- Fop Archived Message
Posted by walter
on May 24, 2020, 3:46 pm, in reply to "Re: EU Planning “Vaccination Passport” Since 2018"
|
I had a pat response from back in the day. Although old, nothing much has changed in the debate. The WHO 'fact' sheet is given then my letter or whatever it was. Fact sheet N°304 May 2006 Electromagnetic fields and public health Base stations and wireless technologies Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in homes, offices, and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population. Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters. There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless technologies. This fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuous low-level human exposure to base stations and other local wireless networks. HEALTH CONCERNS A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health. The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards. In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person's height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established. While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed reviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations. Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause. Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks. Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals exposed to RF fields from base stations. This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobile phone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those associated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistent evidence of altered sleep or cardiovascular function has been reported. Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity", EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms. From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them. PROTECTION STANDARDS International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005). National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded. PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF RISK Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability. CONCLUSIONS Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. WHO INITIATIVES WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature, to evaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the range from 0 to 300 GHz, to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify suitable mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF Project has promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments and research institutes have funded over $250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years. While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008. Further Reading ICNIRP (1998) www.icnirp.org/documents/emfgdl.pdf IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- From: “Response to O2” Dear ….. You have not answered any of my safety concerns. In your letter you have only presented your commercial reasons for the mast. In response to my health concerns you attach a 2006 WHO leaflet that I could have got off the internet, and which you do not refer to in your letter. In your letter you actually only make one statement on health: “WHO and most scientists agree there is no evidence to suggest a link between mobiles or masts and ill health.” Why is the WHO cited to reassure me, given its recent, documented history of secret industry funding, conflict of interest, bias and neglect of evidence [1]? The claim itself that you attribute to ‘most scientists’ is false. At least 200 studies have found adverse biological effects from radiofrequency (RF) radiation including mobiles [2]. This IS evidence to suggest a link between mobiles or masts and ill health. Surely, NO scientist can say that there is no evidence? Can you substantiate your claim that ‘most scientists’ agree with this statement? The Freiberger appeal had 37,000 signatories (mostly medical professionals) including a thousand physicians as at 2005, http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566350/. This appeal called for “new regulations to halt the devastating health consequences of pulsing EMR ” and cited a range of serious medical complaints that they had observed amongst their patients. As the WHO factsheet seems to be your main response to health concerns, I assume that you want me to believe the claims made. Can you say whether you endorse all of the WHO factsheet? As you are proposing to irradiate my brain, I would appreciate a proper statement of your position. Problems with the WHO’s factsheet. Generally - It hardly contains any relevant facts while ignoring adverse research. It makes false claims and it deliberately misleads about what the so-called ‘safety levels’ are designed to protect against. Specifically - it presents misleading evidence in four areas. (i) Misleading comparisons with TV and radio signals The WHO factsheet says “The body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM and TV”, and “a persons height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna” etc. (a) This comparison offers no reassurance whatsoever, because a body of evidence suggests there could be a health risk from living near TV/radio transmitters too. E.g. Ha et al (2007) found doubled incidence of child leukemia within 2km of an AM transmitter. Further studies are referenced below [3]. (b) It is not possible to make reliable comparisons with mobile base stations as the exposure pattern is different. TV transmitters do not pulse - in particular, in patterns close to frequencies the human brain can recognise. (c) The WHO claims the RF exposure form base stations is lower than TV/Radio. While this may be true near the transmitter towers, I understand that it is not true in general, especially for people near the base stations - as I and my family will be. A 2009 Swiss study indicated that individual exposure is mainly due to mobile phone base stations, mobile phone handsets and DECT phones. [Temporal and spatial variability of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, Frei et al, direct Pubmed link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476932] Hand-waving comparisons with TV and radio are intended to imply there are no effects from mobile radiation - this is an irrelevant distraction, when it is already known that there are biological effects from mobile radiation, as noted above. (ii) False claims about the state of the scientific evidence The WHO document claims that the only health effect that is identified in scientific reviews is heat. This is untrue - unless their position is that nothing is “identified” until they say so. Almost 100% of studies have reported that mobiles cause oxidative stress [4]. A clear majority of studies have found that mobile radiation has adverse effects on male fertility parameters [5]. A large number of studies have found RF genotoxic or causes DNA damage [6] Numerous other effects are also backed up by substantial evidence e.g. damage to blood-brain barrier, reduction in melatonin etc. All of these are already known to be linked with serious illnesses. The picture implied by the WHO, that there is no evidence of health risks, is therefore completely misleading. (iii) Repeated misleading emphasis on ICNIRP a) As you doubtless know, ICNIRP standards only protect against acute thermal effects like shocks and burns. You will also know that the pubic concern is not from thermal effects, but from the various biological effects arising from lower levels. ICNIRP is not relevant to those concerns, which are backed up by hundreds of studies. b) The problem is not just the intensity of the signal but relates to other electric properties of the signal. The electric field strength is likely to be relevant. This relates to the square root of the power density. Using the wrong entity allows ‘big numbers’ to be quoted in order to make those with concerns superficially appear foolish. The power density from masts may be hundreds or thousands of times below ICNIRP - but the associated electric field strength may be only a twentieth of ICNIRP. As mast exposure is 24/7, the cumulative electric field strength isn’t anywhere near as far off ICNIRP as implied. c) “Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards”, and “Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines” Studies are not required for this purpose. Industry knows that masts will not exceed ICNIRP – but thermal effects are not the concern This therefore misrepresents the concerns – i.e. is a red herring response. (iv) Base station research In the factsheet the WHO claims to have funded $250m research - but as far as I know none of it was research on effects of base stations on the local populations. Why quote it? Meanwhile the WHO ignores the studies that others have done on actual masts on actual people (attached list). Most of these are peer review studies. The peer-review evidence so far suggests that masts usually cause health problems. Rather than talk about TV and irrelevant heat guidelines, why do you not refer to any of this evidence? Specific information is linked below. I would appreciate your response to my concerns and to this information. Sincerely etc (….) [1] The WHO The former coordinator of the WHO’s EMF project, Mike Repacholi, has admitted that up to half of the funds raised for the EMF Project came from industry. http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/half_funds_raised_for_the_emf_project_came_rom_industry.htm Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO's EMF Task Group. http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf A Lancet study condemned the WHO for neglecting evidence. This criticism was accepted by WHO officials. Use of (i.e., absence of) evidence in WHO recommendations. May 2007 (study in the Lancet) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17493676&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum WHO's Director of Research Policy Dr. Tikki Pang “…acknowledged the criticism had merit..“ "We know our credibility is at stake" , and “WHO officials also noted that, in many cases, evidence simply did not exist”. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May07/0,4670,BritainLancetWHO,00.html [2] Evidence of biological effects Professor Henry Lai, of the University of Washington, has kept track of the studies of biological effects from radiofrequency (RF) radiation, including microwaves. 200 are given here, http://www.emrnetwork.org/pdfs/laisummary.pdf, of which 80% found an effect. Also the Bioinitiative report, linked below. [3] Evidence of possible health risks from TV and radio transmission towers B. Hocking et al. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Medical J. Australia 165, 601-605 (1996). H. Dolk et al. Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain. American J. of Epidemiology 145(1), 1-9, 10-17 (1997). I.N. Magras & T.D. Xenos. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18(6), 455-461 (1997). J.R. Goldsmith. Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects. Environmental Health Physics 105, 1579-1587 (1997). Ö. Hallberg & O Johansson. Melanoma incidence and FM broadcasting. Archives of Environmental Health 57(1), 32-39 (2002). [4] Oxidative stress from mobiles. There are dozens of these. Here are a few. Mobile EMF leads to oxidative stress in rats as measured by MDA, NO, ADA and reduced SOD and GSH, reversed by Ginko-biloba. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14734207 EMF from mobiles myocardial oxidative stress in rats (reversed by CAPE a components of honeybee propolis), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16342473 Mobile induced plasma LPO and reduced SOD, GSH-Px. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11516912 Mobile reduced DOS-1 in human blood platelets. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16602439 Simulated GSM MAST radiation well below ICNIRP limits led to MDA, reduced GSH, SOD in rats. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16954120 [5] Fertility: Sub-thermal effects were found (not always at significant levels) in about 37 out of 47 studies in this collection, http://www.emfacts.com/electricwords/index-Spm.html Here are some titles/conclusions from Scientific Papers 2002-2007. MOBILE PHONES AND MALE FERTILITY: CONCLUSIONS from Scientific Papers 2002-2007 Alfonso Balmori, Biologist. Spain 1.. DAVOUDI M, BROSSNER C, KUBER W. 2002. Der Einfluß elektromagnetischer Wellen auf die Spermienmotilität. J. Urol. Urogynäkol, 9 (3): 18–22. "Our data suggest a decreased motility of rapid progressive spermatozoa caused by electromagnetic waves of GSM-mobile phones. These findings may have an impact in counselling subfertile men." 2. R. J. AITKEN, L. E. BENNETTS, D. SAWYER, A. M. WIKLENDT and B. V. KING. 2005. Impact of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity in the male germline. International Journal of Andrology, 28(3):171-9 "This study suggests that while RFEMR does not have a dramatic impact on male germ cell development, a significant genotoxic effect on epididymal spermatozoa is evident and deserves further investigation" c.. FEJES I, ZA VACZKI Z, KOLOSZA R S, DARU J, KOVA CS L, PA L A. 2005. Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Arch Androl., 51(5):385-93. "The prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effects on the sperm motility characteristics." 4. STEFANIS P, DRAKELEY A, GAZVANI R, LEWIS-JONES DI. 2006. Growing concern over the safety of using mobile phones and male fertility. Arch Androl., 52(1):9-14. "There are many animal studies that show that electromagnetic waves have a wide range of damaging effects on the male reproductive system and sperm parameters." e.. EROGUL O, OZTAS E, YILDIRIM I, KIR T, AYDUR E, KOMESLI G, IRKILATA HC, IRMAK MK, PEKER AF. 2006. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study. Arch Med Res. 2006, 37(7):840-3. "These data suggest that EMR emitted by cellular phone influences human sperm motility. In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell." f.. AGARWAL A, DEEPINDER F, SHARMA RK, RANGA G, LI J. 2007. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2007 May 3 "Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality." g.. WDOWIAK A, WDOWIAK L, WIKTOR H. 2007. Evaluation of the effect of using mobile phones on male fertility. Ann Agric Environ Med., 14(1):169-72. "In the analysis of the effect of GSM equipment on the semen it was noted that an increase in the percentage of sperm cells of abnormal morphology is associated with the duration of exposure to the waves emitted by the GSM phone. It was also confirmed that a decrease in the percentage of sperm cells in vital progressing motility in the semen is correlated with the frequency of using mobile phones." h.. YAN JG, AGRESTI M, BRUCE T, YAN YH, GRANLUND A, MATLOUB HS. 2007. Effects of cellular phone emissions on sperm motility in rats. Fertil Steril., 88(4):957-64. "These results suggest that carrying cell phones near reproductive organs could negatively affect male fertility." i.. DEEPINDER F, MAKKER K, AGARWAL A. 2007. Cell phones and male infertility: dissecting the relationship. Reprod Biomed Online., 15(3):266-70. "Although previous studies suggested a role of cell phone use in male infertility, the mode of action of EMW emitted from cell phones on the male reproductive system is still unclear" [6] DNA damage DNA damage was reviewed by Professor Henry Lai for the Bioinitiative report, http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm • RF may be considered genotoxic (cause DNA damage). Of 28 total studies on radiofrequency radiation (RF) and DNA damage, 14 studies reported effects (50%) and 14 reported no significant effect (50%). Of 29 total studies on radiofrequency radiation and micronucleation, 16 studies reported effects (55%) and 13 reported no significant effect (45%). Of 21 total studies on chromosome and genome damage from radiofrequency radiation, 13 studies (62%) reported effects and 8 studies (38%) reported no significant effects. • Extremely-low frequency (ELF) has also been shown to be genotoxic and cause DNA damage. Of 41 relevant studies of genotoxicity and ELF exposure, 27 studies (66%) report DNA damage and 14 studies (44%) report no significant effect. Lai points out that critical genetic mutations in one single cell are sufficient to lead to cancer. DNA damage is - usually - dealt with by the body’s immune system responses. Professor Hugo Ruediger. “101 publications are exploited which have studied genotoxicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in vivo and in vitro. Of these 49 report a genotoxic effect and 42 do not. In addition, 8 studies failed to detect an influence on the genetic material, but showed that RF-EMF enhanced the genotoxic action of other chemical or physical agents. The controversial results may in part be explained by the different cellular systems.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19285841 A quote from Professor Franz Adlkofer, Verum-Foundation : “There is no doubt – UMTS is ten times more damaging to genes than GSM radiation” "The DNA strand breaks occur at only 1/40th of the guideline limits. Hence, UMTS signals are almost ten times as active as GSM signals." http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20071115_reflex_umts.asp |