No Muos e dintorni. Gli effetti dei campi elettromagnetici

 

Una bella notizia, ovviamente se si credesse ancora che il MUOS è qualcosa che ha a che fare con la scienza e non con la guerra e l’imperialismo.

Oggi l’articolo che vedete riportato qui di seguito — a cura del gruppo di lavoro indipendente sul MUOS — è stato accettato per la pubblicazione sul Journal of Physics. Pare che sia una buona rivista scientifica…

 

Non parla di MUOS, ma di effetti dei campi elettromagnetici in generale. E sul perché coloro i quali, anche grandi “scienziati” o semplici diplomati alla scuolaradioelettra, dicano che “non fanno male”, mentono.

 

E’ in inglese, essendo una rivista internazionale di fisica di grosso peso.

 

___________________________________________________________

A new trend on Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) risk assessment

Massimo Coraddu*, Eugenio Cottone**, Angelo Levis***, Alberto Lombardo****,

Fiorenzo Marinelli***** Massimo Zucchetti*

 

* Politecnico di Torino, Italy (presenting author: zucchetti@​polito.​it)

** National Council of Chemists, Italy

*** University of Padova, Italy

**** University of Palermo, Italy

***** Institute of Molecular Genetics — National Council of Research, Italy

Abstract

Recent and very recent scientific literature shows that both biological and sanitary effects of EMF radiations – from the extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF/EMF) to the high and very high radiofrequencies (RF/EMF) – are clearly established and occur even at very low exposure levels. Overall, there are now almost 4.000 experimental studies that report a variety of short and medium-term effects of EMF, which support the biological plausibility of the increased risks of their long-term genotoxic, carcinogenic and neurodegenerative consequences on exposed human populations.

Many of these bioeffects can reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health effects if the exposures are prolonged or chronic. This is because they interfere with normal body processes (disrupt homeostasis), prevent the body from healing damaged DNA, produce immune system imbalances, metabolic disruption and lower resilience to disease across multiple pathways. Essential body processes can eventually be disabled by incessant external stresses (from system-wide electrophysiological interference) and lead to pervasive impairment of behavioural metabolic and reproductive functions. There is good evidence to suggest that many toxic exposures to the fetus and very young child have especially detrimental consequences depending on when they occur during critical phases of growth and development (time windows of critical development), or where such exposures may lay the seeds of health harm that develops even decades later.

Existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits are not sufficiently protective of public health, in particular for the young subjects — embryos, fetuses, neonates, very young children – and for those which are exposed to extremely high ELF and RF/EMF levels.

Sufficient evidence comes from epidemiological studies of an increased risk from exposure to EMF of adverse acute effects and even long-term carcinogenic effects that cannot be attributed to chance, bias or confounding. Therefore, according to the rules of IARC, such exposures can be classified at least as Group 2 “probable carcinogenic agents for humans”.

Keywords: Elettromagnetic fields, risk assessment, health effects.

1. Introduction

Recent scientific literature shows that both biological and health effects of EMF radiation — from magnetic fields , extremely low frequency (ELF / EMF ) high and very high radio frequency (RF / EMF ) — are clearly established and also occur at exposure levels much lows. Overall, there are now nearly 4,000 experimental studies that show a series of short and medium– term effects of electromagnetic fields, which support the biological plausibility of the biggest risks of their consequences genotoxic , carcinogenic and neurodegenerative long– term effects on human populations exposed .

Many of these effects can reasonably be expected to cause adverse health effects if exposure is prolonged or chronic. This is because they interfere with the normal processes of the body ( homeostasis stop ) , to prevent the body to heal damaged DNA , produce imbalances in the immune system, metabolic destruction and a lower resistance to disease through multiple pathways . Essential bodily processes may possibly be turned off by external stresses incessant ( interference electrophysiological system level ) and bring to a pervasive impairment of behavioral , metabolic and reproductive functions . There is good evidence to suggest that many toxic exposures can have negative consequences especially for the fetus and very young children depending on when they occur during critical phases of growth and development ( critical time windows of development ) , or where such exposures can lay the seeds of harm to health that develops after many years .

Existing FCC and ICNIRP limits of public safety are not sufficient to ensure adequate protection of public health, especially for young patients — embryos , fetuses, infants , very young children — and for those who are exposed to very high temperatures levels of ELF and RF / EMF .

Sufficient evidence of an increased risk of exposure to electromagnetic fields comes from epidemiological studies , in particular with regard to the acute effects adverse and even carcinogenic effects in the long term that cannot be attributed to chance, bias or confounding factors. Therefore, according to the rules of the IARC, such exposures may be classified at least as a group 2A “possible carcinogen to humans” , although eminent scientists and epidemiologists — such as Dr. Franz Adlkofer , Co –ordinator , VERUM Foundation, Munich, Germany and Dr. Annie Sasco , Director , Epidemiology for cancer Prevention , INSERM ( Institut national de la santé et de la recherché medical supplies, France) — believe that the classification as a “probable human carcinogen ” would be more correct .

Resolution 1815 of 27.05.2011 of the Council of Europe ” on the potential damage caused by electromagnetic fields and their effects on the environment” is even more explicit in pointing out the failures , risk and the precautionary measures necessary on this issue. It reads , inter alia , that: ” The ’ Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the ’ importance of the commitment of Member States to preserve the environment and human health from environmental hazards , such as exposed in numerous documents , meetings, statements and protocols since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Health and the Stockholm Declaration (Stockholm 1972). Assembly refers to its previous work in this field , namely recommendation 1863 (2009) on the environment and the health , Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution and , more generally , Recommendation 1885 (2009) for the drafting of an additional protocol to the European Conference of Human Rights regarding the right to an environment healthy and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information , public participation in decisions that affect the ’ environment and the possibility of access to justice with the support of the Aarhus Convention .

According to the Resolution 1815 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) 27.05.11: [1]

1 . “The possible health effects of ELF-EMF emitted by power lines and electrical devices (classified in 2001 by IARC as 2B “possibile carcinogen for humans”) are the subject of ongoing research and of important public debate. According to the WHO, the electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most increasing pollutants in the environment, about which anxiety and speculation are widespread. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, the levels of which will continually grow according to technological developments.

2 . While electric and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have shown to produce beneficial effects and they are applied in medicine, other non-ionizing extremely low frequencies , resulting from power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications or mobile telephony, appear to have potentially harmful non-thermal effects, on plants, insects, animals and humans even when exposed to levels that are below the law limit values.

3 . With respect to standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all kinds of frequencies, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommends that the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) is applied or “so low as reasonably practicable” for both the so-called thermal effects and non– thermal biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. Also, the Precautionary Principle should be applied to , when scientific evaluation does not allow to determine with sufficient certainty the risk, especially given the context of increased exposure of the population, including particularly vulnerable groups such as young people and children, which could lead to economic and human extremely high costs due to the inertia, if the first signs of alarm are denied.

4 . The Assembly regrets that, despite repeated references to the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations , declarations and a number of legislative and statutory provisions, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging risks to the health and environment and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. The expectation of clinical and scientific evidence of the highest level before taking action to prevent well– known risks can lead to very high economic and social costs, as it happened in the case of asbestos, lead in petrol and tobacco.

5 . In addition, the Assembly notes that the problem of fields or electromagnetic waves and the possible consequences on the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as authorizations for medicines, drugs , pesticides, heavy metals and genetically modified organisms. It is therefore clear that the need for independence and credibility is crucial to make a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impact on the environment and human health.

An urgent appeal and explicitly against conflicts of interest burdens on the most influential organizations and the International Commissions on EMC was issued in Strasbourg on 12.11.2011 by the International EMF Alliance (www​.iemfa​.org) which brings together hundreds of organizations of all countries of the world , including 31 other associations as members, and to whom also joined 14 MEPs, fifty scientists and a dozen legal in various countries . This appeal (“ Calls for Transparent , Impartial and Pluralist Expert Assessment on health risks of non– ionizing electromagnetic fields , EMF ), addressed to John Dalli in view of the Conference organized by the European Commission from November 16 to 18 EMF with the participation of SCENIHR, EMF Alliance complaint concerns the lack of transparency and pluralism by the EC in the selection of the members of the Steering Committee of experts invited to the Conference , and the agenda of this.

During late 2012 and early 2013 , three papers were published in important scientific literature, which reaffirmed the urgent need to adopt more stringent decision to limit exposure to EMF:

1) ” draft resolution ” of the European Parliament. Approved by a majority of the directors of the Employment and Social Affairs , (06.12.2012: empl-​press@​europarl.​europa.​eu) on “the best protection for workers exposed to electromagnetic fields in the euro zone . ” I was sent to those workers have a high risk IP , such as workers in heavy industry (metal ) and workers who work long hours on radio and television, radar installation near or regular network mobile phones.

2 ) Improvement of the BioInitiative Report (BioInitiative 2012: www. Bio​i​ni​tia​tive​.org from January 7, 2013 ) written by 29 scientists from 10 different countries and it indicates that the 1800 A new study on the effects of EMFs report the to be harmful to human health, In addition to over 2,000 papers in 2007 , according to the written evidence . Epidemiology indicates that RF is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans , so the safety limits of exposure to RF established over 20 years ago by ICNIRP and approved by the EC, WHO and other international agencies and adopted by the governments of many countries are inadequate to protect human health. Currently, there is stronger evidence than years ago that the risk of exposure to EMFs affect millions of people , so the status quo is not acceptable

3 ) A new report from EU (“Late lessons from early warnings carefully .. Science Innovation Chapter 2″ EEA Report No 1/2013) , which emphasized the need to reduce misuse. TM of telecommunications
A recent scientific review [2]concludes recognizing the benefits to society derived from the use of electricity and mobile phone but feels it is imperative that society, governments and international organizations recognize the health risks caused by such use and to establish exposure limits really precautionary , such as to avoid these risks.

Since any decision by the bodies responsible for public health must take account of two fundamental principles of Community law and , in particular, health and the environment — that is, the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality — must immediately clarify how these are to be understood and with such operational consequences.

The precautionary principle , because of its difficulty of interpretation, has been the subject of a specific communication from the Commission of the European Communities ( EC) February 2, 2000 . In particular , the question at issue was summed up in this sentence: “Policy makers are constantly faced with the dilemma of balancing the freedom and rights of individuals, industry and organizations with the need to reduce the risks of adverse effects ’ environment and the health of humans, animals and plants. Striking the right balance , so as to allow for the adoption of measures proportionate , transparent and consistent , non-discriminatory , requires a structured decision-making on the basis of objective information and detailed a scientific or otherwise . ”

The extreme version of the precautionary principle would lead to the blocking of any change on the basis of a ” you never know ” , while the other extreme would mean that the risk minimization we have the absolute certainty of the event before a damaging itself , which contrasts with the concept of risk.

The Commission noted that : “However, there are situations where scientific data are insufficient to allow to apply these elements of prudence, in which the absence of modeling parameters does not allow any extrapolation, in which relationships are suspected cause / effect but has not been demonstrated . In these situations, decision-makers face the dilemma to act or not to act. ”

It follows that the task of the scientists — and in particular , in the case in question, which has assumed the task of preparing this paper — is to provide a reasonable basis and reasonable, without the risk that has been unequivocally demonstrated certainty , but we scientific studies and are derived from these elements to take risks and significant enough , and that the consequences of this risk have serious and significant public health and the environment.

In this regard , the application of the precautionary principle (PP) in relation to the state of scientific knowledge has recently been widely discussed in several monographs including monumental publication in the European Environment Agency 2013 176 . In particular, a survey was made of cases in which the PP has been applied by government measures to limit or exclude the use of particular products or particular to avoid exposure , measures that later proved to be unnecessary (“false positive ”). Or, conversely , in cases where such decisions have not been taken , although there are indications on the existence of significant risks to human health , clues that later — often too late — have proven to be the ultimate proof of the risks also serious health , properly “masked” for a long time ( “false negatives ” ) .

In a review[3] is shown as the scarcity of genuine “false positives” in comparison to the large number of neglected “false negatives ” is in part due to a deliberate strategy used in risk communication. A number of examples are characterized by long– hidden scientific documentation or artifacts, showing how stakeholders (manufacturers, operators and distributors of technologies and products in question ) they have knowingly recruited “respectable” scientists and communication experts ” authoritative ” decision-makers tasked to provide evidence and reassuring news about the safety of their products. The production of doubt, the understatement of the scientific evidence on the risks faced and the overestimation of the costs of prevention are part of a deliberate strategy on the part of some groups and industrial real ” lobbies ” in order to prevent or at least postpone as much as possible precautionary measures.

Another important contribution [4]documents how , in decision-making entrusted to government authorities, the weight of scientific evidence is often offset against the costs necessary for a precautionary intervention. The assessment of these costs should not be left to the sole responsibility of economists, but should provide the basis for a broad discussion involving health experts, ecologists, experts in demography competent scientists and organizations representing potential users. The assessments are based on an interdisciplinary collaboration may counteract some common interests and contribute to policy decisions from which these evaluations are almost always excluded .

Another intervention [5] documents how the misrepresentation of risk is often due to scientific results which are published in ” peer-reviewed” magazines but they lack a scientific approach they don’t prove the statistical significance of the risk associated to a particular product and this lack of significance is often interpreted as a “negative risk”,. Erroneous conclusions such as this depend on the scientific tradition that requires thorough and repeated examinations before a fact is considered confirmed. But this is contrary to the spirit of their PTO: scientific research is increasingly characterized by uncertainties, and these often mask the association between a hypothetical environmental risk and its actual detrimental effects, leading to an underestimation of risk. The research on “environmental health” should answer the following question: we are sufficiently convinced that a certain amount of exposure to a potential risk to result in adverse effects on health such as to require a transparent and democratic process that promotes an appropriate precautionary action? Scientific research should be aimed to extending the current knowledge rather than just being repetitive or confirming what is already known. Furthermore, the results of the research must be clearly available and properly communicated, in order to facilitate and expedite any decisions taken.

On the other hand, according to the 2000 Communication of the EC, to govern the administrative activities according to the Principle of Proportionality means, in practice, that “this principle finds applications not only in the judicial review on the misuse of administrative discretion, but it is a constant benchmark for the public administration. The act which must be, therefore, constantly proportionate to the objective pursued by the provision conferring the power. And this proportion is only possible to search for it through the identification and comparison of all the competing interests at stake. This means, in practice , the duty of the administration to constantly investigate all possible alternatives to its actions : in order to always seek the most appropriate solution not only to the pursuit of the public primary , but also the most gentle among those at his disposal, in view of the criterion of necessity . But what about the criterion of proportionality in the strict sense , in this sense, the administration’s goal should be to reach a settlement of the interests at stake that , through a balanced offering of the different interests from the public primary , proves , precisely as proportionate. Otherwise, the sacrifice of the interests other than in the primary will not be justified and the administrative action will be contrary to the principle of proportionality and as such reprehensible.”

2. Epidemiological studies on occupational exposures to radiofrequency and microwave radiations

Epidemiological studies on occupational exposures to radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) radiations have a number of limitations. Firstly, the definition of exposure is poor: exposure is often related to the work in question, specifically or probably performed in the presence of emitting equipments. In other cases, exposure is considered to be probably or possibly inherent to a particular type of occupation. Then again, exposure is sometimes self-reported in a questionnaire. And even when exposure is unequivocal, there is rarely adequate information on the frequency and intensity of the electromagnetic fields (EMF) in question, or on exposure times (daily/weekly time profiles, overall exposure time). Most of epidemiological studies do not consider the total exposure and the sinergy of the different fields. These studies thus lack precise dosimetry information about the persons exposed. In addition, any exposure to further carcinogens must be taken into account in populations exposed to RF or MW at home, but there is a total lack of documentation. This complicates association between any increase in risk found and presumed exposure to EMF. However, the most likely outcome of an inaccurate selection of subjects actually exposed is their “dilution” among those who are not exposed, and consequently an underestimation of risk index.

Of the epidemiological studies finding a statistically significant correlation among workplace exposures to RF/MW – in particular those emitted by radars — and increased risk of tumours, a number deserve special mention. First is one by Lilienfeld et al. ¹, and Yakimenko et al.[6] conducted on employees at the American Embassy in Moscow exposed to MW (radar) and employed between 1953 and 1976. This study showed a significant increase in risk of all neoplasias, whether in adults or children, in particular leukaemia (adults and children) and brain and breast tumours (adults only).

Garland et al. ^{2, 3} instead looked at US navy and air force personnel exposed to MW (radar); their investigation showed a significant increase in risk of both testicular cancer and myeloid leukaemia.

Another interesting study looked at residents in two American states who held amateur radio licences (Milham ^{4, 5}): despite a lack of data on actual individual exposure to RF, these studies revealed a significant increase in several types of leukaemia and of lymphatic tissue tumours (mainly non-Hodgkin lymphomas and multiple myelomas).

An extensive epidemiological study was conducted by Szmigielski ⁶ on military personnel serving in Poland between 1971 and 1985 and classified as having been exposed to RF/MW, notably to radar electromagnetic emissions, on the basis of measurements effected occupationally: a significant increase in risk was found, in particular in lymph system tumours.

Norwegian telephone company employees were considered in a study by Tynes et al. ⁷ , in which incidence of cancer was evaluated relative to that of the general population: operators of radio and telegraph (RF) transmission equipment were found to have a significant increase in risk of cancer in general, especially of breast and uterine cancers.

Other epidemiological studies from the first half of the 90s revealed significant increases in the risk of brain tumours in American military personnel (male only, 880,000 persons examined: Grayson ⁸ ), and in male subjects with occupational exposure to RF/MW (Thomas et al ⁹), of eye tumours (intraocular melanoma) in persons exposed to radar at work (Holly et al ¹⁰) and of all tumours, but specially of those of the haematolymphatic system and of lymphomas (Richter ¹¹). Particularly noteworthy are two cases of clusters of testicular tumours, i.e. of incidental observations of excess numbers of neoplasia cases in small groups of American police operators of hand-held radar devices (Davis and Mostofi ¹²) and of technicians exposed to radar (MW), probably to fairly high intensity fields (Hayes et al. ¹³).

Further research on exposure to radar includes the study by Groves et al. ¹⁴. This work examined mortality due to various causes in 40,581 Korean war U.S. veterans with potential exposure to high intensity radar (non-specified), finding a statistically significant doubling (95% probability) of risk of death due to non-lymphocytic leukaemia among high-exposure electronics technicians in aviation squadrons (Standardized Mortality Ratio, SMR=2.2; IC95%=1.3–3.7).

Degrave et al ¹⁵ investigated mortality among 4,417 Belgian military personnel with exposure to anti-aircraft radar of average power 1500 W and modulated peaks 500,000 W, and frequencies 1 to 10 GHz. This retrospective review of causes of death in radar operators working in the Belgian military between 1963 and 1994 revealed a statistically significant increase in risk of death due to all neoplastic forms, (SMR=1.23; IC95%=1.03–1.47), but an (at least) tripled risk of acute and other well defined medical problems, such as that due to haemolymphatic cancers (SMR=3.51; IC95%=1.09–47.9). Moreover a particularly high increase in mortality from haemolytic cancer (RR=7.22; IC95%=1.1–47.9) was also revealed, the risk of tumour increasing with increased exposure time (cause-effect relationship). Mortality due to neoplasia is highest in the youngest, rising with increase in length of employment in the radar operative units. The authors maintain that the radar RF emission is accompanied by emission of ionizing radiation by the systems producing the RF used in the radar equipment, and that both emissions have a range of up to two meters from the radar device itself. The radar devices in question were Nike and Hawk employed in anti-aircraft defence systems, which used radiations of frequency 1–10 GHz, both continuous and pulsed, with main band at 1.5 kW power.

A recent review of data on increased risk of tumour in exposure to military radar, and of the underlying biological mechanisms was published by Yakimenko et al ¹⁶; the concluding remarks were that “recent data strongly point to the need for re-elaboration of the current safety limits for non-ionizing radiation using recently obtained knowledge”. The author also emphasize that “the everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary principle which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure”.

Finally, Mollerlokken and Moen ¹⁷ found a reduction in male fertility in subjects with MW exposure (military personnel exposed to radar, users of microwave ovens and mobile phones).

As regards health risks for populations living close to radar installations, Firstenberg and Kane 2002 (www​.lati​tu​des​.org/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​e​l​e​c​t​r​i​c​a​l​_​s​e​n​s​i​t​i​v​i​t​y​-​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​.​htm) noted that in the township of Brick (New Jersey), within a few years of installation in 1994 and subsequent start-up of weather radar equipment (750 kW), the cases of autism in children born at that time rose from 4–5/10,000 (national average) to 8/1,000, i.e. a 16– to 20-fold increase!

Alongside these studies supporting the hypothesis of a statistically significant correlation between occupational RF/MW exposure and increased risk of development of tumours in man, other research has revealed an increase in the risk of various types of tumour with lower than 95% statistical significance (Robinette et al. ¹⁸, Finkelstein ¹⁹, Muhm ²⁰), and there are also investigations with results of still lower significance (Lagorio et al ²¹).

A review of papers, dealing with epidemiological studies which within the above limits have found a relationship between RF/MW exposure and increased risk of neoplasiae, has been done by one of the authors. It should be noted that this reflects the selective identification of cases with high risk index. The figures show results where 95% statistical significance is reached, plus in some cases results where this significance is approached but not reached. Despite sometimes lacking precise information about exposure, the studies presented are nevertheless at least characterised by the certain or explicitly declared presence — in the exposure context considered — of RF and/or MW emitting equipments, in particular radars. The main results indicating correlation between exposure to radar and increased risk of tumours in the exposed populations relate to the following tumour types: leukaemias, lymphomas, brain, testicular and breast tumours, and ocular melanomas. Authoritative confirmation here is found in the data of Prof. Ross Adey, acclaimed biophysicist, former member of the prestigious Royal Society of Medicine (UK) and of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). From the 60s Adey studied harm to human health due to EMF; in particular, as Director of the Loma Linda Memorial Center (California), he focused on the effects produced by radar MW emissions on American veterans. As early as the early 90s he noted inter alia that: “laboratory studies have identified the cell-membrane tissue parts that most probably interact with RF– or MW-modulated EMF”. Adey also stated that: “epidemiological studies have put the spotlight on RF-modulated EMF, in particular radar, as possible risk factors for leukaemias, lymphomas, breast tumours, ocular melanomas and brain tumours,” in good correspondence with our research results outlined above.

A recent review of the epidemiological studies of the relationship between RF/MW exposures and increased risk of brain tumors was performed by Kundi who critically examined almost all the studies listed above as well as others ^23–27 and concluded stating that “occupational studies indicate that long-term exposure at workplaces may be associated with an elevated brain tumour risk. Although in some occupations and specially in military jobs current exposure guidelines may have sometimes been reached or exceeded, overall the evidence suggests that long-term exposures to levels generally lying below current guideline levels still carry the risk of increasing the incidence of brain tumours. Although the population attributable risk is low (likely below 4%), still more than 1,000 cases per year in the US can be attributed to RF exposure at workplaces alone. Due to the lack of conclusive studies of environmental RF exposure and brain tumours, the potential of these exposures to increase the risk cannot be estimated. Epidemiological studies as reviewed in the IEEE C95.1 revision (2006) are deficient to the extent that the entire analysis is professionally unsupportable. IEEE’s dismissal of epidemiological studies that link RF exposures to cancer points that these should be misregarded, as well as any IEEE conclusions drawn from this flawed analysis of epidemiological studies”.

In April 2013 an international congress on “Radar, radiofrequency and health risk”,produced a scientific consensus concluding that:

• “radars use pulsed radiofrequency that causes characteristic biological effects which are more invasive than non pulsed EMF;

• radiofrequency can cause structural changes in enzymes with time reactions of nanoseconds, while the pulsed radiofrequencies emitted by radars occur every milliseconds, thus suggesting that for every pulsing event several enzymatic changes occur;[7]

• the pulsed signals can induce significant modifications on DNA regulations as an effect of the methylation of the genome;

• scientific literature concludes that biological/health effects can occur at low intensity exposure and chronic exposure can make a living organism more susceptible to the effect of the EMFs;

• ICEMS monograph (Eur. J. Oncol., 2010) concludes that there are non thermal mechanisms of action of EMF (including RF) on the living matter;

• experiments on cell cultured in residential areas in Potenza Picena showed that the radar signal activates apoptosis for short exposures and cell survival signal after 24 hours of exposure;

• preliminary results of animal experiments show that radiofrequency is a co-carcinogenic agent;

• radiofrequency induces oxidative stress processes in tissues and living organisms;

• different epidemiological studies show that there is a significant increase of health risks on the people exposed to pulsed radiofrequency and more studies need to be done to conclude especially about pulsed radiofrequency;

• scientific literature suggests that for EMF the precautionary principle should be internationally adopted;

Thus, stricter safety standards for EMF needs to be adopted by governments and public health agencies because the existing ones are obsolete and they are not based on recent literature about biological effects.

According to the precautionary principle RF sources should be reduced as low as possible because at now it is not possible to establish a safe limit under which no biological effects can be observed.

RF sources should be kept far from residential areas. For pulsed RF sources, such radars and Wi-Max antennas, the distance from the EMF source should be even greater because they cause more biologically effects than non pulsed signals.” [8]

 

4. Conclusions

Existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits are not sufficiently protective of public health, in particular for the young subjects — embryos, fetuses, neonates, very young children – and for those which are exposed to extremely high ELF and RF/EMF levels.

Sufficient evidence comes from epidemiological studies of an increased risk from exposure to EMF of adverse acute effects and even long-term carcinogenic effects that cannot be attributed to chance, bias or confounding. Therefore, according to the rules of IARC, such exposures can be classified at least as Group 2 “probable carcinogenic agents for humans”.

5. References

1. Lilienfeld A.M. et al.; U.S. Department of State; Washington, D.C., 1978.

2. Garland F.C. et al., Am. J. Epidemiol., 127: 411–414, 1988.

3. Garland F.C. et al., Am. J. Epidemiol., 132: 293–303, 1990.

4. Milham S.J., Environ. Health Perspectives, 62: 297–300, 1985.

5. Milham S. J., Am. J. Epidemiol., 127: 50–54, 1988.

6. Szmigielski S., Sci. of the Total Environ., 180: 9–17, 1996.

7. Tynes T. et al., Cancer Causes Control, 7: 197–204, 1996.

8. Grayson J.K., Am. J. Epidemiol., 143: 480–486, 1996.

9. Thomas T.L. et al., Jour. Natl Cancer Inst., 79: 233–238, 1987.

10. Holly E.A. et al., Epidemiology, 7: 55–61, 1996.

11. Davis R.L. and Mostofi F.K., Am. J. Ind. Med., 24: 231–233, 1993.

12. Richter E.D. et al., Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health, 6: 187–193, 2000.

13. Hayes R.B. et al., Int. J. Epidemiol., 19: 825–831, 1990.

14. Groves F.D. et al., Am.J. Epidemiol., 155 :810–818.

15. Degrave E. et al., Int. J. Cancer, 124: 945–951, 2009.

16. Yakimenko et al., Exp. Oncol., 33 (2) : 62–70, 2011.

17. Mollerlloken O. J. and Moen B. E., Bioelectrom., 29 : 345–352, 2008.

18. Robinette C.D. et al., Am. J. Epidemiol., 112: 39–53, 1980.

19. Finkelstein M.M., Am. J. Med., 34: 157–162, 1998.

20. Muhm J.M., J.O.M., 34: 287–292, 1992.

21. Lagorio S. et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 18: 418–421, 1997.

22. Kundi M., BioInitiative Report, pp.29–63, 2007 (www​.bio​i​ni​tia​tive​.org) .

23. Tynes T. et al., Am. J. Epidemiol., 136: 81–88, 1992.

24. Tynes T. et al., Am. J. Epidemiol. 139: 645–653, 1994.

25. Armstrong B. et al., Am. J. Epidemiol, 140: 805–820, 1994.

26. Cantor K.B. et al., J. Natl. Cancel Inst., 87: 227–228, 1995 a.

27. Cantor K.B. et al., J. Occup. Environ. Med., 37: 336–348, 1995 b.

[1] Text Adopted by the Standing Committee of the Council of Europe , acting on behalf of the Assembly, May 27, 2011 (See Doc 12608 , report of the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Regional Affairs , Mr. Huss ) , which is based on the relationship of 06.05.2011 (DOC 12608 ) .

[2] “Human health effects of EMFs : the cost of doing nothing .” In ” Electromagnetic Phenomena and Health — a Continuing Controversy ? ” . Conf Series ( doi: 10.1088/1755–1315/10/1/012004 , 2010] by DA Carpenter , Director of the Institute . Environmental Health , Univ . Albany (NY , USA)

[3] Foss Hansen S, Tickner JA. The precautionary principle and false alarms-lesson learned. EEA European Environment Agency. EEA Report No1/2013: pp.17–45.

[4] Skou Andersen M, Owain Clubb D. Understanding and accounting for costs of inaction. EEA European Environment Agency. EEA Report No1/2013: pp.564–80.

[5] Grandjean P. Science for precautionary decision making. EEA European Environment Agency. EEA Report No1/2013: pp.623–42.

[6] Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V. Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems. Exp Oncol 2011; 33: 62–70.

[7] De Carolis R, Marinelli F, Barteri M., “Alterations of Enzymic Electron Transfer Reactions Induced by Microwaves Emitted my GSM Mobile Phones” in “Mobile telephones”, A. C. Harper & R. Buress Editors.

[8] Potenza Picena Resolution: http:// ​www​.infoa​mica​.it/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​1​3​/​1​ 2​/​P​O​T​E​N​Z​A​-​P​I​C​E​N​A​-​S​C​I​E​N​T​I​F​I​C​-​R​E​S​O​L​U​T​I​ O​N​-​2​0​-​A​P​R​I​L​-​2​0​1​3​.​pdf

dal blog “Unoscienziato bordeline”, sul sito de “il manifesto”

 

 

30 Dicembre 2013 - © Riproduzione possibile DIETRO ESPLICITO CONSENSO della REDAZIONE di CONTROPIANO

Ultima modifica: 30 Dicembre 2013, ore 20:26 stampa