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
____________________________________________________________________
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.
The worldwide rush to 5G wireless rollouts is set to raise our pulsing pollution to new levels. Untested, high microwave frequencies are being lined up to increase bandwidth, automation, and usage.
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.
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
___________________________________________________________________
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.
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
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.
LETTER TO POPE FRANCIS / LETTRE AU PAPA FRANÇOIS / CARTA AL PAPA FRANCISCO
Dear all:
Within the European Coordination of organizations for a regulation of EMF exposure which truly protects public health, we developed a open letter to the Pope Francis on the occasion of the XXXI World Youth Day Krakow 2016. This letter invites the Catholic Church and their institutions to take action initiated by some of their congregations to protect the life of EMF exposure, in line with the Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’, proposing to adhere to European Manifesto in support of a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) for a regulation of EMF exposure(which truly protects public health) by adopting the recommendations of the Resolution 1815 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe into the institutions within their sphere of influence.
See the open letter to Pope Francis in Spanish and in ENGLISH.
– This letter has been delivered to the Pope during the XXVI World Youth Day in Krakow(thanks to the mediation of Barbara Galdzinska of the Fundacja Instytut Badań Elektromagnetycznych Im. Jamesa Clerka Maxwella). It was also sent through the papal nuncios in different countries.
– We invited our organization to send a message to the papal nuncio in your respective countries in support of this open letter to the Pope. As an example, see messages sent in Spain (the Spanish and English versions) and France.
Julio Carmona
SEE MORE IEMFA WEBSITE
Source Article : Towards Better Health 20th July 2016
The Hidden Marginalization of Persons With Environmental Sensitivities
by Pamela Reed Gibson Department of Psychology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. VOL. 8 NO. 2 JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY
ABSTRACT This paper constructs persons with environmental sensitivities as comprising a hidden, marginalized group in technological culture that is paying a large price for our industrialized lifestyle. Due to the polluted nature of most public venues, this population is robbed of a sense of “place” necessary to maintain personal relationships. This population is marginalized by health-care providers and shunted into mental health categories, as our current health paradigms are not adequate to frame and categorize health problems caused by our toxic industrial lifestyle. The problem is discussed within the context of the pressures of capitalism, and examples are given of persons with environmental illness receiving mental health diagnoses (an attempted colonization) when they attempt to access mainstream health-care providers who lack knowledge or expertise regarding toxic-induced illness. Key Words: Environmental sensitivities—Multiple chemical sensitivity—Electrical hypersensitivity—Chemical intolerance—Chemical sensitivity—Chemical hypersensitivity.
Read Full Article and Paper HERE
Source Article – Environmental Health Trust
On July 8 2016, the French National Agency of Health Security of Food, Environment and Labour (ANSES) published a new scientific report “Radiofrequency Exposure and the Health of Children”.
Concluding that children are more vulnerable to radio frequency (RF) wireless exposures, the French report recommends immediately reducing exposures to wireless radiation from all wireless devices for young children. Acknowledging the inadequacies of current outdated RF regulations, ANSES recommends strengthening RF exposure limits with child protective safety margins and developing more sophisticated premarket test methods to fully assess human exposures to RF radiation from wireless devices. The new report has made headlines across the country.
“Unlike previous generations, children are exposed today to multiple RF sources at a young age…Children are not miniature adults…because of their smaller size, their anatomical and morphological characteristics and the characteristics of some of their tissues, they are more exposed. In particular, the peripheral areas of their brains are more vulnerable than adults to RF.” –Olivier Merkel, coordinator of the ANSES report:
The government agency recommends to “reconsider the regulatory exposure limits” to ensure “sufficiently large safety margins” to protect the health of young children:
READ MORE HERE
