Electromagnetic Sense Ireland

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-589-EN-F1-1.PDF

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/wifi4eu-free-wi-fi-europeans

____________________________________________________________________

Submission re The European Commission’s proposal for a European Gigabit Society/Digital Single Market/Trans-European Telecom Network

This given opportunity is taken regarding the European Commission’s COM (2016) 589 final 2016/0287 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No. 283/2014 relating to the promotion of Internet connectivity in local communities across Europe.

The Commission’s expected results and impact of the implementation of this proposal is that local public authorities will offer free Wi-Fi connectivity in centres of community life including public buildings, health centres, parks or town squares and all public spaces.  Libraries, schools, universities, transport hubs, train stations, airports, research centres, doctors surgeries, hospitals and stadiums will be equipped with Gigabit connections by 2025.  The benefits are seen as enabling public authorities and local businesses to offer a range of local digital services, applications and products with a prediction of 40-50 million connections per day.

In order for the Trans-European Gigabit Society to proceed, ‘legal obstacles’ will be removed and the process will be supported ‘through simplified planning procedures and lightened regulatory obligations’.

Additionally, a new legislative concept has been generated in light of this universal service ‘whereby every EU citizen shall have the right to be connected; the right to a functional Internet connection in order to fully engage with the digital economy and society’.

As with national planning applications for telecommunications infrastructure, references to health have ceased, having been labelled as a potential barrier.

Yet, it is estimated that there are now between ‘22.3 million to 37.1’ million individuals (3% – 5% of the population) across Europe seriously affected by the toxic levels of Electromagnetic/Radiofrequency Fields (EMF) in our environment.  EMF is radiated mainly from masts/towers, antennas, mobile phones, cordless phones, wireless utility meters, all things wireless (Wi-Fi) including wireless baby monitors and all ‘smart’ devices.  These figures are forecast to rise to 10% of the population over time.

The consequential affect of these toxic levels is the environmental/functional impairment referred to as Electrohypersensitivity (EHS).  It is thought that this impairment is due to the difficulties the natural internal EMF of our bodies experiences on interacting with extreme external levels of EMF.  These levels are now considered to be one million billion times greater than the natural background EMF that life has adapted to over millions of years.

Electrohypersensitivity manifests itself through multiple and diverse symptoms.

These can be debilitating and disabling and are usually experienced through severe headaches, burning sensations, nausea, dizziness, memory/concentration lapses, pain, insomnia, anxiety, eye problems, mood changes and the extremely stressful ‘microwave hearing’ i.e. the auditory perception of radio-frequency fields.

The link between EMF and many modern health issues such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, early dementia, Alzheimers, autism, DNA damage, infertility etc has already been established and recorded in reports such as the BioInitiative Report (2014) and in research undertaken by independent scientists.  Children are particularly vulnerable as they absorb more radiation than adults and will be exposed to more radiation over their lifetime.

http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

One of the main problems identified by those advocating precaution/change is that EMF safety guidelines refer only to thethermal and short-term effects of EMF.  Many concerned scientists have been striving to highlight the fact that it is non-thermal EMF emissions that are having the most damaging/life threatening effects on all living things, not just humans.

At the basis of the thermal paradigm is a claim that there is no viable biological mechanism for the action of weak non-thermal fields on human tissue.  In 2015 Dr. Martin Pall (Professor Emeritus, Washington State University) established that such a mechanism exists.  Dr Pall’s findings have been peer reviewed by experts in the field and have been conclusively tested many times.

http://www.saferemr.com/2015/10/how-does-wireless-radiation-produce.html

Sections of the European Union, and their Government representatives i.e. those whom the citizens of Europe have trusted with responsibility for protecting life, are aware of this issue but remain silent.  The proposal for the precautionary principal as recommended by the European Parliamentary Assembly (Resolution 1815) (2011) has long been ignored.

http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&

When expectations re margins of profit have been attained and when this potential health crisis increases exponentially questions will be asked of those we trusted.

They cannot:

• claim that they were not aware of reports such as the BioInitiative report (2012) with its inclusive 3,800 research studies evidencing the damaging/life threatening bio-effects of EMF;

• profess to have had no knowledge of the further 25,000 (approximately) research papers/reports produced by independent scientists on the many diverse and adverse health affects issuing from exposure to non-thermal EMF. All of these studies/reports cannot be wrong;

• have avoided noticing the classification of EMF by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Group 2B (possible) carcinogen;

• claim failure to have noticed the numerous Appeals submitted by concerned groups of independent scientists, doctors, biologists etc calling for precaution and time for further research;

• allege that they had no knowledge of the findings of the National Toxicology Report, 2016 (USA), a report which clearly demonstrates the links between exposure to EMF and a higher risk of glioma brain cancer and Schwannoma cancer of the heart;

• argue that they were not conscious re the dearth of research on the potential long-term effects of Long Term Evolution fourth and fifth generation (5G) technology. These emit the pulsed microwave energy needed to create the EMF blanket that will allow this EU Proposal to be established.  Findings to date on 4G/5G demonstrate that although they feature a faster bandwidth they are also considered to be several times more of a health hazard than their predecessors and will lead to increased EMF exposure.

Furthermore, there is a rule of law stating that contrived ignorance or wilful blindness is equivalent to knowledge.(Michener, L. (2010), Contrived ignorance: Wilful Blindness.

The EU Proposal introduces a new contemporary human right, as mentioned earlier.  The question is, if ‘every EU citizen shall have the right to be connected: the right to a functional internet connection’ how can this right coexist with the rights of all citizens to liberty, security and protection against discrimination and torture, as expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights?  What of the rights of EU citizens who are Electrosensitive, especially those who cannot stay in their homes or indeed who cannot leave their homes due to the torturous pain/’microwave hearing’ they experience in the toxic environment that is being created?  These citizens/EU stakeholders have a right to access all public places with equality and with dignity; they have a right to a healthy and electro-sanitized environment. This proposal in effect excludes electrosensitives from society, a society that will become deeply embedded in the use of EMF in order to function.

The establishment of a Trans-European Telecom network that depends on pulsed microwave energy, which has not as yet been properly tested for safety, could be classified as a cross-European biological experiment.  Lessons were learnt at the War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg out of which a Treaty was drawn up, agreed to and signed by every nation in the world. This informs us that, a person being experimented upon must first:

Give their consent – free from force, fraud, deceit, duress or coercion;

Have sufficient knowledge of what is happening and

Know the possible effects upon one’s health

And they must have the legal capacity to say No.

The citizens of the EU have a right to know about the potential health effects linked to EMF exposure and a right to be asked if they have any objections to taking part in this biological experiment.

There is no doubt that these technological gadgets have bestowed great convenience in communication, especially for those in transit, but these gadgets are not necessary for life.  They are a distraction from lived reality and worryingly offer the possibility of mass surveillance.

Given the capability of toxic levels of EMF to create a serious cross-European health crisis, we now ask the EU Commission to postpone this proposal until such time as all scientific research studies are taken into account and until further good and independent scientific research is undertaken that will enable new EMF regulations to be created that will truly protect the citizens of Europe and all living things.

Submitted on behalf of Electrosensitivity Ireland/the Irish Electromagnetic Radiation Victims Network

sent from hardwired computer

Recommendation of the European Ombudsman concerning the alleged failure by the European Economic and Social Committee to ensure that a member declared all relevant interests.
Read full article HERE

Download details highlighting the historic report into the failure of the European Economic and Social Committee leading to the recommendations of the EU Ombudsman.
View download (courtesy of Radiation Research Trust UK)  HERE

PLEASE SIGN and forward to other concerned scientists/researchers and social organisations and help protect the next generation.

Re: European Manifesto – Urgent Appeal

The link at the bottom of this email will give you access to the European Manifesto as drawn up by the European Citizens Initiative (ECI). The ECI is a group of 23 organisations from 14 European countries seeking new regulations that will reduce Electromagnetic/Radiofrequency Radiation (EMR) to a level that truly protects public health as well as that of all living things.

Electromagnetic/Radiofrequency Radiation (EMR) is emitted mainly from mobile phones, masts/towers/antennae, cordless phones, wireless utility meters/smart meters, all things wireless (Wi-Fi) including wireless baby monitors and all ‘smart’ devices.

The current EMR safety guidelines refer only to the thermal and short-term effects, but many concerned scientists have been striving to highlight the fact that non-thermal EMR emissions are producing very significant effects on our health. The BioInitiative Report 2012, which includes a total of 3,800 research studies, provides evidence of these damaging and life threatening bioeffects.

http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

At the basis of the thermal paradigm is a claim that there is no viable biological mechanism for the action of weak non-thermal fields on human tissue. In 2015 Dr. Martin Pall (Professor Emeritus, Washington State University) established that such a mechanism exists. Dr Pall’s findings have been peer reviewed by experts in the field and have been conclusively tested many times.

http://www.saferemr.com/2015/10/how-does-wireless-radiation-produce.html

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a new environmental/functional impairment that has emerged from living in an environment laden with extreme levels of EMR. EHS manifests itself through multiple and diverse symptoms. The link between EMR and many modern health issues such as obesity, diabetes, chronic fatigue, cancer, early dementia, autism, DNA damage, infertility etc has already been established by independent scientists. Children are particularly vulnerable as they absorb more radiation than adults and will be exposed to more radiation over their lifetime.

It is estimated that 22 million people are suffering from EHS symptoms across Europe, including hundreds, possibly thousands in Ireland. Symptoms can be debilitating and disabling and are usually experienced through severe headaches, burning sensations, nausea, dizziness, memory/concentration lapses, joint and muscle pain, chronic fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, eye problems, mood changes and the extremely stressful ‘microwave hearing’ i.e. the auditory perception of radio–frequency fields. Many sufferers, along with their medical advisors are unaware that these symptoms are related to EMR.

Some EHS sufferers are forced to give up employment, some cannot stay in their homes or alternatively cannot leave their homes. Daily and social activities such as shopping, visiting family/public services and using public transport become arduous tasks or even impossible. The seemingly unstoppable installation of innumerable Telecom/Wi-Fi systems has resulted in some sufferers having to shield themselves and their homes with radiation blocking materials.

The Precautionary Principle, as recommended by the European Parliamentary Assembly (Resolution 1815) (2011) has been ignored.

http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&

The debate must now heat up and become public before it is too late. We now ask you if you would please support the Appeal of the European Citizens Initiative by signing our European Manifesto.

This request is now urgent in light of the findings of the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Monograph 102 Part 2 which classified EMR as a Group 2B (possible) carcinogen: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102.pdf

Also, the National Toxicology Program (USA) (2016) has clearly demonstrated links between exposure to EMR and a higher risk of glioma brain cancer and Schwannoma cancer of the heart. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/23/055699

Finally, the European Commission proposal (2016) 589/Fi-en will see every possible space in our environment blanketed in EMR. Everyone will be exposed and everyone is potentially at risk:

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-589-EN-F1-1.PDF

____________________________________________________________________

LINK TO MANIFESTO (translation from Spanish):

http://www.peccem.org/DocumentacionDescarga/Campanas/ICE2013/llamamientos/ECI%20APPEAL_en.pdf

We appeal to social organizations and scientists and researchers to sign this appeal by sending your signature to the email of the European Coordination of organizations for a regulation of EMF exposure which truly protects public health: euro.coord.for.emf.regulation@gmail.com

Suggested Template:            “ I/We the undersigned, as scientists/researchers or representatives of our respective organisations, subscribe to The European Manifesto in support of an ECI regulation of EMF exposure, which truly protects public health.”

Send Full Name, Title, Name of Organisation, and City and Country.

____________________________________________________________________

Thanking you,

Ethna Monks, on behalf of IERVN

Sent from a hardwired computer

Electrosensitivity Ireland/The Irish Electromagnetic Radiation Victims Network (https://iervn.com) is a member of the European Citizens Initiative and the European Co-ordination of Organizations for a Regulation of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) exposure, which Truly Protects Public Health.

Please forward to other concerned scientists/researchers and social organisations and help protect the next generation.

Prof. Lennart Hardell, MD

(Dr Lennart Hardell is professor in oncology and cancer epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden.)

The Interphone study included 13 countries during the study period 2000 – 2004. The major results were published after a delay of 6 years in 2010. In a new publication 12 years after the study period, the intracranial distribution of glioma in relation to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from mobile phones was analyzed. Tumour localization for 792 regular mobile phone users was analyzed in relation to distance from preferred ear for mobile phone use.

In Table 2 five categories for the distance were used with > 115.01 mm as the reference category (α = 1.0).  An association with distance from preferred side of mobile phone use to center of tumour was found; the closer the distance the higher the risk. The highest risk was found in the group with the closest distance (0-55 mm) yielding α = 2.37, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.56-4.56.

The same association was seen if distance was based on point with highest Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) instead of preferred ear and if using a model assuming that the preferred side of phone use was not exclusively used (“mixing proportion”). The latter model generated higher risk estimates than the other two but with wider confidence intervals.

In Table 3 tumour size, duration of phone use, cumulative phone use, cumulative number of calls were analyzed. Although not statistically significant, higher risks with decreasing distance were found in the upper levels of these dichotomized covariates.

Read Full Article HERE

27th October 2016       THE ECOLOGIST  www.theecologist.org

Article by Lynne Wycherley 

EXCERPT : With the UK’s Digital Economy Bill set to be finalised today, new 5G microwave spectra are about to be released across the planet without adequate safety testing, writes Lynne Wycherley. Global neglect of the Precautionary Principle is opening the way to corporate profit but placing humans and ecosystems at risk, and delaying a paradigm shift towards safer connectivity.

In Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves, the late geneticist Dr Mae-Wan Ho – a visionary voice who opposed GMOs – identified pollution from wireless technologies as a pressing issue of our times.

Noting evidence for “DNA damage … cancers, microwave sickness, [and], impairment of fertility”, she concluded: “Evidence is emerging that the health hazards associated with wireless microwaves are at least comparable to, if not worse than, those associated with cigarette smoking.”

Since the advent of radar, followed by mobile phones and dense WiFi networks, such anthropogenic radiation has sky-rocketed. Although it is non-ionising, and does not destabilise molecules directly, evidence of other harm has been growing since 1950s studies on radar workers.

According to the updated Bio-initiative Report (2012+) by 29 precautionary scientists, effects on biology feature in several thousand, peer-reviewed papers. Yet troubling new findings rarely filter into the media. Or global Green discourse.

Though many studies have reported ‘no significant effect’, research by University of Washington biology professor Henry Lai, and others, reveals that wireless-industry funding is far more likely to yield such findings.

“Toujours ils créent doubte” (‘they are forever creating doubt’), explains former Luxembourg Green MP Jean Huss, whose research on the wireless industry inspired the Council of Europe to call for many precautions (2011), including protection of warning scientists, and wired internet in schools.

But wireless-product marketing has a loud voice. Few of us realise that genetic effects and free radical damage – both disease risks over time – are the most common, cautionary findings. Device-crowded spaces, such as our peak commuter trains or all-wireless classrooms, may be creating a subtly toxic environment.

Wide-ranging, oxidative harm to animals has been found from WiFi sources. And linked pre-diabetic and pre-cancerous changes. Ground-breaking work by biochemistry professor Martin Pall, Washington State University – winner of eight international awards – reveals a viable mechanism for such harm. But as with other ‘inconvenient truths’, it is going unheard.

Read Full Article HERE

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS (RIA) SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK (Electromagnetic Fields) REGULATIONS 2016 (S.I. No. … of 2016)

Foreword

The Health and Safety Authority, herein after referred to as ‘the Authority’, has prepared this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in line with the Revised RIA Guidelines, (Department of the Taoiseach, 2009).

This RIA considers the options and assesses the impacts of the requirement to transpose the Directive 2013/35/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 26th June 2013 implementing the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC. The deadline for Member States to comply with the Directive is 1st July 2016.

The impact of transposing the Directive through the proposed new Regulations is expected to be minimal for the majority of employers given that many of the obligations already exist in principles expounded in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and Part 2, Chapter 2, Use of Work Equipment and Part 3, Electricity of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007. However there will be compliance costs for employers in a number of specified sectors.

The proposed new Regulations apply the same principles specifically to the issue of electromagnetic fields but are more explicit and specific with regard to certain obligations such as exposure limit values, action levels, assessment of risk, determination of exposure, provisions aimed at avoiding or reducing risks, employee information, training, consultation and participation of employees and health surveillance.

Exposure limit values may be exceeded for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment used in the healthcare sector provided other safe guards are implemented.

All employers will be required to carry out an EMF risk assessment, and the guidance prepared by the EU Commission should assist in making this a fairly simple exercise. For the majority of employers this will not involve calculations or measurements and no further action is needed. However there will be additional compliance costs and requirements for employers in a number of specified sectors, e.g. telecommunications, where calculations or measurements will be required as part of the risk assessment. The costs are likely to be proportionally higher for SMEs than for bigger organisations. Indicative costs are outlined in section 5, Impact Analysis. However these costs are not considered to be disproportionate when balanced against the savings to be made by the reduction of harmful direct and indirect effects in employees caused by electromagnetic fields.

Direct effects are separated into non-thermal effects, such as the stimulation of nerves, muscles and sensory organs, and thermal effects such as tissue heating. Indirect effects occur where the presence of an object within an electromagnetic field may become the cause of a safety or health hazard, e.g. interference with medical equipment or implanted body devices.

The Directive and the proposed Regulations do not cover long term effects, e.g. cancer. Neither do they include risks resulting from contact with live conductors.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Physical_Agents/Electromagnetic_Fields/

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/si/337/made/en/pdf

http://consultation.hsa.ie/Public-Consultations/Electromagnetic-Fields-Regulations-2016/EMF%20RIA%2020may2015.pdf

___________________________________________________________________

UK – The Guide by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to the UK’s new regulations on electromagnetic exposure, which came into force on 1 July 2016, explains how employers must make a risk assessment and give “special consideration” to “employees at particular risk” below the ICNIRP’s heating limits.

Employees who have EHS, including teachers and lecturers, should be able to benefit from this, but others, like pupils and students, also need similar protection.  ES-UK newsletter

http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/nonionising/directive.htm

The Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Directive

Background
On June 29th, 2013, the European Commission repealed Directive 2004/40/EC and published Directive 2013/35/EU on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). The directive can be viewed online link to external website.

The final text of the Directive is largely well balanced and proportionate, and offers a framework within which Member States, including the UK can continue to protect their workers.

Member States have been given 3 years, up to 1st July 2016, to transpose the Directive.

Current information

Additional background information and progress on the transposition of the Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Directive in the UK can accessed via HSE’s Euronews site.

For more general information on electromagnetic fields, please see the non-ionising FAQs page.

Useful links:

Public Health England link to external website
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) link to external website
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) link to external website
European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine & Biology (ESMRMB) link to external website
European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR) link to external website
Association of X-Ray Equipment Manufacturers (AXREM) link to external website
Royal College of Radiologists link to external website
National Grid link to external website
Engineering Employers Federation – EEF link to external website
Confederation of British Metalforming link to external website
Medical research Council link to external website

Resources:

Guide to CEMFAW Regulations – HSG 281

EMF exemption certificate PDF

More resources:

The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016 PDF link to external website
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/588/pdfs/uksi_20160588_en.pdf

S T A T U T O R Y  I N S T R U M E N T S
2016 No. 588
HEALTH AND SAFETY
The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016

The Secretary of State makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 15(1), (2), (5), (8) and 82(3)(a) of, and paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 13(2) and (3), 14, 16, 18 and 20 of Schedule 3 to, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”)(a).
The Regulations give effect without modifications to proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by the Health and Safety Executive (“the Executive”) under section 11(3)(b) of the 1974 Act.
Before submitting those proposals to the Secretary of State, the Executive consulted the bodies that appeared to it to be appropriate as required by section 50(3)(c) of the 1974 Act.

PART 1 INTRODUCTION
Citation and commencement
1. These Regulations may be cited as the Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016 and come into force on 1st July 2016.
Interpretation
2. —(1) In these Regulations— “the 1974 Act” means the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; “AL” means an action level set out in Parts 2 and 3 of the Schedule; “direct biophysical effect” means an effect on human body tissue caused by its presence in an electromagnetic field; lectromagnetic field” means a static electric, static magnetic and time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic field with a frequency of up to 300 GHz;
“ELV” means an exposure limit value set out in Part 2 of the Schedule; “employee at particular risk” means— (a) an employee who has declared to his or her employer a condition which may lead to a higher susceptibility to the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields; or (b) an employee who works in close proximity to electro-explosive devices, explosive materials or flammable atmospheres; “health effect” means a direct biophysical effect which is potentially harmful to human health; “indirect effect” means an effect, caused by the presence of an object or a substance in an electromagnetic field, which may present a safety or health hazard; “sensory effect” means a direct biophysical effectinvolving a transient disturbance in sensory perception or a minor and temporary change in brain function.
(2) In these Regulations a reference to employees is, in relation to an employer, to be treated as a reference to the employees of that employer while they are at work.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/nonionising/directive.htm

Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy  September 2016

Martin L. Pall

Microwave EMFs activate voltage-gated Ca2+ channels (VGCCs) concentrated in the brain.

Animal studies show such low level MWV EMFs have diverse high impacts in the brain.

VGCC activity causes widespread neuropsychiatric effects in humans (genetic studies).

26 studies have EMFs assoc. with neuropsychiatric effects; 5 criteria show causality.

MWV EMFs cause at least 13 neuropsychiatric effects including depression in humans.

Abstract
Non-thermal microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. Calcium channel blockers block EMF effects and several types of additional evidence confirm this mechanism. Low intensity microwave EMFs have been proposed to produce neuropsychiatric effects, sometimes called microwave syndrome, and the focus of this review is whether these are indeed well documented and consistent with the known mechanism(s) of action of such EMFs. VGCCs occur in very high densities throughout the nervous system and have near universal roles in release of neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones. Soviet and Western literature shows that much of the impact of non-thermal microwave exposures in experimental animals occurs in the brain and peripheral nervous system, such that nervous system histology and function show diverse and substantial changes. These may be generated through roles of VGCC activation, producing excessive neurotransmitter/neuroendocrine release as well as oxidative/nitrosative stress and other responses. Excessive VGCC activity has been shown from genetic polymorphism studies to have roles in producing neuropsychiatric changes in humans. Two U.S. government reports from the 1970s to 1980s provide evidence for many neuropsychiatric effects of non-thermal microwave EMFs, based on occupational exposure studies. 18 more recent epidemiological studies, provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects, with several of these studies showing clear dose–response relationships. Lesser evidence from 6 additional studies suggests that short wave, radio station, occupational and digital TV antenna exposures may produce similar neuropsychiatric effects. Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes. In summary, then, the mechanism of action of microwave EMFs, the role of the VGCCs in the brain, the impact of non-thermal EMFs on the brain, extensive epidemiological studies performed over the past 50 years, and five criteria testing for causality, all collectively show that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects.

Keywords
Excessive calcium effects; Oxidative/nitrosative stress; Low-intensity microwave electromagnetic fields

READ FULL PAPER HERE

De Gruyter DOI 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011 Received March 16, 2016; accepted May 29, 2016

Igor Belyaev, Amy Dean, Horst Eger, Gerhard Hubmann, Reinhold Jandrisovits, Markus Kern, Michael Kundi, Hanns Moshammer, Piero Lercher, Kurt Müller, Gerd Oberfeld*, Peter Ohnsorge, Peter Pelzmann, Claus Scheingraber and Roby Thill

Abstract:

Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with non-specific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities are causal or contributing environmental stressors that deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by all other members of the health care community. It seems necessary now to take “new exposures” like electromagnetic fields (EMF) into account. Physicians are increasingly confronted with health problems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical observations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently neglected.

New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose exposure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of these technologies. Common electromagnetic field or EMF sources: Radio-frequency radiation (RF) (3 MHz to 300 GHz) is emitted from radio and TV broadcast antennas, Wi-Fi access points, routers, and clients (e.g. smartphones, tablets), cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, and Bluetooth devices. Extremely low frequency electric (ELF EF) and magnetic fields (ELF MF) (3 Hz to 3 kHz) are emitted from electrical wiring, lamps, and appliances. Very low frequency electric (VLF EF) and magnetic fields (VLF MF) (3 kHz to 3  MHz) are emitted, due to harmonic voltage and current distortions, from electrical wiring, lamps (e.g. compact fluorescent lamps), and electronic devices.

On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI), but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains the environment. In the beginning, EHS symptoms occur only occasionally, but over time they may increase in frequency and severity. Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, a lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive medical history, which should include all symptoms and their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in the context of EMF exposures, is the key to making the diagnosis. The EMF exposure is usually assessed by EMF measurements at home and at work. Certain types of EMF exposure can be assessed by asking about common EMF sources. It is very important to take the individual susceptibility into account. The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of high EMF exposure at home and at the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessibility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many examples have shown that such measures can prove effective. To increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other environmental factors that contribute to the total body burden should also be addressed.

Anything that supports homeostasis will increase a person’s resilience against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can change and why the range of symptoms reported in the context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the adverse effects of peroxynitrite – as has been increasingly used in the treatment of multisystem illnesses – works best.

This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention.

Keywords: accessibility measures; Alzheimer’s disease; cancer; chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI); diagnosis; electric; electromagnetic field (EMF); electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS); infertility; leukemia; magnetic; medical guideline; nitrosative stress; non-ionizing; oxidative stress; peroxynitrite; prevention; radiation; static; therapy; treatment.

READ FULL PAPER HERE

The European Coordination of Organizations for a Regulation of EMF Exposure

SEE MORE IEMFA WEBSITE