EMF ??
Lecture Notes of Dr. Irvine

 Back

---

Posted:
4 May 2000

.......Fay Cannonhill of the U.K. fay@cannonhill.fsnet.co.uk has forwarded the following document to us.....

Dr. Helene Irvine is the Public Health Consultant to the Glasgow Health Board.  In February, 2000 she presented a seminar to the National Society of the U.K. for Clean Air and Environment on the subject:  scientific and health aspects of the cellular phones and their masts (towers in U.S.).

The document below contains her lecture notes from which that seminar was conducted.  I consider that it presents an excellent outline "broad view" of the total cell phone and tower or mast issue in its scientific aspects at that date........guru........

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

Cellphone Technology – Public Health Effects?

Dr. Helene Irvine

Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Communicable Disease and Environmental Health

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Honorary Senior Lecturer in Public Health Medicine

Department of Public Health

University of Glasgow
 
 

AGM and Seminar: Electromagnetic fields, Telecommunication Masts and Mobile Phones

National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection

Moat House Hotel, 15 February 2000

Environmental levels of EMF

"Electromagnetic fields occur in nature, however, man-made fields are generally much larger. Environmental exposure to man-made EMF has steadily increased throughout this century and public awareness of the possible risks from exposure to man-made EMF has been mounting."

Philip Chadwick and Zenon Sienkiewicz

WHO Draft Document Electromagnetic Fields 1998

 
 

"There is evidence of a ten-fold increase in radiofrequency radiation in Western cities and towns over the past 20 years with the profile changing from mainly UHF and VHF to mainly cellphone microwave radiation."

Yngve Hamnerius and Thomas Uddmar. Microwave exposure from mobile phones and base stations. Presented at Mobitel conference on Cellphones, Gothenburg, September 1999. In press.
 
 

Scientific evidence of non-thermal, biological effects

The published peer-reviewed literature base describes a wide range of biological effects in animal models and human cells in vitro at low, so-called non-thermal, levels of intensity.

Various biological effects have been reported at SAR below 0.08 W/kg or power densities (depending on the frequency) of 2-10 W/m² .

These include effects on:

Cell proliferation

Calcium ion efflux and cell membrane transport generally

Blood brain permeability

Sleep patterns

Behaviour

Level of hormone: Melatonin

Level of an Enzyme: Ornithine Decarboxylase

 
 
 
 

Specific studies showing biological effects

Albumin leakage through the blood brain barrier in rats at SARs ranging from 0.016 to 5 W/kg (Salford et al 1994) and other changes in this barrier at an SAR of just 0.0004 W/kg (Salford et al 1997).

Changes in the behaviour in rats (avoidance reflex) at a SAR of .0027 W/kg and a drop of testosterone at 0.027 W/kg (Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya 1994).

Changes in white blood cells function, prolonged reaction time, lower short-term memory scores were identified at power densities of 0-4 m W/cm² in school students (Chiang et al 1989).

Detection of heat-shock proteins at a SAR range of 0.000021 – 0.0021 W/kg. (Kwee and Raskmark 1998).

A decrease in reproductive functions in mice at intensities of 160-1053 m W/cm². (Magras and Xenos 1997).

Decreased eating and drinking behaviour in rats at an SAR of 0.0317 W/kg. (Ray S and Behari 1990).

A change in calcium ion efflux enhancement from human and other nerve cells at an SAR of 0.05-.005 W/kg. (Dutta, Ghosh and Blackman 1989).

DNA damage in human white cells at an SAR range of 0.0024-0.024 W/kg. (Phillips et al 1998.)
 
 
 
 

Why is the evidence of non-thermal, biological effects not considered relevant by the advisory bodies?

Does not directly relate to illness in humans.

• Not replicated.

• Uncertainty of their significance.

• Lack of explanation of the mechanism for the wide range of observed effects.
Circumstantial evidence suggesting why scientific evidence might be disregarded
• Multi-billion pound industry promoting a highly desirable product (22,000 masts with 100,000 expected; 24m cell phones in use; heavily promoted including targeting of children using DisneyÒ ).

• Whole hearted support from central government. Tony Blair’s demand for 100% e-commerce coverage.

• Contentious issues surrounding the selection, prioritisation, organisation, funding and publication of research in this field.

• Lack of openness and full divulgence of facts regarding emissions from cellphones themselves.

 
 
 
 

Research base – is the playing field level?

Evidence to the HoCS&T Committee:

• Only £100,000 expended by DoH on cellphone research

• >95% of this is spent on rat memory research and <3% on human behavioural work

• EU 5^th Framework Research Programme – industry retains the power of veto over choice of laboratories as it is funding 50% of the programme.

• World wide, >80% of all research on the health implications is funded by the industry.
Described in Microwave News – New York publication
• Allegations of : funding of studies unlikely to show findings (Roti Roti & Malyapa), interference with the writing up of the discussion and conclusion section of research papers (H. Lai); suppression of research findings (H. Lai, R. Adey, G. Carlo).
Could the net result of the above be a negative publication bias?

Re: Suppression of internal memorandum critical of Britain’s future policy on nuclear re-processing (Excerpts from The Independent, 12 February 2000).
 
 

"Although we restricted the circulation of our paper to our CEGB colleagues, its very existence was seen as a potential embarrassment and we were ordered to contact each recipient and ask for our paper to be returned unread".
 
 

Over the next 10 years, [Professor Jack Harris] wrote a dozen more scientific papers critical of Britain’s re-processing policy.

"But none of them was allowed [my Italics] to poke its head above the parapet by being published".

Professor Jack Harris, Senior Section Head, Central Electricity Generating Board’s Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories. Quoted in The Independent, 12 February 2000.

An excerpt from Secret Society, a commentary in the 17 December 1999 edition of Times Literary Supplement.

Horton defends The Lancet’s decision to publish Arpad Pusztai’s work on the GM potatoes and their effect on rats. He argues that the peer review process has been used to censor scientific work (including Edward Jenner’s experiments into vaccination against smallpox which were rejected after consultation by the Royal Society).

"The only true test of scientific credibility is [not the process of peer review but] for other scientists to repeat the experiments in question. If the initial results are not reproducible, these original findings will quickly and properly be consigned to the waste-heap of science".

Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet.
Q. Can the industry, that funds most of the research on RFR, be relied upon to endeavour to replicate studies that show deleterious effects of their own product, when it is clearly not in their interest to do so?

Review of evidence on non-thermal effects

Debate within the scientific community
 
 

• Vienna Symposium in October 1998.

• Royal Society of Canada Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, March 1999 (see cover).
Epidemiological evidence
 
 
• Too early to answer the question on ill health in humans using epidemiological techniques.

• Not surprising therefore that these have not shown any effects.

• Lack of such evidence does not equate with evidence of no effect.

• No one knows what are the long-term effects of this technology and whether they are cumulative.


‘Post-marketing surveillance’
 

• Wireless Technology Research equates ‘post-marketing surveillance’ with rigorous ‘protection of the public health’.

• surveillance of cancer statistics, mortality rates etc. post-exposure,no matter how complete, should not be confused with effective health protective measures.

• health protection would include advising the consumer to keep cellphone calls short and implementing measures to minimise the levels of radiation around the masts.

• difficulty of attributing future clusters of cancer to masts
"Mobile phones have only been around for less than 10 years now and the incubation period for cancer is at least 10, maybe 15 years. So we need to set up the studies so that if there is an impact, they [sic] can be found in a reasonable time."

Dr. Michael Repacholi, Head of WHO EMF Project.
 
 

Conclusion: Ordinary citizens differ from rats chiefly in that the latter are used in short-term experiments and the former in longer-term ones.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Large variation in safety standards
 
 

• a wide variation in public exposure levels for RF/microwave radiation throughout the Western World

• NRPB standard at the least stringent position (allowing the highest radiation levels) in the league table (see table).

• HoC Scientific Advisory Committee recently advised that the NRPB adopt a five fold more stringent level by coming into line with the standard currently advised by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

• according to those scientists concerned about non-thermal levels of microwave radiation this tightening of standards is inadequate to prevent biological effects.
Comparing Standards for general public RF exposure levels
(900 and 1800 MHz are the two main existing UK mobile phone bands)
 
 



Prepared by Alasdair Philips, Technical Director, Powerwatch, February 2000

The Uncertainty Factor

• calls for urgent reviews of literature or new research

• this includes those by the Department of Health in England, the NRPB, the WHO in Europe, the European Commission, and the NIEHS in the USA. ?the IEGMP

• Australia, Canada, Japan and several European countries have recently diverted government monies into research on the safety of both cellphones and their transmitter masts.

• the BMA stressed the need to encourage further research in their evidence to the HoC Scientific Advisory Select Committee in June and stated that ‘we need to consider effects below the thermal threshold levels' and that 'while scientific evidence remains inconclusive we should take precautionary measures to minimise exposure and encourage further research'.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Justification for a Precautionary Approach

• Maastricht Treaty (EU) advocates a precautionary approach on environmental matters in Article 130r: ‘preventive action should be taken, environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and the polluter should pay.’

• United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 adopted the precautionary principle: ‘measures should be taken where a negative impact on health or the environment is suspected, even where there is no actual proof.’

• Italian Law - Decree 381 enshrines the precautionary principle by requiring public exposure levels that recognise non-thermal effects of low intensity microwave radiation (6 V/m or 0.1 W/m²).

• Swiss Law. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscapes (BUWAL) had proposed standards in a draft ordinance which was passed in 1999. This imposes a minimum distance from sensitive areas where people spend long periods of time by reducing RFR to 100 times lower than the ICNIRP levels, making them the most strict in the world (4 and 6 V/m at 900 and 1800 MHz, respectively).

• Toronto’s Department of Public Health and its Board of Health - advocating a precautionary approach recognising the possible effects of non-thermal levels and their proposals have been submitted to Health Canada (5 and 6 V/m).

• Sweden’s National Environmental Health Action Plan states that the precautionary principle should be applied to environmental health activities, BSE and freon emission cited as examples.

• Austrian Government Department of Public Health planning a precautionary approach (International Conference – Salzburg – 6/2000).

• Parental concerns.

• Industry efforts to progressively lower the levels of radiation emitted by cellphones – ‘less must be better’. Hand-free sets are being promoted by industry with little explanation as to benefits.

• Basic axiom: If environmental exposure to microwave/ radiofrequency radiation can be minimised it should be minimised if at all possible (CF Lead free petrol).

 
 

Arguments against a Precautionary Approach




• The evidence doesn’t justify further restrictions either on cellphone use or manufacture or on placement of masts.

• Measured levels of RF/MW are so low that you don’t need a precautionary approach. "You can place them anywhere".
Counter arguments:
• Inadequate sensitivity of the measuring equipment (see WHO Report).

• No known safe level. Although measured levels are indeed very low, we don’t know if these are safe when human populations are exposed 24 hours a day for years.

• Although very low compared to NRPB public exposure level, these levels are not necessarily completely benign (false sense of security when comparing levels to those designed to prevent thermal effects).

• Non-static nature of these levels (increasing numbers of users, calls, radiosignal duration and complexity, addition of TETRA, etc.) implies on-going monitoring required for most sites as levels may rise and become hazardous.

• Low measurements do not rule out the possibility of much higher levels in isolated situations.

• Lack of standardised monitoring/surveillance.
Monitoring EMF

"A wide range of instruments for monitoring EMF is available. Domestic exposures to magnetic fields from power lines and appliances can be measured using hand-held hazard assessment meters, as can the higher frequency fields from microwave ovens and computers. However, most public exposures to radiofrequency and microwave fields from broadcast and telecommunications transmitters will be too low to be detectable by hazard assessment meters. More sophisticated equipment and specialist expertise is needed, beyond that available to most local authorities."

"Where exposure levels are known or expected to be below [NRPB] guidelines, as for most public exposures, then the benefits of measurement may lie solely in reassuring the individual concerned. There may be a role for local authorities in providing a measurement service as a part of a strategy of reassurance to the population (my italics). Such measurements may be made at relatively low cost by hiring or buying hand-held metres (it is important that adequate training is provided for technicians)."

Philip Chadwick and Zenon Sienkiewicz

WHO Draft Document Electromagnetic Fields 1998

(distributed to all Scottish Local Authorities in December 1998)

Concerns about the level of radiation protection offered by the NRPB
 
 
• NRPB standard at the least stringent position (allowing the highest radiation levels) in the league table. Allows masts to be located virtually anywhere.

• consistent and curious emphasis on natural forms, or background, levels of radiation (uv, radon) as opposed to man-made industrial sources.
• dismissal of scientific findings suggestive of need for caution with EMR (Preece, Henshaw, Hyland, etc.)
• subject of cellphones dealt with in a cursory manner and ruled out as a source of a problem (Course 11/98).
• inadequate briefing of CsPHM on the subject of the cellphone issue generally.
• currently no medical officer on staff. Scientist on staff who claims there is no possible risk to health is not qualified to do so.
• many anecdotal reports of inadequate staffing and funding to carry out the necessary research despite seminal and highly respected role on international committees.

• recent research presented (Sienkiewicz at Gothenburg) unlikely to show deleterious effects (low intensity + short exposure).
• published reports of the NRPB not adequately represented by NRPB official advice (two tier public exposure level).
• claims by the NRPB that they are required by law to set exposure levels on the basis of firm scientific evidence only (anti-precautionary approach) can not be substantiated.
• reports in evidence to the HoC STC that revision of NRPB guidelines follows sifting of scientific information by committees (such as CENELEC) that are chaired and populated by members with commercial interests or connections (Preece).
• no on-going surveillance of environmental levels in urban areas carried despite evidence of steady increase and predominance of cellphone radiation.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

City of Toronto

Community and Neighbourhood Services

Toronto Public Health

Health Promotion and Environmental Protection Office
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

HEALTH CONCERNS OF RADIO FREQUENCY FIELDS

NEAR BASE TELEPHONE TRANSMISSION TOWERS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Dr. Sheela V. Basrur

Medical Officer of Health
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

November 1999

Toronto Board of Health’s view on

minimum required distances from

schools and residential areas

• "max. power fields are usually found 30-250 m. from cellphone masts."

• "monitoring studies typically show levels of RF well below current safety standards. E.g. at a school with a roof-mounted antenna, the highest levels measured (25 times less than Canada’s Safety Code 6 standards) were on the roof. At ground level around the school, the maximum RF levels measured were 230 times below current standards. Indoor levels were even lower (4,900 times below the limit). "

• "Toronto Public Health was requested to consider a policy of prudent avoidance based on restricting the siting of base transmitter antennas a certain distance from schools and day-care centres and away from residential areas."

 
 
 
 
• "Given the density of Toronto, the mixed land use, and the existing network of antennas, it would be difficult to adopt an approach limiting the installation of antennas a certain distance from schools or residential areas."
• "Toronto Public Health believes a prudent avoidance policy that ensures that the public is exposed to levels less than those recommended by Safety Code 6 would provide a greater level of protection in a more consistent way than either a distance- or land-use based policy could."
Toronto Public Health has recently proposed a prudent avoidance level of 100 times less than Canada’s Safety Code and this amounts to .06 and .1 Watts/m² which are essentially the same as the Italian non-thermal levels required by law (Decree 381) and work out to produce a measurable field strength of ~6 V/m.
 
 
• "This policy would not prevent the siting of antennas on schools as long as the 100 fold extra margin of safety were maintained."
Residual problems with siting masts on schools:
• The WHO Guidelines on EMF (Sienkiewicz and Chadwick) suggest "that local authorities may consider recommending that masts be kept some distance from schools, particularly if there is a local sensitivity".

• Recent research confirms that children’s skulls absorb far more radiation than do adult’s, when using a cellphone (Gandhi et al 1996). Reasonable to suggest this might apply to mast-emitted radiation.

• Multiple structures require monitoring to ensure that another building in the same complex is never in the path of a rogue beam.

• On-going monitoring would be required to ensure that the power emitted and the direction of the beam were never altered in error.

• Cables may leak small amounts of RF (CF hose nozzle drip) and reflections off surfaces may result in hot spots within 10 metres directly underneath such equipment if situated on flat topped roofs. This is relevant for many secondary schools.

• Physical presence alone is a source of anxiety and will continue to be a problem despite reassurance, particularly if children develop or experience serious health problems during term time.

• Indefensible, precedent-setting practice if other sites were readily available and later evidence confirms ill health effects.
The Debate

A stand-off between…

…those who consider that the long-term effects are unknown and wish to err on the side of caution, by further restricting the levels of radiofrequency or microwave radiation from cellphones and other new technologies. "If in doubt, advise caution"…

and

…those who insist that a lack of evidence means that there are no negative implications for the public health. If in doubt, ignore potential risks and wait for history to prove the need for caution. "There is no risk to the public health".
 
 





The Role of Public Health Agencies

• Interpretation of available medical and scientific evidence.

• Open encouragement of, and involvement, in scientific debate.
• Advocates of precaution in the interests of protecting the public health, when in doubt.

 
 

"Waiting for confirmation of adverse effects from epidemiological studies before taking action does not adhere to a public health approach which encourages prevention over cure."
 
 

Toronto Public Health. Health Concerns of Radiofrequency Fields near base telephone transmission towers. Toronto: City of Toronto, November 1999.
 
 
 
 

History should teach us that we need to be more careful
 
 

Important analogies with:

• The tobacco story.

• Asbestos in the shipbuilding and construction industries.

• BSE
A MORE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH BASED ON COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE SAVED LIVES IN THESE THREE EPIDEMICS.

The hallmarks of a future public health problem (CF cigarette smoking):
 
 

• There is biological evidence that this form of non-ionising radiation is not inert at low intensities (including at ‘non-thermal’ levels).
• This technology has been released for use by the general population without the kinds of experiments that would enable scientists to confirm that it is entirely safe in the long-term.
• The technology is rapidly expanding, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
• As prices come down the cellphone becomes accessible to everyone including children.
Hallmarks of a future public health problem cont’d
• There is no official health warning accompanying the cellphone so people are using them for long periods.

• Although most people have a choice when it comes to deciding whether to use a cellphone (where the relative risk of symptoms or ill health if any would be higher), people have no choice when it comes to passive exposure from masts (where the risk if any would be much lower). CF Active and passive smoking.

• Large numbers of people will be exposed, voluntarily or unwittingly and even if the effects are subtle and affect only a small percentage of people this may have major effects on substantial numbers of people with all the consequences in terms of human suffering, health care costs and litigation.

• Authoritative bodies and individuals are adamantly insisting there is absolutely ‘no risk to the public health’.

 
 

Dr. Clarence Cook Little, first chief of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee in the U.S. went on national TV and engaged in the following dialogue:
 
 

Interviewer: Dr. Little, have any cancer-causing agents been identified in cigarettes?

Dr. Little: No. None whatsoever, either in cigarettes or in any product of smoking...

Interviewer: Suppose the tremendous amount of research going on, including that of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, were to reveal that there is a cancer-causing agent in cigarettes. What then?

Dr. Little: Well, if it was found by somebody working under a tobacco industry research grant, it would be made public immediately and just as broadly as we could make it, and then efforts would be taken to remove that substance or substances.
 
 

Conclusions

• Evidence of non-thermal biological effects is accepted by eminent groups of scientists.

• Recent calls for further research to confirm the significance of non-thermal effects amount to an additional justification for adopting a cautious approach.

• Any new technology is likely to have some effects even if they are very small. Society needs to know about these risks and make an informed judgement about whether it wants to accept them or accept the costs of minimising any risk.

• The principle of minimising preventable environmental exposure should be applied to EMF as much as it is to water, air, noise and light pollution.

• The legitimate concerns of parents should be seriously considered and not diminished by either scientific zealotry or the vested interests of the industry.

• Finally, the cellphone is not an indispensable necessity of life, to be promoted and distributed to every member of the public, at all costs.

 

Acknowledgments

Dr. Colin Ramsay

Consultant Epidemiologist

Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health