sources and symptomsInaSwissEHSstudy(Röösli et al,2004)itwasfoundthatthemostcommonreportedsymptomsweresleepdisorders,followedbyheadaches,nervousnessordistress,fatigueandconcentrationdifficulties.Themostcommonsourcestowhichthesubjectsattributedtheirsymptomsweremobilephonebasestations(74%),mobilephones(36%),cordlessphones(29%)andpowerlines(27%).Symptomsreportedinotherstudiesincludethoseoftheskin(redness,tingling,andburningsensations)aswellastiredness,dizziness,nausea,heartpalpitation,anddigestivedisturbances.
ThereisnodoubtthatthesymptomsaffectingEHSindividualsarereal.ThishaslednationalandinternationalauthoritiestosetupinvestigationstodetermineifandhowexposuretoEMFmightgiverisetothesesymptoms.
Studies of individualsIn2005,amajorreviewwaspublishedof31provocationstudiesinvolving,intotal,725individualswhosufferedEHSsymptoms(Rubin et al,2005).Onlyblindordoubleblindstudieswereincludedinthereview.AblindprovocationstudyisanexperimentinwhichtheparticipantsaresystematicallyexposedornottoEMFwithoutknowingwhethertheEMFsourceisonoroff.
TheauthorsconcludedthatwhilethesymptomsdescribedbyEHSsuffererscanbesevereandaresometimesdisabling,itwasdifficulttoshowunderblindconditionsthatexposuretoEMFcantriggerthesesymptoms.TheyconcludedthatEHSwasunrelatedtothepresenceofEMF.ThisconclusionissharedbyaUnitedStatesreview(Ziskin,2002)whichconcludedthatintestswherethesubjectsdidnotknowwhetherornottheywereactuallyexposedtoEMF,therewasacorrelationbetweenthepresenceofthesymptomsandwhenthesubjectsbelievedtheywereexposed,butnocorrelationtoactualexposures.
MorerecentlyRubin et al (2006)reportedtheresultsofadoubleblindstudyinvolving60EHSpeopleand60controls
(peopleunaffectedbyEHS)whowereexposedto(i)a900MHzGSMphonesignal;(ii)anon-pulsingcarrierwavesignal,and(iii)ashamconditionwithnosignalpresent.Theprincipaloutcomeintheexperimentwasheadacheseverity.Sixothersubjectivesymptomswerealsomonitored,includingtheparticipant’sabilitytojudgewhetherasignalwaspresentornot.Theresultsshowedthatheadachesandothersymptomseveritiesincreasedduringtheexperimentanddecreasedimmediatelyafterwards.Thesymptomswerenottrivialandsomeexperimentshadtobestoppedearlyandsomeoftheparticipantswithdrewfromthestudy.Howeverthesereactionsoccurredunderbothactiveandshamexposuresituations.
Theauthorsconcludedthattherewasnoevidencetoindicatethatpeoplewithselfreportedsensitivitytomobilephonesignalsareabletodetectsuchsignalsorthattheyreacttothemwithincreasedsymptomseverity.Asshamexposurewassufficienttotriggerseveresymptomsinsomeparticipants,psychologicalfactorsmayhaveanimportantroleincausingthiscondition.
How the EHS problem is dealt with in SwedenThedilemmaindealingwithEHSindividualsisthatwhiletheirsymptomsarerealandattimesdisabling,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatEMFexposureisthecauseoftheirillness.So,whatcanbedone?
InSweden,wherethereappearstobeagreaterproportionofEHSthanelsewhere,guidelineshavebeenissuedbytheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareconcerningthetreatmentofsuchpatients.Theseguidelines,whichareaimedatdoctors,particularlyinprimarycare,readasfollows:
“In many cases, the investigation does not result in a specific medical diagnosis. Besides skin changes, it is rare to find any pathological abnormalities in the clinical investigation or in the laboratory tests. The patient’s conception that the symptoms are caused by electricity (electromagnetic fields) may persist and the patient may insist that reducing the exposure to electromagnetic fields is important. The doctor’s job is then to provide information on current knowledge based on science and medical experience.
It is not the job of attending physicians to recommend whether actions to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields should be carried out. There is no firm scientific support that such treatment is effective. Instead, these questions may be dealt by the employers or local authorities, who in some cases have decided to grant home adaptation grants (for such actions).
Replacement of electric equipment e.g. fluorescent tubes with light bulbs, replacement of cathode ray tubes with displays of liquid crystals, so-called LCD, may be tested as a part in a rehabilitation plan. Some measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields is sometimes also part of such actions. Advantages and potential drawback of such actions should
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
carefully be considered in each individual case, before implementation, e.g. how to handle the situation if there is no improvement in health.” (Hillert, 2005)
ThefocusinSwedenisonthesymptomspresentedbytheafflictedpersonandtherighttosickleave,sicknessbenefits,disabilitypensionetcisbasedonthedegreeofillhealthandfunctionalhandicapofthepersonregardlessofaknownorunknowncauseforthecondition.Thereisnoscientifictreatmentandsincetheclinicalpicturevariesfromcasetocaseanyrecommendationforinterventionsortreatmentstobetriedisbasedonabroadevaluationofeachindividual’sspecificsituation,includingmedicalinvestigation,psychosocialsituationandpossiblecontributingenvironmentalfactors.Treatmentsknowntoreducethetypeofsymptomspresentedbythepatientcanbetried.
Itisimportantthatagoodpatient-doctorrelationshipisestablishedandthatamedicalphysicianisavailabletoofferfollow-upvisitstoensure(aftertheinitialmedicalworkaimedatexcludingknownmedicalconditions)thatnewmedicalevaluationsaremadewhenrequiredbyachangeinsymptoms,forexample.EHShasnotbeenacceptedasaworkinjuryinSweden.
The 2005 UK HPA report on EHSAmajorreviewofEHSincidenceandtreatmentwaspublishedrecentlybytheUKHealthProtectionAgency(Irvine,2005).ThestartingpointforthereviewwasrecognitionbytheHPAoftheneedtoconsiderEHSintermsotherthanitsaetiology–themedicalstudyofthecausationofdisease–asthispositionalonewasfailingtomeettheneedsofthosewhoconsiderthemselvesaffectedbyEHS.
TheEHSsymptomsthatpredominatedintheUKwereheadacheandfatigue.Thesesymptomscanhavesevereconsequencesforthesocialfunctioningofthoseaffected.TherewasaconsiderableoverlapbetweenEHSandagroupofotherconditionsknownassymptom-basedconditions,functionalsomaticsyndromesoridiopathicenvironmentalintolerances.
NousefulestimateoftheprevalenceofEHSintheUKwasfound.RecommendationsforfutureresearchincludedcarryingoutstudiestodescribeandunderstandEHSandestimateitsprevalencewithintheUK;engagingwiththerapistscurrentlytreatingsuffererstoidentifyothertreatments;andconductingrobusttrialsofcognitivebehaviouraltherapy.
ConclusionAWHOworkshopinPrague(WHO,2004),attendedbyleadingEuropeanresearchersonEHS,concludedthatEHShasnoscientificbasistolinkitssymptomstoEMFexposure.Further,EHSisnotamedicaldiagnosis;ithasnocleardiagnosticcriteria,norisitobviousthatitrepresentsasinglemedicalproblem.AWHOfactsheetonEHSsummarisesthesymptoms,knownprevalenceandcurrenttreatments,butconcludesfromtheexistingscientificevidencethatEMFexposureisnotthecauseofthesymptoms(WHO,2005).
4.6ChildrenandEMF
Children and diseaseChildreneverywhereareexposedtoavarietyofchemical,physicalandbiologicalenvironmentalagents.Theseincludeindoorandoutdoorairpollution,waterandfoodcontaminants,chemicals(e.g.,pesticides,leadandmercury),andphysicalagents,suchasultravioletradiationandexcessivenoise.Changesinexposuretotheseagentsarelinkedtoincreasesintheincidenceofcertainchildhooddiseases,suchasasthma,leukaemia,braincancer,andsomebehaviouralandlearningdisabilities.Environmentalexposurescanbeparticularlyharmfultochildrenbecauseoftheirvulnerabilityduringdevelopment.
Childrenarenotsmalladults.Theymaybemorevulnerabletoenvironmentaltoxinsthanadults.Theymayreceivehigherdosesthanadults,eitherbecauseofspecificbehaviours,orbecauseoftheirsmallerbodysize.Theyhavealongertimetodemonstrateharmfuleffectsofaccumulatedexposures,astheycanexpecttolivelongerthanadults.
Ithasbeenrecognisedforsometimethatchildrenaremoresusceptiblethanadultstothehealthrisksassociatedwithover-exposuretoinfraredandUVradiation.Sunburnsinchildhoodseemtobeparticularlypotentinincreasingtheriskofskincancerlaterinlife(Nole and Johnson,2004).TherearealsoindicationsthatchildrenmaybemorepronetoleukaemiafromexposuretoELFmagneticfieldsarisingfromthedistributionanduseofelectricity.ThisraisesthequestionofwhetherchildrenarelikelytobemoresensitivethanadultstoRFfields.
Children and ELF magnetic fieldsIARChasclassifiedELFmagneticfieldsas“possiblycarcinogenictohumans”(IARC,2002).Thisclassificationwasbasedonepidemiologicalstudiesofchildhoodleukaemiathatconsistentlydemonstratedanassociationthatwasconsideredcredible,butforwhichotherexplanationscouldnotberuledout.Experimentalstudiesusingculturedcellsandanimalsdidnot,however,supporttheviewthatELFmagneticfieldsinduce,promoteoracceleratetheprogressionofcancer(Kheifets et al,2005).
Acuteleukaemias,especiallyacutelymphoblasticleukaemia(ALL),arethemostcommoncancertoaffectchildren,accountingfor25%to35%ofallchildhoodmalignancies.InIrelandandotherdevelopedcountries,theincidenceofALLrisesrapidlyafterbirthtopeakaround3yearsofagebeforedeclining.Therateofleukaemiaamongchildrenunder15hasbeenestimatedataround4casesper100,000childrenperyearinWesternEurope.
EveryoneisexposedtoELFelectricandmagneticfieldsathome.Highvoltagepowerlinesareamajorsourceofexposuretothosechildrenwholivenearthem.Howeveronlyabout1%ofchildrenliveclosetopowerlines.Formostchildren,exposuretoELFmagneticfieldsismadeupofacontinuouslow-levelexposurefromthehousewiringandanintermittentexposuretohigherfieldsproducedbydomesticappliances.Typicalmagneticfieldsinthehomeareintherange0.05to0.1µT.BasedonUKdataitisunlikelythatmorethan1%to2%ofIrishhomeshavefieldsgreaterthan0.2µT(HPA,2005).
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Resultsofpooledanalysisofaroundtwentyepidemiologicalstudiessuggestadoublingoftheriskofleukaemiaforchildrenexposedtoaveragemagneticfieldsover0.3to0.4µT.However,becauseofthelimitedknowledgeoftheaetiologyofchildhoodleukaemia,itispossiblethatsomeotherexposure,(aconfounder)maybethecauseofthisassociation.Atpresentthereisnoexperimentalevidencethatsupportstheviewthatthisrelationshipiscausal(Kheifets et al,2005).HowevertwoexplanatoryhypotheseswereadvancedataWHOexpertworkshop(WHO,2004)devotedspecificallytoanevaluationofchildren’ssensitivitytoEMFandtoidentifyresearchneedsinthisarea.
Theimplicationsfortheincidenceofleukaemiainchildrenoftheabovefindingsaredealtwithindetailinthehealth risk assessment section.EssentiallytheincreasedincidenceofchildhoodleukaemiainIreland,ifcausedbyELFmagneticfields,wouldbeoneextracaseeverythreetofiveyearswheretheannualincidencefromothercausesrangesfrom35to55.
Children and RF fieldsConcernsaboutthepotentialvulnerabilityofchildrentoRFfieldsfrommobiletelephonywerefirstraisedintheUKStewartReport(IEGMP,2000).Thebasisforthisconcernwasthatchildrenwouldhavealongerlifetimeexposurethanadultsand,fromaphysiologicalpointofview,theyhavedevelopingnervoussystems;thepossibilitythattheirbraintissueismoreconductive;agreaterpotentialforabsorptionofRFenergyintheheadatmobilephonefrequencies.Thisviewwasre-affirmedbytheUKNRPB (2004).
ThisquestionofwhetherchildrenabsorbgreaterdosesofEMFthanadultswasdiscussedatbothanEUCo-operationonScienceandTechnology(COSTAction281)workshop(COST,2002)andataWHOworkshopinIstanbul(WHO,2004).RecentexpertanalysisofthisquestionledChrist and Kuster (2005)toconclude:
“The analysis of the results could not reveal major effects due to focussing or other properties of child heads, which might result in higher specific absorption rates (SAR). … The variations between child and adult phantoms are not higher in magnitude than those between different adult phantoms. …In conclusion no evidence could be found for a correlation between energy absorption and head size.”
Keshvari and Lang (2005)cametoasimilarconclusion:
“The analyses suggest that the SAR difference between adults and children is more likely caused by the general differences in the head anatomy and geometry of the individuals rather than age. It seems that the external shape of the head and the distribution of different tissues within the head play a significant role in RF energy absorption. …There is no systematic difference in the RF energy absorption between anatomically correct MRI-based child and adult head models.”
In2002,theHealthCouncilofTheNetherlands(HCN,2002)conductedanevaluationofthehealtheffectsofmobilephonesandforchildrenitconcluded,onthebasisoftheavailablescientificdataonthedevelopmentofchildren’sheadsandbraintissue,that:
“It is unlikely from a developmental point of view that major changes in brain sensitivity to electromagnetic fields still occur after the second year of life. The Committee, therefore, concludes that there is no reason to recommend that mobile telephone use by children should be limited as far as possible.”
Twoyearslater,whentheHealthCouncilrevisitedthetopic(HCN,2004)inthelightofadditionalscientificinformation,itconcludedthattherewasnoreasontoreviseitsrecommendationswithregardstopublicexposurelimitsinTheNetherlandsandreiterateditsopinionthat
“there are no health-based reasons for limiting the use of mobile phones by children”.
ThispositionisincontrasttothatoftheUKStewartReport(IEGMP,2000)whereitwassuggestedthatthewidespreaduseofmobilephonesbychildrenfornon-essentialcallsshouldbediscouragedandthatthemobilephoneindustryshouldrefrainfrompromotingtheuseofmobilephonesbychildren.HowevertheUKreportdidnotbasetheirrecommendationsonspecificscientificevidence,butonprecautionarymeasures.
The WHO workshop on children and EMFUndertheauspicesoftheWHOInternationalEMFProject,150oftheworld’sleadingEMFresearchersandpaediatricspecialistsmetinJune2004forascientificworkshopinIstanbul(WHO,2004).Theaimsofthemeetingincluded:
nToexamineatwhatstageofdevelopmentchildrenmaybemoresensitivetoEMF,
nToassessthescientificliteraturewithregardtopossiblehealtheffectsfromEMFexposuretochildren,
nToidentifygapsinknowledgethatneedfurtherresearchtobetterevaluatechildren’sEMFsensitivity,
nTocompilearesearchagenda,
ThereisnodirectevidencethatchildrenaremorevulnerabletoEMF.
nThereis,however,littlespecificresearchthataddressesthisquestion.
nThereisconsensusthat,frompresentknowledge,thecurrentinternationalexposureguidelines(ICNIRP,1998)incorporatesufficientsafetyfactorsintheirgeneralpubliclimitstobeprotectiveofchildren.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
DuringthemeetingaresearchagendawasdevelopedtoidentifygapsinknowledgeaffectingtheunderstandingoftheeffectsofEMFexposureonchildren(WHO,2005).Later,theRFcomponentofthisresearchagendawasincorporatedintoa“ConsolidatedWHOresearchagendaforradiofrequencyfields”(WHO,2006).AsaresultfurtherepidemiologicalstudiesrelatingtochildrenwererecommendedbyWHOandsomearealreadyunderwayinanumberofcountries.
Overall conclusionEpidemiologicalstudiessuggestthatELFmagneticfieldsabove0.3to0.4µTareassociatedwithanincreasedincidenceofchildhoodleukaemia,butthereislittleornosupportforthisbywellconductedlaboratorystudies.Howeverwehavenounderstandingofhow,orevenif,ELFmagneticfieldsmightbeassociatedwithleukaemogenesis.Essentially,theevidenceforacausalrelationshipisinsufficient.
InthecaseofRFfieldsthescientificevidencedoesnotsuggestthatchildrenaremoresusceptiblethanadultstosuchexposure.However,withoutfurtherresearch,theabsenceofanobservedeffectdoesnotruleoutthepossibilitythatRFexposuremighthavesomelatentadversehealtheffect.Muchofthisnecessaryresearchisnowunderway,incoordinatedstudiesacrossEuropeandelsewhere,andmoreisplanned.Theresultsofthisworkwillhelpanswermanyoftheoutstandingquestionsonthehealtheffectsofchildren’sexposuretoRFfields.
4.7RiskCommunication
Perception of RiskSome30kmfromtheNorwegiancityofStavangeryouwillfindLysefjord.HereanarmoftheNorthSeacleavesagorgebetweentwoverticalcliffs.Halfwayalongthenorthernsideisaprominentfeaturecalled‘Preikestolen’or‘PulpitRock’.PulpitRockhasaninterestinggeology:itisover2000fthigh;itoverhangsthefjord;ithasaflattopthesizeofafootballfield,anditisseparatedfromthesurroundingrockbyadeepverticalfissure.OncetheprospectofsixmilliontonnesofrockslippingintothefjordwasenoughtodiscourageallbutthemostfoolhardyfromventuringontoPulpitRock.ResidentsofthevillageofForsandatthemouthofLysefjordworriedthatthenextthunderstormmightbringdowntherockandwashthemawayinatidalwave.
Buttodaynooneworries.ThetopofPulpitRockprovidesaplatformforsunbathers,achallengetorockclimbersandahavenforthosewishingtodistancethemselvesfromthepressuresofmodernlife.Thevillageatthemouthofthefjordisnowasizeabletown.So,whathaschanged?ThefissureisolatingPulpitRockisasdeepandwideaseverandthunderstormsarenolessfrequent.ThischangeinattitudefollowsaninvestigationbyateamofNorwegiangeologistsandengineerswhosefindingsaresummarisedthusinalocalguidebook:
“Scientists have now surveyed the area and can assure everyone that the Pulpit Rock is perfectly safe.”
ThecontrastbetweenthecasualattitudetoriskofthesunbathersonPulpitRockandthecontinuingfearsmanypeopleinIreland(andelsewhereinEurope)haveconcerningEMFandparticularlymobilephonemastsispuzzling.Thefearsofthepublicinviteexplanation,particularlywhentherehavebeennumerousassurancesfromnationalandinternationalhealthadvisoryauthoritiesthatphonemasts,forexample,donotpresentahazardtohealth.
Risk perceptionManyfactorscaninfluenceaperson’sperceptionofariskandtheirdecisiontotakeorrejectthatrisk.However,byfarthemostimportantfactoriswhetherexposuretotheriskisvoluntaryorinvoluntary.HikingtothetopofPulpitRockisachallengetotheyoungandfit.Totheoverweight,middle-agedbusinessmanonbeta-blockerstheclimbcouldbecomeaseriousrisktohealth.FortunatelytheNorwegianauthoritiesdonotrequirethatallvisitorstoStavangermakeapilgrimagetotherock.Itissomethingthatisentirelyvoluntary.
Incontrast,whenwecometoconsiderexposuretophonemasts,thereisnoescape.The4,500phonemastsinIrelandareincontinualcommunicationwitheverymobilephoneinIrelandthathappenstobeswitchedon.ThatcouldmeanfourmillionphonesownedbyIrishresidentsplushundredsofthousandsmorebroughtinbyvisitors.ExposuretoEMFassociatedwithmobilewirelesstelephonyisinvoluntary.
Whereexposuretoanenvironmentalagentisinvoluntaryandthereisgoodevidencethattheexposurehasapotentialadversehealtheffectthentheauthoritieswillbepressedtotakeactiontoeliminateorreducethepublic’sexposure.Suchpressuresled,inthe1960s,totheendingofatmosphericnuclearweaponstestingandmorerecentlytotheremovalofleadfrompetrol.Howeverthedilemmawithphonemastsisthatthereisnogoodevidenceofanadversehealtheffectandtheirremovalwouldstopeveryoneusingtheirmobilephone.Thesuddenadverseimpactonbusiness,sociallife,healthandsafetycanonlybeimagined.
Health hazard and riskProgressinthebroadestsenseofthewordhasalwaysbeenassociatedwithvarioushazardsandrisks,bothperceivedandreal.Theindustrial,commercialandhouseholdapplicationofEMFisnoexception.SomepeopleareconcernedthatexposuretoEMFfromsuchsourcesashighvoltagepowerlines,electricitysubstations,radars,mobilephonesandphonemastscouldleadtoadversehealthconsequences,especiallyinchildren.Asaresult,theconstructionofnewpowerlinesandmobilephonenetworkshasmetwithconsiderableoppositioninanumberofcountries.
Inexaminingpeople’sperceptionofrisk,itisimportanttodistinguishbetweenahealthhazard andahealthrisk.Ahazardcanbeanobjectorasetofcircumstancesthathaspotentialtoharmaperson’shealth.Arisk,inthesenseusedbyprofessionals,isthelikelihoodorprobabilitythatapersonwillbeharmedbyaparticularhazard.Thepublicuseoftheword‘risk’
�0
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
canbequitedifferent.Rockclimbingisanactivityassociatedwiththehazard offalling.Therisk orprobabilityofdeathisoncein250,000climbs(H&SE,1997).
Almosteveryactivityhasanassociatedrisk.Simplygettingoutofbedinthemorningandgettingdressedareassociatedwithrisks.EachyearintheUK,forexample,20peopleareelectrocutedbybedsidelightsandalarmclocks;another20arekilledfallingoverastheygetoutofbedand60areseriouslyinjuredpullingontheirsocks.Evenstayinginbedandnotgettingupdoesn’tavoidrisk.IntheUnitedStatessome6000adultsmanagetoinjurethemselvesontheirbedclotheseveryyear(Equinox,1999).Indeed,autopsystudiesshowthattheriskofthrombosisfollowedbyalethalpulmonaryembolismisdirectlyrelatedtothedurationoftimespentinbedpriortodeath(Le Fanu,1996).Livingisassociatedwithagreatmanyrisks.TheseincludeEMF-emittingsources,whichcanbehazardousundercertaincircumstances.Thereisnosuchthingaszerorisk.
Influencing a person’s decision to accept or reject a riskPeopleusuallyperceiverisksasnegligible,acceptable,tolerable,orunacceptable.Thenatureoftheriskisthencomparedtothebenefits.Wherethebenefitsgreatlyexceedtherisk,thentheriskmaybeconsideredworthtaking.Opinionsanddecisionswilldependonaperson’sage,sex,educationandculturalbackground.Someyoungpeoplefindthefunofbungeejumpingoutweighstheattendantrisk:aviewthatwouldbeunlikelytobesharedbytheirparents.
Thenatureoftheriskcanleadtodifferentperceptions.Surveyshavefoundthattheparticularcharacteristicsofasituationaffectaperson’sviewsoftheriskofEMF(andotherexposures)(WHO,1998):
nVoluntary or involuntary exposure. Peoplewhodonotusemobilephonesperceivetheriskfrombasestationsashigh,despitethelowpowerofthefieldsemittedfromthissource.Incontrast,mostmobilephoneusersperceivethefieldsfromtheirphonesasloweventhoughtheyareinfactmuchmoreintense.
nLack of personal control over a situation. Ifpeoplehavenosayovertheinstallationofpowerlinesorphonemasts,especiallyneartheirhomes,schoolsorplayareas,theywillperceivetheriskfromsuchinstallationsasbeinghigh.
nFamiliar or unfamiliar situation. Wherepeoplearefamiliarwithasituationorfeeltheyunderstandthetechnology,thelevelofperceivedriskissmaller.Theperceivedriskincreaseswhenthesituationorthetechnology,suchasEMFtechnology,isneworunfamiliarorhardtounderstand.Perceptionaboutthelevelofriskcanbesignificantlyincreasedwherethereisanincompletescientificunderstandingofthepotentialhealtheffectsfromaparticularsituationortechnology.
nDegree of dread. Somediseasesandhealthconditions,suchascancer,severeorlingeringpainanddisability,aremorefearedthanothers.Thus,eventhesmallestpossibilityofcancer,especiallyinchildren,fromEMFexposurereceivessignificantpublicandmediaattention.
nFairness or unfairness of situation. IfpeopleareexposedtoRFfieldsfromphonemasts,butdonothaveamobiletelephone,oriftheyareexposedtotheelectricandmagneticfieldsfromahighvoltagetransmissionlinethatdoesnotprovidepowertotheircommunity,theyconsideritunfairandarelesslikelytoacceptanyassociatedrisk.
The phone mast dilemmaWhileitmightbearguedthatitisnotunreasonableforpeoplewhoneitherownnoruseamobilephonetoobjecttobeingexposedtounwantedRFfieldsfromphonemasts,itisafactthatwearealsoexposedtothebroadcastsofseveralhundredradioandTVstations,manyofwhichweneitherlistentonorareevenawareexist.
Thereclearlymustbesomeparticularkindoffearassociatedwithphonemaststhatconcernssignificantnumbersofpeople,mostofwhomaremobilephoneusers.Thefactthatmanynationalandinternationalhealthadvisoryauthoritieshavereiteratedthattherearenoreasonablegroundsforbelievingphonemastsareahazardtohealthhasdonelittletoallaypublicfears.RFexposurestotheheadfrommastsaresomethousandstotensofthousandsweakerthanthosegeneratedbymobilephoneuse.Whyshouldpeopleworryoverthelesserexposureandgenerallyignorethegreaterone?TheexaminationofsuchquestionsbringsusintothescienceofRiskCommunication.
Risk communication about EMFInthespecificissueofEMFexposureandhealth,complexity,uncertaintyandambiguityallplayapart.
MostscientistsagreethatsignificantadversehealthimpactsofEMFareunlikely,butnotimpossible.However,thepossibilityofnegativehealtheffectscannotbeexcluded.Sciencecanonlyprovideproofthatsomethingmightbeunsafeormightposearisk.Thiscanbedifficulttocommunicateandcanleadtothepublicaskingthatsocietyrefrainfromanyactivityifthereistheremotestpossibilitythatitisdangerous.Fromthescientificpointofviewsuchapropositioncanneverbesupported.Thisisfrustratingformanypeople.
WehaveonlylimitedknowledgeaboutthelongtermeffectsofEMF.Manywillusethisuncertaintyasareasonforaskingregulatorstoadoptaprecautionaryapproachand,byreducingexposureguidelinesbelowthepresentlevels,provideagreatermeasureofsafety.Theexistingguidelinesforpublicexposurearesetatsafetyof50timesbelowtheestablishedthresholdforharm.Itshouldbenotedhowever,thatmobilephoneexposureisshorttermathighlevelswhilebasestationsgivelongtermlowlevelexposures.Peoplegenerallyworrymoreaboutthelongtermeffectsthatareunknownthanshorttermacuteeffects.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Formostpeopleitmakesadifferenceiftheyfeeltheriskisvoluntaryandundertheircontrol,likedriving,ratherthanhavingasafetylevelimposedonthembysomegovernmentagency.RiskperceptionstudiesshowthatinGermany,forexample,amajorityofthepopulationbelievesthatmobilephonesarefairlysafe,whereasbasestationsarebelievedtoposegreaterrisks(Zwick and Renn,2001;Wiedemann et al,2003).Yetfromascientificpointofviewthereisnodoubtthatmobilephoneusersreceivemuchgreaterexposuresthanpeoplelivingnearbasestations.Evenwheninformedaboutthisdifference,residentswillmaintainthatthebasestationantennasarethemoreseriousproblembecausetheyareerectedwithouttheirapprovalortheirbeingabletoavoidthem.
Thetablebelowgivesexamplesoftheprobabilityofvariouscausesofinjuryordeathineverydaylife.
Somecausesofdeath,injuryorillnessandthechancesofthemaffectingyouinyourlifetime
Deathbyheartattack 1in4
Havingasthmaasachild 1in7
Seekinghelpformentalillnessinyourlifetime 1in8
Becomingdependentonalcohol 1in25
Havingaseriousfireathome 1in160
Deathinacaraccident 1in200
Deathrelatedtosmoking10cigarettesaday 1in200
Deathfromafall 1in380
Seriouslyinjuringyourselfonexerciseequipment 1in400
Deathwhilehang-gliding 1in560
Beingallergictoafoodadditive 1in1,000
Deathasaresultofmotorcycling 1in1,100
Deathasaresultofmountainclimbing 1in1,750
Deathfromtheflu 1in5,000
Deathinadomesticaccident 1in25,000
Beingmurdered 1in100,000
Deathfromtampon-relatedtoxicshocksyndrome 1in1.4million
Deathbylightning 1in10million
Beinginjuredorkilledinasingletripinalift 1in17million
Deathastheresultofaplanefallingonyou 1in25million
Deathastheresultofameteoritefallingonyou 1in1millionmillion
Box 4.1: Lifetime Risks
CommunitiesfeeltheyhavearighttoknowwhatisbeingproposedandplannedwithrespecttotheconstructionofEMFfacilitiesthattheyperceivetoaffecttheirhealth.Theywanttohavesomecontrolover,andbepartof,thedecisionmakingprocess.Unlessoruntilaneffectivesystemofpublicinformationandcommunicationsamongststakeholdersisestablished,andtheyhaveinvolvementinthesitingprocess,newEMFtechnologieswillcontinuetobemistrustedandfeared.UsefuladviceondealingwiththepublicontheEMFissuecanbefoundintheWHObooklet“Establishingadialogueonrisksfromelectromagneticfields”(WHO,2002).
Overall conclusion WHOhaveproducedasetofprinciplesforriskcommunicationinthisarea:,andwereproducethese:
“In all situations where local government has a responsibility to address public and other stakeholder concerns about health issues it is essential to carry out “risk management” and not “crisis management”.”
Thatis,earlydialoguewithallstakeholders–carriers,landlords,localcommunitiesandinterestgroupstofindacceptablesolutionsispreferableto“11thhour”attemptstoresolveconflictsbetweenstronglyheldviews,rightsandresponsibilities.
TheWHOInternationalEMFProjecthasakeyroleinhealthriskcommunicationbygivingunambiguousadviceonhealthaspects.Allstakeholders–carriers,regulators,localgovernmentandlocalpublicshouldrecognisethattrustisavaluablecommodityand,thatrights,andresponsibilitiesgohandinhand.
Centralgovernment–policymakersandregulators–needtotakeamoreproactiveroleinprovidinghealthadviceinrelationtoEMF.
nLocalgovernmentshouldacceptmoreresponsibilitybyavoidingtheimpositionofarbitrarysitingpoliciesthatmayunderminehealth-basedexposureguidelines.
nMobiletelecomsoperators(carriers)needtoremainpro-activeandmeetcommitmentsforcommunicatingwithallstakeholdersonRFissuesofconcern.
CommunicatingwithstakeholdersonRFisachallenge–itrequiresastrategy,planning,expertise,consistencyandtraining.Atri-partiteapproachtodialoguebetweenmobiletelecomsoperators,localgovernmentandlocalcommunitygroupsworkswellwhenthereisajointcommitmenttofindingworkablesolutions.
WHOcanprovideessentialclarityandaframework–butitisnecessaryfornational,stateandlocalgovernmentstotakeagreatershareoftheresponsibilityforcommunicationontheseissuesbyprovidingconsistentandunambiguousadvice.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
4.8UltravioletLightLasersandultraviolet(UV)lightarethetwotypeofelectromagneticradiationwherethehealthhazardsarebestestablished.Despitethistheygiverisetolittlepublicconcern,andUVinparticularislessregulatedthanotherEMFsources.Wehavesummarisedthemainconclusionofarecentreporton‘Ultravioletradiationandhealth’(AFFSET,2005).WehaveadaptedaWHOfactsheetonlaserpointers(WHO,1998),withpermissionfromWHO,toprovideaconvenientreference.
Ultraviolet lightUltravioletlightiselectromagneticradiation,whichliesbetweenvisiblelightandionisingradiation,withwavelengthsof400nmto100nm.ItisconventionallydividedintoUVA,UVBandUVC.ThestandarddefinitionoftheseistheCIEdefinitiongiveninthetablebelow,butotherdefinitionshavebeenusedintherecentpast.
Source UVC UVB UVA
CIE,1989 100-280nm 280-315nm 315-400nm
Parrsh et al.,1978 200-290nm 290-320nm 320-400nm
Riordan C et al.,1990 <280nm 280-320nm 320-400nm
Box 4.2: Definitions of UV Regions
ThedominantsourceofUVlightexposureis,ofcourse,thesun.Othercommonexposuresareoccupationalexposures,forexamplewelders,metalworkers,certainfoodworkers,andsomeotherindustrialworkers,andtanningsalons.VerylittlesolarUVClight,themostenergeticandshortestwavelengthUVlight,reachestheground.HoweverbothUVBandUVAareclassifiedasprobablehumancarcinogens.
Biological effectsUVlighthasonebeneficialbiologicaleffect–itpromotesthesynthesisofvitaminDintheskin.Quiteasmallexposure,15to25minutesofheadandarmsforexample,maximisesUVinducevitamin-Dsynthesis.InIrelanddietaryintakeofvitamin-DisusuallyfargreaterthanUVinducesynthesis,andisdefinitelyasaferwayoftreatingvitamin-Ddeficiency.
UVlightalsoinducesaseriesofphysiologicalandpathologicalchangesinskin.UVexposedskinbecomesthickerratherrapidly,andinpeoplewhocantan,pigmentationincreases.TheskinisalsodamagedbylongtermUVexposure,leadingtowhatisknownas‘heliodermatosis’.Thisincludesavarietyofchangesincludingthickened,drysaggingskin,changesinskincolour,linesandwrinkles,spots,reddening,prominentbloodvessels,andothers.
FinallyUVlightdirectlydamagesDNAinskincellsleadingtovarioustypesofskincancer.
CancersThemajoradversehealtheffectofUVexposureisskincancer.Skincancersaredividedintotwomaingroups,melanoma,whichisrelativelyrare,buthasahighriskofdeath,andnon-
melanomaskincancer,whichisverycommon,thecommonestsinglecancer,butveryseldomleadstodeath.InIrelandthereareabout500casesofmelanomaayear,and60to90deaths;thereare5,200casesofnon-melanomaskincancerbutonly30to40deaths.ThenumberofdeathsandnewcasesofthesecancersisrisingrapidlyinmostcountrieswherethepopulationareofNorthernEuropeanancestry.
Skin typesOnecommonskinclassificationwasoriginatedbyFitzpatrickin1974,althoughmanyslightlydifferentversionsofitareinuse.
Type SunburnTendency
TanTendency Skin,Hair,andEyeColour
I Ialwaysgetasunburn.
Inevergetatan.
whiteskin,freckles,blondorredhair,blueorgreeneyes.
II Iusuallygetasunburn.
Isometimesgetatan.
whiteskin,blondhair,blueorgreeneyes.
III Iseldomgetasunburn.
Iusuallygetatan.
whiteskin,usuallydarkhair,andbrowneyes.
IV-VI Inevergetasunburn.
Ialwaysgetadarktan.
browntodarkskin/brownorblackhair/browneyes.
Box 4.3: Skin types after Fitzpatrick, (1974). Most Irish people are skin types I and II – the highest risk skin types.
Preventing skin cancerSkincancerispreventable.Australiahasmanagedtoimprovesurvivalfromskincancerandreducetheoccurrenceofnewcasesbyatightlyfocussedcampaignconcentratingonsunexposure,useofsunprotection,anduseofskincreams(Australian Cancer Society 2006).Thereisgoodevidencethatitisespeciallyimportanttoprovidesunprotectiontobabiesandchildren.
Tanning parlours and healthTanningbyexposuretocontrolledlevelsofUVlightisincreasinglycommon.ThephysiologicaleffectoftanningsalonsisnotthesameasthatofnaturalUVexposure.Inparticular,itdoesnotincreasemelaninsynthesis,nordoesitleadtoincreasedskinthickness.Substantialevidencefromepidemiologicalstudiessuggeststhattheuseoftanningsalonsleadstoasignificantincreaseintheriskofmelanoma(a25%increasegenerally,risingtoa160%increaseinwomenwhousedsalonundertheageofthirty).Thereislessevidencefornon-melanomaskincancer,buttheavailableevidencesuggestsasimilarriskincrease.Widespreaduseoftanningsalonswillleadtoaseriouseffectonpublichealth,andtheclosestregulationofthissectorwillbeneededtopreventthis.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
4.9LasersLasersaredevicesthatproducebeamsofcoherentlight.Thishasuniquepropertiesthatdistinguishlaser-producedlightfromlightfrommorefamiliarsourcessuchasthesunordomesticlamps.Thelatteremitlightthatishighlydivergent,i.e.,thatspreadsoutalmostequallyinalldirections.Thesesourcesalsohavemanydifferentwavelengths(colours),whichtogethergiveacharacteristiccolourtothelight.Alaserproduceslightwithaverynarrowrangeofwavelengths,sonarrowthatlasersarereferredtoasamonochromatic(onecolour)sources.Lasersalsoproduceaverynarrowbeamthatdivergeslittle.Thismeansthatlaserlightishighlydirectional,formingapencil-likebeamandappearsasasmallspotwhenshoneontoasurface,evenatdistancesofhundredsofmetres.Asaconsequence,highpowerlaserscanbehazardoustotheeyeoverconsiderabledistances.Becauselaserlightismonochromaticandbasicallylow-divergent,thebeamisbetterfocusedbythelensoftheeyethananyotherlightsource,thusproducingimagesontheretinawithmuchgreaterintensitiesthanispossiblewithdomesticlamps.
Laser pointersLaserdevicesareincommonuseindomesticsettings,howevermostofthesearelockedawayfromtheusersindevicessuchasCDplayersandDVDplayers.Therearealsomanyoccupationalsettingsinwhichlasersareused.Theonlycommonlyusedopenlaserdevicesarelaserpointers,andlaserlevels.Thesearelowpowerdevices,Laserpointersareportable,battery-operated,hand-heldlaserdevicesusedbylecturersduringtheirpresentations,andbybuildersandDIYenthusiastsrespectivelyforalignmentpurposes.Commonlyavailablelaserpointersemitred-colouredlight,(wavelengthbetween630and670nm),althoughmoreexpensivepointersareavailablewhichemitgreen-colouredlight(532nm).
Safety standards and classificationLaserpointersareclassifiedaccordingtotheInternationalElectrotechnicalCommission(IEC)standardonlasersafety.Thisstandardspecifiesrequirementsforthelasertoensurethattheriskofaccidentalexposureisminimisedthroughtheuseofengineeringcontrolfeaturesandthatthereisproductlabellingandsafetyinformation.TheIECalsosetsoutfiveclassesoflaser:1,2,3A,3Band4.Thisclassificationgivestheuseranindicationofthedegreeoflaserhazard.
TheIEC60825-1isanIECstandardwhichregulatessafetyoflaserproductsandtheclassstandardandclassjudgmentstandardwererevisedin2001bytheIECstandardsconstitutioncommittee.Accordingtothisrevision,newclasses,namelyclass1M,class2Mandclass3Rwerenewlyestablished.Inaddition,theJISstandardrelatingtothelasersafetystandard(JIS,C6802)wasalsorevisedinJanuary2005sothatthelaserclassstandardconformstotheIECstandard.
SummaryofrequirementsaccordingtoIEC
Classification Outlineofriskassessment
Class1 Lasersthataresafeunderreasonablyforeseeableconditionsofoperation,includingtheuseofopticalinstrumentsforintrabeamviewing.
Class1M Lasersemittinginthewavelengthrangefrom302.5to4,000nmwhicharesafeunderreasonablyforeseeableconditionsofoperation,butmaybehazardousiftheuseremploysopticswithinthebeam.
Class2 Lasersthatemitvisibleradiationinthewavelengthrangefrom400to700nmwhereeyeprotectionisnormallyaffordedbyaversionresponses,includingtheblinkreflex.Thisreactionmaybeexpectedtoprovideadequateprotectionunderreasonablyforeseeableconditionsofoperationincludingtheuseofopticalinstrumentsforintrabeamviewing.
Class2M Lasersthatemitvisibleradiationinthewavelengthrangefrom400to700nmwhereeyeprotectionisnormallyaffordedbyaversionresponsesincludingtheblinkreflex.However,viewingoftheoutputmaybemorehazardousiftheuseremploysopticswithinthebeam.
Class3R Lasersthatemitinthewavelengthragefrom302.5to106nmwheredirectintrabeamviewingispotentiallyhazardousbuttheriskislowerthanforClass3Blasers.
Class3B Lasersthatarenormallyhazardouswhendirectintrabeamexposureoccurs.Viewingdiffusereflectionsisnormallysafe.
Class4 Lasersthatarealsocapableofproducinghazardousdiffusereflections.Theymaycauseskininjuriesandcouldalsoconstituteafirehazard.Theiruserequiresextremecaution.
nClass1lasershaveanoutputpowerthatisbelowthelevelatwhicheyeinjurycanoccur,evenifthebeamisviewedwithanopticaldevice,suchasabinocularortelescope.
nClass1Memitinthewavelengthrangefrom302.5to4,000nm,andhaveanoutputpowerthatisbelowthelevelatwhicheyeinjurycanoccur,butmaybehazardousiftheuseremploysopticswithinthebeam.
nClass2lasersemitvisiblelight(400to700nm)andarelimitedtoamaximumoutputpowerof1-milliwatt(mW).ApersonreceivinganeyeexposurefromaClass2laserwillbeprotectedfrominjurybytheirnaturalblinkreflex,aninvoluntaryresponsewhichcausesthepersontoblinkandturntheirhead,therebyavoidingeyeexposure.These
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
lasersaresafe,evenifusedwithanopticaldevice.Children,however,maynotlookaway,andindeedmaygazedirectlyintothebeam.Forthisreasonlasersshouldnotbemadeavailabletochildren.
nClass2MarelikeClass2,butarenotsafeifusedwithanopticalsystem.
nClass3Rlasersemitinthewavelengthragefrom302.5to106nmwheredirectintrabeamviewingispotentiallyhazardousbuttheriskislowerthanforClass3Blasers.
nClass3Blasersarenormallyhazardouswhendirectintrabeamexposureoccurs.Viewingdiffusereflectionsisnormallysafe.
nClass4lasersarealsocapableofproducinghazardousdiffusereflections.Theymaycauseskininjuriesandcouldalsoconstituteafirehazard.Theiruserequiresextremecaution.
TheIECprovidesadviceontheuseoflasersfordemonstrations,displaysandexhibitionsandstatesthatonlyClass1orClass2devicesshouldbeusedinunsupervisedareasunlessunderthecontrolofexperienced,well-trainedoperators.Laserpointersusedby,forexample,professionallecturersintheworkplaceareconsideredtofallwithinthiscategory.Trainingrequirementsarespecifiedforoperatorsusinglasersofahigherclassforthesepurposes,asthereisariskofeyeinjury.
Laser pointers currently availableItappearsthattheoutputpoweroflaserpointerscurrentlywidelyavailableisgenerallylessthan5mW.Thebody’snaturalaversionresponsesareunlikelytoprovideadequateprotectionfromeyeinjuryforClass3BlaserpointersandClass3Alaserpointersusedwithopticalaids.Althoughtheriskofpermanenteyeinjuryfromalaserpointermaybesmall,apersonreceivingevenatransienteyeexposurewillexperienceabrightflash,adazzlingeffect,whichislikelytocausedistractionandtemporarylossofvisionintheaffectedeyeandpossiblyafter-images.Thetimetakentorecoverfromtheseeffectswillvaryfordifferentpeopleandwillalsobedependentontheambientlightlevelatthetimeofexposure.Medicalattentionshouldonlybesoughtifafter-imagespersistforhours,orifadisturbanceinreadingvisionisapparent.
Higher-poweredlaserpointerdevicesarebecomingavailable,andinparticularcanbepurchasedovertheInternet.Deviceswith120mwpowerarereadilyavailable.Thesearepotentiallyverydangerous,andcouldcauseseverepermanentvisualdamageveryquickly.Someofthesedevicesphysicallyresemblelowerpowereddevices,andthereispotentialfordangerousconfusion.
WHO adviceIngeneral,laserpointersareclassifiedasClass1,Class2orClass3Bproducts.However,nationalauthoritiesmakingmeasurementsofthepoweroutputoftheselasershavenotedthatsignificantmisclassificationisoccurringbymanufacturers.Inmanycases,lasershavebeenclassifiedasClass2whentheywerereallyClass3B.Moreaccurateclassificationneedstobeenforcedbyappropriateauthorities.
On Laser Pointers.WHOconsiderstheprofessionaluseofaClass1orClass2laserpointerasatrainingaidtobejustified,andregardstheseclassesoflaserproductasbeingadequateforsuchuse.TheuseofClass3Blaserpointersupto5mWmaybejustifiedforsomeapplicationsintheworkplacewheretheuserhasreceivedadequatetraining(WHO,1998).
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
1. AFSSET,2005Ultravioletradiationandhealth.AgenceFrançaisedesécuritésanitaireenvironmental:Paris.
2. AGNIR,2003,HealthEffectsfromRadiofrequencyElectromagneticFieldsReportofanindependentAdvisoryGrouponNon-ionisingRadiation,NationalRadiologicalProtectionBoard.
3. Ahlbom.A.et al.,1987,BiologicalEffectsofPowerLinesFields,ScientificAdvisoryPanelFinalReport,NewYorkStatePowerLinesProject.
4. ACA,AustralianCommunicationAuthority,Australia,2003,Electromagneticradiationand3Gmobilephonesfactsheet
5. BBCUK,1974,BBCRadio4,“Kaleidoscope”radioprogramme
6. BioelectromagneticsSociety:ProceedingsofWHO-SponsoredSymposiumon“SensitivitytoChildrentoEMFExposure”,Bioelectromagnetics,Supplement7:S1,2005
7. Bergqvist.U.et al.,1997,PossibleHealthImplicationsofSubjectiveSymptomsandElectromagneticFields,EuropeanCommissionandArbetslivsinstitutetReport1997:19
8. CancerCouncilAustralian,2006,Preventionofskincancer.www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=960742
9. Chalk.D,Summer2002,Thesecondwirelessrevolution,LinkMagazine
10. Channel4UK,EquinoxSeries,April99,LivingDangerously:Thecomplexscienceofrisk,Equinox
11. Channel4UK,EquinoxSeries,2000,HowVictoriansWiredtheWorld,Channel4U.K.TVseries
12. ChristAandKusterN,2005,DifferencesinRFenergyabsorptionintheheadsofadultsandchildren,BioelectromagneticsSppl.7,S31-S44
13. CIE/IEC,1989,InternationalLightingVocabulary.CIEPubl.No.17.4/IECPub.50(845).
14. CognettiF.et al.,2003,StatementoftheInternationalEvaluationCommitteetoInvestigatetheHealthRisksofExposuretoElectric,MagneticandElectromagneticFields,ItalianGovernmentPublication
15. COMAR:IEEECommitteeonManandRadiation,2002,Medicalaspectsofradio-frequencyradiationoverexposure,HealthPhysics,82,387-391
16. CommissionforCommunicationsRegulation,(ComReg),(Ireland)2004,(2003-2004)400sitesurvey,http://www.comreg.ie(“NIRSiteReports”).
17. COST281,2002,Workshoponmobiletelecommunicationsandchildren,2002,COST281,www.cost281.org
18. COST281,2002,WorkshoponsubtletemperatureeffectsofRF-EMF,London,November12-13,www.cost281.org
19. COST281,May2003,COST281Newsletter,COST281,www.cost281.org
20. CSTEE,“OpinionoftheCSTEEoneffectsofelectromagneticfieldsonhealth:ReplytoquestionB–Appendixtotheopinionexpressedon24September2002,”ScientificCommitteeonToxicity,EcotoxicityandtheEnvironment.Opinionexpressedatthe35thCSTEEplenarymeeting,Brussels,17December2002,http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_determinants/environment/EMF/out173_en.pdf
21. Edison,1882,NoticepositionednextLightSwitches,EdisonElectricCompany
22. EEA,2004,DefinitionofthePrecautionaryPrinciple,EuropeanEnvironmentAgency
23. Eircom,2003,InformationbookletonDECTphones,N00534-01/03
24. EUCouncil,1999,Onthelimitationofexposureofthegeneralpublictoelectromagneticfields(0Hzto300GHz),CouncilRecommendation1999/519/EC,OJ.L.199/59
25. EUParliamentandCouncil,2004,Ontheminimumhealthandsafetyrequirementsregardingtheexposureofworkerstotherisksarisingfromphysicalagents(electromagneticfields),Directive2004/40/EC,OJ.L184/1
26. EU,2006,PhysicalAgentsDirective–opticalradiation,Directive2006/25/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilontheminimumhealthandsafetyrequirementsregardingtheexposureofworkerstorisksarisingfromphysicalagents,OJL114/38.
References
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
27. FDA,Internetsite:http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#31,USFoodandDrugAdministration,Washington,DC,July29,2003
28. FitzpatrickTB,PathakMA,HarberLC,SeijiM,&KukitaA,1974,Sunlightandman.Tokyo,UniversityofTokyoPress.
29. FosterKRandRepacholiMH,2004,Biologicaleffectsofradiofrequencyfields;doesmodulationmatter?RadiationResearch,162:219-225
30. FrenchNationalAssembly,2005,Telephoniemobileetsante,Publ.No.346,AssembleNationale.
31. GeeD.,2001,LateLessonsfromEarlyWarnings,EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency
32. HardellL.et al.,1999,Useofcellulartelephonesandtheriskforbraintumours;acase-controlstudy,Int.J.Oncology,15:113-116
33. HardellL.et al.,2001,Ionisingradiation,cellulartelephonesandtheriskforbraintumours,Eur.J.CancerPrevention,10:523-529
34. HardellL.et al.,2002,Case-controlstudyontheuseofcellularandcordlessphonesandtheriskformalignantbraintumours,Int.J.RadiationBiology78:931-936
35. HardellL.et al.,2003,Furtheraspectsoncellularandcordlesstelephonesandbraintumours,Int.J.Oncology,22:399-407
36. HCN,1997,RadiofrequencyElectromagneticFieldsCommittee.RadiofrequencyElectromagneticFields(300Hz–300GHz).Rijswijk:HealthCounciloftheNetherlands,publicationnr1997/01
37. HCN,2001,ElectromagneticFieldsAnnualUpdatewww.gr.nl
38. HCN,2002,ElectromagneticFieldsCommittee,MobileTelephones:ahealth-basedanalysis.HealthCouncilpublicationno.2002/01E
39. HCN,2003,ElectromagneticFieldsAnnualUpdatewww.gr.nl
40. HCN,2005,ElectromagneticFieldsAnnualUpdatewww.gr.nl
41. HealthandSafetyExecutive(UK),1997,ReducingRisks,ProtectingPeopleDiscussionDocument,HSEBooks,Suffolk
42. HeikkeninP.,et al.,2003,EffectsofmobilephoneradiationonUV-inducedskintumourogenesisinornithinedecarboxylasetransgenicandnon-transgenicmice,Int.J.RadiationBiology,79:221-233
43. HilleB.,1984,IonicChannelsofExcitableMembranes,SinauerAssociatesIncMassachusetts
44. HillertL.et al.,2002,Prevalenceofself-reportedhypersensitivitytoelectricormagneticfieldsinapopulationbasedquestionnairesurvey,Scan.J.WorkEnviron.Health,28:33-41
45. HPA(UK),2005,InvestigationandIdentificationofSourcesofResidentialMagneticFieldExposuresintheUnitedKingdomChildhoodDocumentsoftheHPA,RPD-005
46. HPA(UK),2006,PowerFrequencyElectromagneticFields,MelatoninandtheRiskofBreastCancer,DocumentsoftheHPA,RCE-1
47. HPA(UK),2005,ASummaryofRecentReportsonMobilePhonesandHealth(2000–2004),NRPB-W65
48. HongKong–OfficeoftheTelecommunicationsAuthority,“KnowmoreaboutRadiofrequencyElectromagneticRadiation”,2003,http://www.ofta.gov.hk/freq-spec/radiation.pdf
49. IARC,2002,Non-ionisingRadiation.Part1:StaticandExtremelyLow-FrequencyElectricandMagneticFields.InternationalAgencyforResearchonCancerMonograph2002:80
50. ICNIRP,1994,InternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection,Guidelinesonlimitsofexposuretostaticmagneticfields
51. ICNIRP,InternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection,1998,Guidelinesforlimitingexposuretotime-varyingelectric,magnetic,andelectromagneticfields(upto300GHz),HealthPhysics74:494-522and75:442
52. ICNIRP,2001,ReviewoftheepidemiologicalliteratureonelectromagneticfieldsandhealthEnvironmentalPerspectives,109(Supp6):911-934
53. IEEE,2004,Standardforsafetylevelswithrespecttohumanexposuretoelectromagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrange0-3kHzC95.6,InternationalCommitteeonElectromagneticSafety
54. IndependentExpertGrouponMobilePhones(Chairman:SirWilliamStewart),2000,Mobilephonesandhealth,NRPB,http://www.iegmp.org.uk
55. IrishCellularIndustriesAssociation(ICIA),12thAugust2001,Interview,IrishExaminerNewspaper
56. Irvine,N.2005,Definition,EpidemiologyandManagementofElectricalSensitivity,ReportoftheHealthProtectionAgency,HPA-RPD-010
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
57. JapaneseMinistryofPostandTelecommunications,JapaneseMinistryofPublicManagement,HomeAffairs,PostsandTelecommunications,“InterimReportbyCommitteetoPromoteResearchonthePossibleBiologicalEffectsofElectromagneticFields,”30January2001
58. KeshvariJ.,Lang,S.,2005,Comparisonofradiofrequencyenergyabsorptioninearandeyeregionofchildrenandadultsat900,1800and2450MHz.,Phys.Med.Biol.50:4355-4369
59. KheifetsL.,RepacholiM.H.,SaundersR.,vanDeventerT.E.,2005,TheSensitivityofChildrentoElectromagneticFields,PediatricsVol.116,No.2
60. KRFoster,PVecchiaandMHRepacholi.ScienceandthePrecautionaryPrinciple.Science288(12May):980-981,2000.
61. KuhnS.,et al.,15-16June2005,AssessmentofHumanExposuretoElectromagneticRadiationfromWirelessDevicesinHomeandOfficeEnvironments,WHOWorkshop:BaseStationsandWirelessNetworks
62. LeFanuJ.,1996,Doctor’sDiary,RobinsonPublishingLtd.London
63. LeeperD.G.,May2002,UWBWirelessTechnology,ScientificAmerican
64. LevalloisP.,et al.,2002,Studyofself-reportedhypersensitivitytoelectromagneticfieldsinCaliforniaEnvironmentalHealthPerspectives,110(suppl.4)610-623
65. LilienfeldAM,TonasciaJ,TonasciaS,LibauerCA,CauthenGM.;EvaluationofHealthStatusofForeignServiceandOtherEmployeesfromSelectedEasternEuropeanPosts,FinalReport,ContractNo.6025-6190973(NTISPB-288163).U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,Washington,DC,1978.
66. LINK:Chalk.D.,2002,Thesecondwirelessrevolution,LinkMagazine
67. Lonn.S.et al.,2004,Mobilephoneuseandtheriskofacousticneuroma,Epidemiology15:653-659
68. McManusT.,1992,ElectromagneticFields,GovernmentPublicationsOffice,Dublin
69. McManusT.,1988,ElectromagneticFieldsfromHighVoltageTransmissionLines,GovernmentPublicationsOffice,Dublin
70. NationalCancerRegistry,2005,CancerinIreland1994-2001,www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubfiles/report2005_2.pdf
71. NewZealandMinistryofHealthandMinistryofEnvironment,“ManagingradiofrequencyemissionsundertheResourceManagementAct:Anoverview,”NewZealandMinistryofHealth,December2000
72. NIEHS,1998,AssessmentofHealthEffectsfromExposuretoPower-LineFrequencyElectricandMagneticFields,NIEHSWorkingGroupreportELF
73. NoleG.,JohnsonW.A.,2004,Ananalysisofcumulativelifetimesolarultravioletradiationexposureandthebenefitsofdailysunprotection,Dermatol.Theor.17(suppl.1)57-62
74. NRPB,2001,ELFelectromagneticfieldsandcancer,NRPBReport12
75. NRPB,2003,HealthEffectsfromRadiofrequencyElectromagneticFields,DocumentsoftheNRPB:Vol.14No.2
76. NRPB,(UK)2004,ReviewoftheScientificEvidenceforLimitingExposuretoElectromagneticFields(0-300GHz),DocumentsoftheNRPB,Vol.15No.3
77. NRPB,2004,MobilePhonesandHealth2004:ReportbytheBoardofNRPB,DocumentsoftheNRPB:Vol.15,No.5
78. O’DonnellB.et al.,ReportoncancermortalityintheBallymunArea,EasternHealthBoard,Dublin,July1992
79. OftedalG.,et al.,Symptomsexperiencedinconnectionwithmobilephoneuse,OccupationalMedicine(London),50(4):237-245
80. Parrishet al.,1978,UVABiologicalEffectsofUltravioletRadiationwithEmphasisonHumanResponsestoLongwaveUltraviolet,PlenumPress.
81. RepacholiM.H.et al.,1997,LymphomasinEmu-Pim1transgenicmiceexposedtopulsed900MHzelectromagneticfields,Radiat.Res.147(5):631-640
82. RiordanC.et al.,1990,InfluencesofAtmosphericConditionsandAirMassontheRatioofUltraviolettoSolarRadiation.SERI/TP215:3895.
83. RoosliM,.et al.,2004,Symptomsofillhealthascribedtoelectromagneticfieldexposure–aquestionnairesurvey,Int.J.Hyg.Environ.Health,207:141-150
84. RSC,“AReviewofthePotentialHealthRisksofRadiofrequencyFieldsfromWirelessTelecommunicationDevices,”RoyalSocietyofCanadaforHealthCanada,March1999
85. Rubinet al.,2005,ElectromagneticHypersensitivity:Asystematicreviewofprovocationstudies,Psychosom Med.,Mar-Apr;67(2):224-32.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
86. Rubinet al.,2006,Asystematicreviewoftreatmentsforelectromagnetichypersensitivity,Psychother Psychosom.75(1):12-8.
87. SavitzD.A.,1988,CaseControlStudyofChildhoodCancerandExposureto60HzMagneticFields,AmericanJournalofEpidemiology,128:21–38
88. SHSA,“QuestionsandAnswers(Dowirelessphonesposeahealthhazard?”AvailableatInternetsite(http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#22)
89. SienkiewiczZ.J.,KowalczukC.I.,2005,ASummaryofRecentReportsonMobilePhonesandHealth(2000-2004),NRPB-W65
90. SSI’sIndependentExpertGrouponElectromagneticFields;RecentResearchonMobileTelephonyandHealthRisks.Secondannualreport.;2004,SSIDnr2004/3857-52
91. Utteridgeet al.,2002,Longtermexposureofe-u-Pim1transgenicmiceto898.4MHzmicrowavesdoesnotincreaselymphomaincidence,RadiatRes.158(3):357-64
92. WeinckeJ.K.et al.,1999,EarlyagesmokinginitiationandtobaccocarcinogenDNAdamageinthelung,JournalNationalCancerInstitute,91:614-619
93. WertheimerN.,LeeperE.,1979,ElectricalWiringConfigurationsandChildhoodCancer,AmericanJournalofEpidemiology,109:273-284
94. WHO,1998,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:ElectromagneticFieldsandPublicHealth,WHOFactSheetNo.183
95. WHO,1998,Healthrisksfromtheuseoflaserpointers.FactSheetNo202.
96. WHO,1998,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:ExtremelyLowFrequencyFields,FactSheetNo.205
97. WHO,1998,PublicPerceptionofEMFRisks,InternationalEMFProject,WHOGeneva
98. WHO,2000,MobilePhonesandtheirBaseStations,WorldHealthOrganisationFactSheetNo193
99. WHO,2001,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:ExtremelyLowFrequencyFieldsandCancer,FactSheetNo.263
100.WHO,2002,Handbookon“EstablishingaDialogueonRisksfromElectromagneticFields”
101.WHO,2004,WorkshoponSensitivityofChildrentoEMF,WHOInternationalEMFProject
102.WHO,2004,Workshoponelectromagnetichypersensitivity,PragueOctober25-27,2004,www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.htmlWHO,Geneva(2004)
103.WHO,15–16June2005.,BaseStations&wirelessnetworks:Exposures&healthconsequences,Workshop,WHOGenevahttp://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/base_stations_june05/en/index.html
104.WHO,2005,ElectromagneticHypersensitivity,WorldHealthOrganisationFactSheetNo.296
105.WHO,2005,WHOInternationalEMFProject:Children’sEMFResearchAgenda,www.who.int/peh-emf/research/children/en/print.htmlDoc.Ref.673-841
106.WHO,2006,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:Basestationsandwirelesstechnologies,WHOFactSheet304
107.WHO,2006,EnvironmentalHealthCriteria232:Staticfields,WHO,Geneva
108.WHO,2006,WHOInternationalEMFProject,2006ConsolidatedWHOresearchagendaforradiofrequencyfields,www.who.int.peh-emf/research/rf/en/print.html,Doc.Ref.673-853
109.Ziskin,M.C.,Sept-Oct2002,ElectromagneticHypersensitivity–aCOMARTechnicalInformationStatement,IEEEEngineeringinMedicineandBiology,173.175
110.ZmirouD.,AubineauP.,BardouA.,GoldbergM.,deSezeR.,VeyretB.,“LesTéléphonesMobiles,LeursStationsdeBaseetlaSanté,”CompleteReportinFrenchathttp://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/intro.htm;EnglishSummaryinat:http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/resum_uk.htm;conclusionsandrecommendationsinEnglishathttp://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/conclus_uk.htm,2001[IEEE-1531]
111.ZookB.C.,SimmensS.J.,2001,Theeffectsof860MHZradiofrequencyradiationontheinductiontumoursandothertumoursandotherneoplasmsinrats,RadiationResearch,155:572-583
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Dr Michael Repacholi (Chair)MichaelRepacholiisagraduateoftheUniversityofWesternAustralia(BSc,physics),LondonUniversity(MSc,radiationbiology)andOttawaUniversity(PhD,biology).Heistheauthororco-authorofover200scientificpublications.
HewastheCoordinatoroftheRadiationandEnvironmentalHealthUnitattheWorldHealthOrganisationinGenevauntilthe30June2006,andhasparticipatedintwelveWHOnon-ionisingradiationtaskgroups.
HeisanEmeritusChairmanoftheInternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection,FellowandPastPresidentoftheAustralianRadiationProtectionSocietyandoftheAustralasianCollegeofPhysicalScientistsandEngineersinMedicine.HeisalsoaFellowoftheInstituteofPhysicsandAustralianInstituteofPhysicsandisamemberoftheHealthPhysicsSocietyandoftheBioelectromagneticsSociety.
Dr Eric van Rongen EricvanRongeniscurrentlyScientificSecretarywiththeHealthCounciloftheNetherlandswherehismainfocusisonthebiologicalandhealtheffectsofnon-ionisingradiation,primarilyelectromagneticfields.Presently,heissecretarytothesemi-permanentElectromagneticFieldsCommitteeandoftheStandingCommitteeonRadiationHygiene.
Hehasbeenpart-timesecondedtoWHOtoworkontheEnvironmentalHealthCriteriaonStaticFields.HeisVice-presidentoftheEuropeanBioelectromagneticsSociety,memberoftheInternationalAdvisoryCommitteeoftheWHOEMFProject,nationalrepresentativefortheNetherlandsinCOST281,correspondingmemberofICNIRPandmemberofsubcommittees3and4oftheInternationalCommitteeonElectromagneticSafety(ICES)oftheIEEE.
Dr Tom McManusDrMcManusBSc.,PhD.,CEng.,MIChemE.,MIEEE.,holdsqualificationsinengineeringandappliedsciencefromtheUniversitiesofStrathclyde,DurhamandCambridge.FollowingworkintheoilandchemicalindustriesinEnglandandCanadahemovedtoIrelandin1970tosetupanationalenvironmentaladvisorygroupintheIIRS.Inthe1980shebeganworkingfortheDepartmentofEnergyandwasinvolvedintheintroductionofnaturalgastoIrelandandthesubsequentdevelopmentofthenationalgastransmissiongrid.From1986heheldthepostofChiefTechnicalAdvisertotheDepartmentofTransport,EnergyandCommunicationsanditssuccessorDepartmentsuntilhisretirementin2002.From1988until2006hewastheleadingadvisertovariousIrishGovernmentDepartmentsonthesubjectofelectromagneticfields.HeiscurrentlyChairman
oftheGasSafetyCommitteesetupbytheCommissionforEnergyRegulationin2004andcontinuestoassisttheEuropeanCommissiononelectromagneticfieldsprojectsundertakenbyitsJointResearchCentreinItaly.
Dr Anthony StainesDr,AnthonyStainesgraduatedfromTrinityCollegeDublinwithadegreeinmedicine,andtrainedinepidemiologyattheLondonSchoolofHygieneandTropicalMedicineandattheUniversityofLeeds.HeworkedonelectromagneticfieldhealtheffectsintheUKChildhoodCancerCase-ControlStudy.HenowleadstheEnvironmentandHealthgroup,andisaSeniorLecturer,intheSchoolofPublicHealthandPopulationSciencesatUniversityCollegeDublin.Hehasaspecialinterestinhealthimpactassessmentandriskassessment.
ExpertReviewPanelTheExpertGroupconsultedwithfourinternationalexpertstogarnerfurtherviewsandtoengageinpeerreviewofthereport.
Dr Anders AhlbomAndersAhlbomisaProfessorofEpidemiology,HeadoftheDivisionofEpidemiologyanddeputydirectoroftheInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicineattheKarolinskaInstitute,Stockholm,Sweden.Mainresearchinterestsareenvironmentalepidemiologywithanemphasisoncancer,inparticularnon-ionisingradiationandcancer.Hehasalongstandinginterestincardiovasculardiseasesandtheirrelationtotheinteractionofenvironmentalfactorsandbiomedicalriskfactors.Hisworkspansepidemiologictheoryandmethods,includingthebasisforcausalinference.Dr.AhlbomischairmanoftheICNIRPStandingCommitteeonEpidemiologyandhasbeenanICNIRPmembersince1995.
Dr Carmela MarinoCarmelaMarinoreceivedherdegreeinBiologyin1982fromtheUniversityofRome“LaSapienza”.SheisnowworkingasaresearchscientistattheDepartmentofBiotechnology,HealthandEcosystemsprotectionofENEAwhereshecoordinatesthebioelectromagneticresearchactivity.Sheisalsoacontractprofessorof“RadiobiologyandThermobiology”and“Biologicaleffectsofelectromagneticfields”inthePost-graduateSchoolofHealthPhysics,TorVergataUniversity,Rome,Italy.
Afterpreviousexperienceinthestudiesofbiologicaleffectofionisingandnon-ionisingradiationappliedtothecancertherapy,ininvivosysteminparticular(especiallyasaScientificresearchFellowattheGrayLaboratory,CancerResearch
Annex1
ExpertGroupMembership
�0
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Campaign,MountVernonHospital,Northwood,UK),shehasbeeninvolvedinexperimentalstudiesonriskassessmentofelectromagneticfields.InparticularshewasthecoordinatoroftheresearchactivitySubject3–InteractionbetweensourcesandbiosystemsonbehalfofENEA(MURST/ENEA-CNRprogram“HumanandEnvironmentalProtectionfromElectromagneticEmissions”),andwasinvolvedinPERFORMBinvitroandinvivoreplicationstudiesrelatedtomobiletelephonesandbasestations;GUARD,PotentialadverseeffectsofGSMcellularphonesonhearing,RAMP2001,RiskEvaluationofPotentialEnvironmentalHazardsfromLowEnergyEMFonNeuronalSystemsfrommodellingtotissues.Currently,sheisalsoinvolvedinEMF-NET,Effectsoftheexposuretoelectromagneticfields:fromsciencetopublichealthandsaferworkplace;andEMF-Near,ExposureatUMTSelectromagneticfields:studyonpotentialadverseeffectsonhearing”.ShehasalsobeenamemberofWorkinggroup1ofCost244bisandisnowamemberoftheEBEAandBEMS,andoftheItalianSocietyforRadiationResearch,SIRR.Sheistheauthorofabout35ReferredPapersand140NationalandInternationalConferenceContributions.
Dr Alastair McKinlayAlastairMcKinlayisHeadofthePhysicalDosimetryDepartmentattheUnitedKingdomHealthProtectionAgency’sCentreforRadiation,ChemicalandEnvironmentalHazards.HeisagraduateofStrathclydeUniversityScotlandwherehereceivedaB.Sc.(Hons.)inNaturalPhilosophy.HewasawardedaPh.D.bytheUKNationalCouncilforAcademicAwardsforstudiesinthermoluminescencedosimetry.Appointmentsheldpreviouslyincluded:MembershipoftheUnitedKingdom“ApplicationofRadioactiveSubstancesAdvisoryCommittee”(ARSAC):PresidentoftheUKNationalCommitteeoftheInternationalCommissiononIllumination(CIE):ChairmanoftheEuropeanCommissionExpertGrouponMobileTelephonyandHumanHealthand:FoundingmemberoftheEuropeanSocietyofSkinCancerPrevention(EUROSKIN).AlastairiscurrentlyPresidentofEUROSKIN:AmemberoftheProgrammeManagementCommitteeoftheUKMobileTelephoneHealthResearchProgrammeand:AmemberoftheInternationalAdvisoryCommitteeoftheWHOEMFProject.HewasaMainCommissionMemberofICNIRPfromitsinceptionin1992until2004,Vice-chairmanfrom1996to2000andChairmanfrom2000to2004.
Dr Berndt StenbergBerndtStenberg,associateprofessorattheDeptofDermatology,UniversityHospital,Umeå,Sweden.HeisaspecialistindermatologyandvenereologyandPhDinEpidemiology.HeischairmanoftheSwedishContactDermatitisResearchGroup,amemberoftheexecutivegroupfortheSwedishDermato-EpidemiologyNetworkandcountryrepresentativeintheCounciloftheEuropeanSocietyforContactDermatitis(ESCD).Mainresearchinterestsareindoorenvironment(includingindoorairqualityandEMFs)andhealthandepidemiologyofoccupationalandenvironmentaldermatoses.
SubmissionsReceivedTheExpertgroupadvertisedforsubmissionsfrominterestedpartiesinDecemberof2005inordertogarnertheviewsofthewiderpublic.Submissionswerereceivedfromrepresentativesofthoseorganisationslistedbelow.
nDublinCityCouncil
nIrishElectromagneticRadiationVictimsNetwork(IERVN)
nPrincipalEnvironmentalHealthOfficer,SthDublinCo.Co.
nCommissionforCommunicationsRegulation
nBetterEnvironmentandSaferTelecommunications(BEST)
nHuntstownMastGroup
nLimerickCountyCouncil
nDefenceforces
nGSMAssociation
nOfficeoftheChiefMedicalOfficer
nElectronic&CommunicationsEngineering,DublinInstituteofTechnology
nO2Ireland
nIrishCampaignAgainstMicrowavePollution
nVodafoneIreland
nMobileManufacturersForum
nSouthDublinCountyCouncil
nIrishCellularIndustryAssociation
nDepartmentofEnterpriseTradeandEmployment(HealthandSafetyAuthority)
nHealthServicesExecutive,FacultyofPublicHealthMedicine
nGlenbeighResidentsAssociation
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Annex2
BaseStationsandWirelessTechnologiesFactsheetNo.304,May2006
Mobiletelephonyisnowcommonplacearoundtheworld.Thiswirelesstechnologyreliesuponanextensivenetworkoffixedantennas,orbasestations,relayinginformationwithradiofrequency(RF)signals.Over1.4millionbasestationsexistworldwideandthenumberisincreasingsignificantlywiththeintroductionofthirdgenerationtechnology.
Otherwirelessnetworksthatallowhigh-speedinternetaccessandservices,suchaswirelesslocalareanetworks(WLANs),arealsoincreasinglycommoninhomes,offices,andmanypublicareas(airports,schools,residentialandurbanareas).Asthenumberofbasestationsandlocalwirelessnetworksincreases,sodoestheRFexposureofthepopulation.RecentsurveyshaveshownthattheRFexposuresfrombasestationsrangefrom0.002%to2%ofthelevelsofinternationalexposureguidelines,dependingonavarietyoffactorssuchastheproximitytotheantennaandthesurroundingenvironment.ThisislowerorcomparabletoRFexposuresfromradioortelevisionbroadcasttransmitters.
TherehasbeenconcernaboutpossiblehealthconsequencesfromexposuretotheRFfieldsproducedbywirelesstechnologies.Thisfactsheetreviewsthescientificevidenceonthehealtheffectsfromcontinuouslow-levelhumanexposuretobasestationsandotherlocalwirelessnetworks.
Health concernsAcommonconcernaboutbasestationandlocalwirelessnetworkantennasrelatestothepossiblelong-termhealtheffectsthatwhole-bodyexposuretotheRFsignalsmayhave.Todate,theonlyhealtheffectfromRFfieldsidentifiedinscientificreviewshasbeenrelatedtoanincreaseinbodytemperature(>1°C)fromexposureatveryhighfieldintensityfoundonlyincertainindustrialfacilities,suchasRFheaters.ThelevelsofRFexposurefrombasestationsandwirelessnetworksaresolowthatthetemperatureincreasesareinsignificantanddonotaffecthumanhealth.
ThestrengthofRFfieldsisgreatestatitssource,anddiminishesquicklywithdistance.AccessnearbasestationantennasisrestrictedwhereRFsignalsmayexceedinternationalexposurelimits.RecentsurveyshaveindicatedthatRFexposuresfrombasestationsandwirelesstechnologiesinpubliclyaccessibleareas(includingschoolsandhospitals)arenormallythousandsoftimesbelowinternationalstandards.
Infact,duetotheirlowerfrequency,atsimilarRFexposurelevels,thebodyabsorbsuptofivetimesmoreofthesignalfromFMradioandtelevisionthanfrombasestations.ThisisbecausethefrequenciesusedinFMradio(around100MHz)andinTVbroadcasting(around300to400MHz)arelowerthanthoseemployedinmobiletelephony(900MHzand1800MHz)andbecauseaperson’sheightmakesthebodyanefficientreceivingantenna.Further,radioandtelevisionbroadcaststationshavebeeninoperationforthepast50ormoreyearswithoutanyadversehealthconsequencebeingestablished.
Whilemostradiotechnologieshaveusedanalogsignals,modernwirelesstelecommunicationsareusingdigitaltransmissions.DetailedreviewsconductedsofarhavenotrevealedanyhazardspecifictodifferentRFmodulations.
Cancer: Mediaoranecdotalreportsofcancerclustersaroundmobilephonebasestationshaveheightenedpublicconcern.Itshouldbenotedthatgeographically,cancersareunevenlydistributedamonganypopulation.Giventhewidespreadpresenceofbasestationsintheenvironment,itisexpectedthatpossiblecancerclusterswilloccurnearbasestationsmerelybychance.Moreover,thereportedcancersintheseclustersareoftenacollectionofdifferenttypesofcancerwithnocommoncharacteristicsandhenceunlikelytohaveacommoncause.
Scientificevidenceonthedistributionofcancerinthepopulationcanbeobtainedthroughcarefullyplannedandexecutedepidemiologicalstudies.Overthepast15years,studiesexaminingapotentialrelationshipbetweenRFtransmittersandcancerhavebeenpublished.ThesestudieshavenotprovidedevidencethatRFexposurefromthetransmittersincreasestheriskofcancer.Likewise,long-termanimalstudieshavenotestablishedanincreasedriskofcancerfromexposuretoRFfields,evenatlevelsthataremuchhigherthanproducedbybasestationsandwirelessnetworks.
Other effects: FewstudieshaveinvestigatedgeneralhealtheffectsinindividualsexposedtoRFfieldsfrombasestations.ThisisbecauseofthedifficultyindistinguishingpossiblehealtheffectsfromtheverylowsignalsemittedbybasestationsfromotherhigherstrengthRFsignalsintheenvironment.MoststudieshavefocusedontheRFexposuresofmobilephoneusers.Humanandanimalstudiesexaminingbrainwavepatterns,cognitionandbehaviourafterexposuretoRFfields,suchasthosegeneratedbymobilephones,havenotidentifiedadverseeffects.RFexposuresusedinthesestudieswereabout1000timeshigherthanthoseassociatedwithgeneralpublicexposurefrombasestationsorwirelessnetworks.Noconsistentevidenceofalteredsleeporcardiovascularfunctionhasbeenreported.
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Someindividualshavereportedthattheyexperiencenon-specificsymptomsuponexposuretoRFfieldsemittedfrombasestationsandotherEMFdevices.AsrecognisedinarecentWHOfactsheet“ElectromagneticHypersensitivity”,EMFhasnotbeenshowntocausesuchsymptoms.Nonetheless,itisimportanttorecognisetheplightofpeoplesufferingfromthesesymptoms.
Fromallevidenceaccumulatedsofar,noadverseshort-orlong-termhealtheffectshavebeenshowntooccurfromtheRFsignalsproducedbybasestations.SincewirelessnetworksproducegenerallylowerRFsignalsthanbasestations,noadversehealtheffectsareexpectedfromexposuretothem.
Protection standardsInternationalexposureguidelineshavebeendevelopedtoprovideprotectionagainstestablishedeffectsfromRFfieldsbytheInternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection(ICNIRP,1998)andtheInstituteofElectricalandElectronicEngineers(IEEE,2005).
NationalauthoritiesshouldadoptinternationalstandardstoprotecttheircitizensagainstadverselevelsofRFfields.Theyshouldrestrictaccesstoareaswhereexposurelimitsmaybeexceeded.
Public perception of risk SomepeopleperceiverisksfromRFexposureaslikelyandevenpossiblysevere.Severalreasonsforpublicfearincludemediaannouncementsofnewandunconfirmedscientificstudies,leadingtoafeelingofuncertaintyandaperceptionthattheremaybeunknownorundiscoveredhazards.Otherfactorsareaestheticconcernsandafeelingofalackofcontrolorinputtotheprocessofdeterminingthelocationofnewbasestations.ExperienceshowsthateducationprogrammesaswellaseffectivecommunicationsandinvolvementofthepublicandotherstakeholdersatappropriatestagesofthedecisionprocessbeforeinstallingRFsourcescanenhancepublicconfidenceandacceptability.
ConclusionsConsideringtheverylowexposurelevelsandresearchresultscollectedtodate,thereisnoconvincingscientificevidencethattheweakRFsignalsfrombasestationsandwirelessnetworkscauseadversehealtheffects.
WHO initiativesWHO,throughtheInternationalEMFProject,hasestablishedaprogrammetomonitortheEMFscientificliterature,toevaluatethehealtheffectsfromexposuretoEMFintherangefrom0to300GHz,toprovideadviceaboutpossibleEMFhazardsandtoidentifysuitablemitigationmeasures.Followingextensiveinternationalreviews,theInternationalEMFProjecthaspromotedresearchtofillgapsinknowledge.Inresponsenationalgovernmentsandresearchinstituteshavefundedover$250milliononEMFresearchoverthepast10years.
WhilenohealtheffectsareexpectedfromexposuretoRFfieldsfrombasestationsandwirelessnetworks,researchisstillbeingpromotedbyWHOtodeterminewhetherthereareanyhealthconsequencesfromthehigherRFexposuresfrommobilephones.
TheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC),aWHOspecialisedagency,isexpectedtoconductareviewofcancerriskfromRFfieldsin2006-2007andtheInternationalEMFProjectwillthenundertakeanoverallhealthriskassessmentforRFfieldsin2007-2008.
Further readingIEEE(2006)IEEEC95.1-2005“IEEEStandardforSafetyLevelswithRespecttoHumanExposuretoRadioFrequencyElectromagneticFields,3kHzto300GHz”
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Associetiesindustrialiseandthetechnologicalrevolutioncontinues,therehasbeenanunprecedentedincreaseinthenumberanddiversityofelectromagneticfield(EMF)sources.Thesesourcesincludevideodisplayunits(VDUs)associatedwithcomputers,mobilephonesandtheirbasestations.Whilethesedeviceshavemadeourlifericher,saferandeasier,theyhavebeenaccompaniedbyconcernsaboutpossiblehealthrisksduetotheirEMFemissions.
ForsometimeanumberofindividualshavereportedavarietyofhealthproblemsthattheyrelatetoexposuretoEMF.Whilesomeindividualsreportmildsymptomsandreactbyavoidingthefieldsasbesttheycan,othersaresoseverelyaffectedthattheyceaseworkandchangetheirentirelifestyle.ThisreputedsensitivitytoEMFhasbeengenerallytermed“electromagnetichypersensitivity”orEHS.
Thisfactsheetdescribeswhatisknownabouttheconditionandprovidesinformationforhelpingpeoplewithsuchsymptoms.InformationprovidedisbasedonaWHOWorkshoponElectricalHypersensitivity(Prague,CzechRepublic,2004),aninternationalconferenceonEMFandnon-specifichealthsymptoms(COST244bis,1998),aEuropeanCommissionreport(BergqvistandVogel,1997)andrecentreviewsoftheliterature.
What is EHS?EHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptoms,whichafflictedindividualsattributetoexposuretoEMF.Thesymptomsmostcommonlyexperiencedincludedermatologicalsymptoms(redness,tingling,andburningsensations)aswellasneurasthenicandvegetativesymptoms(fatigue,tiredness,concentrationdifficulties,dizziness,nausea,heartpalpitation,anddigestivedisturbances).Thecollectionofsymptomsisnotpartofanyrecognisedsyndrome.
EHSresemblesmultiplechemicalsensitivities(MCS),anotherdisorderassociatedwithlow-levelenvironmentalexposurestochemicals.BothEHSandMCSarecharacterisedbyarangeofnon-specificsymptomsthatlackapparenttoxicologicalorphysiologicalbasisorindependentverification.AmoregeneraltermforsensitivitytoenvironmentalfactorsisIdiopathicEnvironmentalIntolerance(IEI),whichoriginatedfromaworkshopconvenedbytheInternationalProgramonChemicalSafety(IPCS)oftheWHOin1996inBerlin.IEIisadescriptorwithoutanyimplicationofchemicaletiology,immunologicalsensitivityorEMFsusceptibility.IEIincorporatesanumberofdisorderssharingsimilarnon-specificmedicallyunexplainedsymptomsthatadverselyaffectpeople.HoweversincethetermEHSisincommonusageitwillcontinuetobeusedhere.
Prevalence
ThereisaverywiderangeofestimatesoftheprevalenceofEHSinthegeneralpopulation.AsurveyofoccupationalmedicalcentresestimatedtheprevalenceofEHStobeafewindividualspermillioninthepopulation.However,asurveyofself-helpgroupsyieldedmuchhigherestimates.Approximately10%ofreportedcasesofEHSwereconsideredsevere.
ThereisalsoconsiderablegeographicalvariabilityinprevalenceofEHSandinthereportedsymptoms.ThereportedincidenceofEHShasbeenhigherinSweden,Germany,andDenmark,thanintheUnitedKingdom,Austria,andFrance.VDU-relatedsymptomsweremoreprevalentinScandinaviancountries,andtheyweremorecommonlyrelatedtoskindisordersthanelsewhereinEurope.SymptomssimilartothosereportedbyEHSindividualsarecommoninthegeneralpopulation.
Studies on EHS individualsAnumberofstudieshavebeenconductedwhereEHSindividualswereexposedtoEMFsimilartothosethattheyattributedtothecauseoftheirsymptoms.Theaimwastoelicitsymptomsundercontrolledlaboratoryconditions.
ThemajorityofstudiesindicatethatEHSindividualscannotdetectEMFexposureanymoreaccuratelythannon-EHSindividuals.Wellcontrolledandconducteddouble-blindstudieshaveshownthatsymptomswerenotcorrelatedwithEMFexposure.
IthasbeensuggestedthatsymptomsexperiencedbysomeEHSindividualsmightarisefromenvironmentalfactorsunrelatedtoEMF.Examplesmayinclude“flicker”fromfluorescentlights,glareandothervisualproblemswithVDUs,andpoorergonomicdesignofcomputerworkstations.Otherfactorsthatmayplayaroleincludepoorindoorairqualityorstressintheworkplaceorlivingenvironment.
Therearealsosomeindicationsthatthesesymptomsmaybeduetopre-existingpsychiatricconditionsaswellasstressreactionsasaresultofworryingaboutEMFhealtheffects,ratherthantheEMFexposureitself.
ConclusionsEHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptomsthatdifferfromindividualtoindividual.Thesymptomsarecertainlyrealandcanvarywidelyintheirseverity.Whateveritscause,EHScanbeadisablingproblemfortheaffectedindividual.EHShasnocleardiagnosticcriteriaandthereisnoscientificbasistolinkEHSsymptomstoEMFexposure.Further,EHSisnotamedicaldiagnosis,norisitclearthatitrepresentsasinglemedicalproblem.
Annex3
ElectromagneticHypersensitivityFactsheetNo.296,December2005
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
Physicians:Treatmentofaffectedindividualsshouldfocusonthehealthsymptomsandtheclinicalpicture,andnotontheperson’sperceivedneedforreducingoreliminatingEMFintheworkplaceorhome.Thisrequires:
namedicalevaluationtoidentifyandtreatanyspecificconditionsthatmayberesponsibleforthesymptoms,
napsychologicalevaluationtoidentifyalternativepsychiatric/psychologicalconditionsthatmayberesponsibleforthesymptoms,
nanassessmentoftheworkplaceandhomeforfactorsthatmightcontributetothepresentedsymptoms.Thesecouldincludeindoorairpollution,excessivenoise,poorlighting(flickeringlight)orergonomicfactors.Areductionofstressandotherimprovementsintheworksituationmightbeappropriate.
ForEHSindividualswithlonglastingsymptomsandseverehandicaps,therapyshouldbedirectedprincipallyatreducingsymptomsandfunctionalhandicaps.Thisshouldbedoneincloseco-operationwithaqualifiedmedicalspecialist(toaddressthemedicalandpsychologicalaspectsofthesymptoms)andahygienist(toidentifyand,ifnecessary,controlfactorsintheenvironmentthatareknowntohaveadversehealtheffectsofrelevancetothepatient).
Treatmentshouldaimtoestablishaneffectivephysician-patientrelationship,helpdevelopstrategiesforcopingwiththesituationandencouragepatientstoreturntoworkandleadanormalsociallife.
EHSindividuals:Apartfromtreatmentbyprofessionals,selfhelpgroupscanbeavaluableresourcefortheEHSindividual.
Governments:GovernmentsshouldprovideappropriatelytargetedandbalancedinformationaboutpotentialhealthhazardsofEMFtoEHSindividuals,health-careprofessionalsandemployers.TheinformationshouldincludeaclearstatementthatnoscientificbasiscurrentlyexistsforaconnectionbetweenEHSandexposuretoEMF.
Researchers:SomestudiessuggestthatcertainphysiologicalresponsesofEHSindividualstendtobeoutsidethenormalrange.Inparticular,hyperreactivityinthecentralnervoussystemandimbalanceintheautonomicnervoussystemneedtobefollowedupinclinicalinvestigationsandtheresultsfortheindividualstakenasinputforpossibletreatment.
What WHO is doing WHO,throughitsInternationalEMFProject,isidentifyingresearchneedsandco-ordinatingaworld-wideprogramofEMFstudiestoallowabetterunderstandingofanyhealthriskassociatedwithEMFexposure.Particularemphasisisplacedonpossiblehealthconsequencesoflow-levelEMF.InformationabouttheEMFProjectandEMFeffectsisprovidedinaseriesoffactsheetsinseverallanguageswww.who.int/emf/.
Further ReadingWHOworkshoponelectromagnetichypersensitivity(2004),October25-27,Prague,CzechRepublic,www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.html
COST244bis(1998)ProceedingsfromCost244bisInternationalWorkshoponElectromagneticFieldsandNon-SpecificHealthSymptoms.Sept19-20,1998,Graz,Austria
BergqvistUandVogelE(1997)Possiblehealthimplicationsofsubjectivesymptomsandelectromagneticfield.AreportpreparedbyaEuropeangroupofexpertsfortheEuropeanCommission,DGV.ArbeteochHälsa,1997:19.SwedishNationalInstituteforWorkingLife,Stockholm,Sweden.ISBN91-7045-438-8.
RubinGJ,DasMunshiJ,WesselyS.(2005)Electromagnetichypersensitivity:asystematicreviewofprovocationstudies.PsychosomMed.2005Mar-Apr;67(2):224-32
SeitzH,StinnerD,EikmannTh,HerrC,RoosliM.(2005)Electromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)andsubjectivehealthcomplaintsassociatedwithelectromagneticfieldsofmobilephonecommunication–aliteraturereviewpublishedbetween2000and2004.ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment,June20(Epubaheadofprint).
StaudenmayerH.(1999)EnvironmentalIllness,LewisPublishers,WashingtonD.C.1999,ISBN1-56670-305-0.
Formoreinformationcontact:WHOMediacentreTelephone:+41227912222Email:[email protected]
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
IfspecificdiseasecannotbedetectedInmanycases,theinvestigationdoesnotresultinaspecificmedicaldiagnosis.Besidesskinchanges,itisraretofindanypathologicalabnormalitiesintheclinicalinvestigationorinthelaboratorytests.Thepatient’sconceptionthatthesymptomsarecausedbyelectricity(electromagneticfields)maypersistandthepatientmayinsistthatreducingtheexposuretoelectromagneticfieldsisimportant.Thedoctor’sjobisthentoprovideinformationoncurrentknowledgebasedonscienceandmedicalexperience.
Reducingexposuretoelectromagneticfields
It is not the job of the attending physicians to recommend whether actions to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields should be carried out. There is no firm scientific support that such treatment is effective. Instead, these questions may be dealt by the employers or local authorities, who in some cases have decided to grant home adaptation grants (for such actions).
Replacement of electric equipment e.g. fluorescent tubes with light bulbs, replacement of cathode ray tubes with displays of liquid crystals, so-called LCD, may be tested as a part in a rehabilitation plan. Some measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields is sometimes also part of such actions. Advantages and potential drawback of such actions should carefully be considered in each individual case, before implementation, e.g. how to handle the situation if there is no improvement in health.”
InSwedenthefocusisonthesymptomspresentedbytheafflictedperson(symptomdiagnosis)andtherighttosickleave,sicknessbenefits,disabilitypensionetcisbasedonthedegreeofillhealthandfunctionalhandicapofthepersonregardlessofknownorunknowncauseforthecondition.Thereisnospecifictreatmentandsincetheclinicalpicturevariesfromcasetocaseanyrecommendationforinterventionsortreatmentstobetriedhastobebasedonabroadevaluationofeachindividual’sspecificsituation(includingmedicalinvestigation,psychosocialsituationandpossiblecontributingenvironmentalfactors).Treatmentsknowntoreducethetypeofsymptomspresentedbythepatientmightbetried.Itisimportantthatatrustfulpatient-doctorrelationshipisestablishedandthatamedicalphysicianwillofferfollow-upvisitstoensure(aftertheinitialmedicalworkupaimedatexcludingknownmedical
conditionsthatrequireinterventionsandtreatments)thatnewmedicalevaluationsaremadewhenmotivatede.g.bychangeinsymptoms.
Electromagnetichypersensitivityhasnotbeenacceptedasaworkinjury.
FiveSwedishauthorities(responsibleforactivitiesrelatedtoelectromagneticfields:TheSwedishNationalBoardofOccupationalSafetyandHealth,NationalBoardofHousing,BuildingandPlanning,NationalElectricalSafetyBoard,NationalBoardofHealthandWelfare,RadiationProtectionInstitute)haverecommendedaprecautionaryprincipleprimarilyaimedatlowfrequencymagneticfieldsbasedonsuspectedcancerrisks(issued1996).Thedocumentdeclaresthattherecommendationdoesnotrefertoelectromagnetichypersensitivity(theauthorities“refrainfromissuinganyjoint,generalrecommendationonthissubject.Itisveryimportant,however,thatelectricallyhypersensitivepersonsshouldbeunconditionallyexaminedbyhealthandmedicalservices,onthebasisoftheirsymptoms.”)
TheSwedishBoardofHealthandWelfareistheSwedishauthoritytograntfinancialsupportthroughthenationalbudgettodisabilityorganisations.Adisabilityorganisationisaccordingtotheauthoritiesunderstoodtobeanorganisationwhichmembers(atleastamajorityof)meetsubstantialdifficultiesineverydaylifeduetosomekindofdisability.TheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfarethusmaketheirdecisionsbasedontheconsequencesfortheafflictedindividualsandnotbasedonanyknownunderlyingcauseofthedisability/problems.TheSwedishAssociationfortheElectrosensitivewasgrantedfinancialsupportasadisabilityorganisation.MostdisabilityorganisationsthathavereceivedthistypeoffinancialsupportjointheSwedishDisabilityFederation,ashasTheSwedishAssociationfortheElectrosensitive.ThisfacthassometimesbeenmisinterpretedasifelectromagnetichypersensitivityisarecognisedmedicaldiagnosisinSweden.
Annex4
GuidelinesfromtheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareConcerningtheTreatmentofPatientswhoAttributetheirDiscomforttoAmalgamandElectricity
��
Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
A n R o i n n C u m a r s á i d e , M a r a a g u s A c m h a i n n í N á d ú r t h aD e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , M a r i n e a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u rc e s2 9 - 3 1 A d e l a i d e R o a d , D u b l i n 2 , I r e l a n dH e a d o f f i c e : Te l : + 3 5 3 - 1 - 6 7 8 2 0 0 0L o C a l l : 1 8 9 0 - 4 4 - 9 9 - 0 0 w w w. d c m n r. g o v. i e
Top Related