Health Ef Fects of Electroma Gnet Ic F Ields

H e A lt H e f f e C t s o f e l e C t R o M A g N e t i C f i e l D s

�

Expert Group on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Contents

1. Introduction 7

2. WhatareElectromagneticFields? 8

3. FrequentlyAskedQuestions 93.1. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromliving

nearbasestationsorusingmobilephones? 9

3.2. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances? 12

3.3. Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed? 14

3.4. Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather? 15

3.5 Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoelectromagneticfields? 18

3.6 WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects? 19

3.7 TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure? 20

3.8 ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure? 21

3.9 HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure? 23

4. ScienceReview 254.1. RadiofrequencyFields 25

4.2. PowerLine&ExtremelyLowFrequencyFields 28

4.3 StaticFields 31

4.4 NewWirelessTechnologiesandHealth 32

4.5 ElectromagneticHypersensitivity 35

4.6 ChildrenandEMF 37

4.7 RiskCommunication 39

4.8 Ultravioletlight 42

4.9 Lasers 43

5. References 45

6. Annexes 496.1. Annex1:ExpertGroupMembership 49

6.2. Annex2:BaseStationsandWirelessTechnologies 51

6.3 Annex3:ElectromagneticHypersensitivity 53

6.4 Annex4:GuidelinesfromtheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareConcerningtheTreatmentofPatientswhoAttributetheirDiscomforttoAmalgamandElectricity 55

�


Thisreportwascompiledbyagroupofexpertsonelectromagneticfields(EMF).TheExpertGroupwasestablishedandfundedbytheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResourceswiththefollowingtermsofreference:

1) TheExpertGroupwillfocusonissuesofpublicexposure,ratherthanexaminingoccupationalexposure.

2) ThereportproducedbytheExpertGroupwillbeaimedattheGovernmentandthepublic,ratherthanthescientificcommunity.

3) TheExpertGroupwillconsultwithIndustry,recognisednationalandinternationalexpertsandthewidercommunityinordertocompleteitsreport.

4) Infuture,theExpertGroupmayberequestedtotakepartinsomeongoingmonitoring;inordertoupdatetheIrishGovernment’spositioninlightofnewscientificpublicationsorreports.

MembersoftheExpertGroupwere:DrMichaelRepacholi(Chair),formerCoordinator,RadiationandEnvironmentalHealthUnit,WorldHealthOrganisation;

DrEricvanRongen,ScientificSecretary,HealthCounciloftheNetherlands;

DrAnthonyStaines,SeniorLecturer,UniversityCollegeDublin;

DrTomMcManus,formerChiefTechnicalAdvisertotheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources;

DetailsofthemembershipoftheExpertGroupcanbefoundinAnnex1.

Thisreportprovidesscience-basedinformationonnon-ionisingradiationwithparticularreferencetoEMF,andincludesresponsestofrequentlyaskedquestionsaswellasabriefreviewofthescientificliteraturethatsupportstheconclusionsandrecommendations.RecommendationstoGovernmentonhowbesttodealwiththeEMFandplanningissuesarealsoincluded.

Responsestothefollowingfrequentlyaskedquestionsaregiveninthisreport:

1. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearbasestationsorusingmobilephones?

2. Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances?

3. Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed?

4. Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather?

5. Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoelectromagneticfields?

6. WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects?

7. TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure?

8. ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure?

9. HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure?

Thesciencereviewchapterincludesasummaryofthebiologicalandhealthconsequencesofexposureto:

1. Radiofrequency(RF)fieldsproducedmainlybyradio,televisionandtelecommunicationssystems;

2. Extremelylowfrequency(ELF)electricandmagneticfieldsfromanydeviceusingelectricity;and

3. StaticfieldsgeneratedmainlybymagneticresonanceimagingusedinmedicineandtransportationsystemsthatoperatefromDCpowersupplies.

ConclusionsTheconclusionsoftheExpertGroupareconsistentwiththoseofsimilarreviewsconductedbyauthoritativenationalandinternationalagencies.

Radiofrequency FieldsTrafficaccidents:Theonlyestablishedadversehealtheffectassociatedwithmobilephoneuse,(bothhand-heldandhands-free)isanincreaseintrafficaccidentswhentheyareusedwhiledriving.

RFfieldsactonthehumanbodybyheatingtissue.HealtheffectsfromRFarelimitedbyinternationalguidelinesonexposurelimits.RFfieldsnormallyfoundinourenvironmentdonotproduceanysignificantheating.Whilenon-thermalmechanismsofactionhavebeenobserved,nonehavebeenfoundtohaveanyhealthconsequence.

ExecutiveSummary

�


Sofarnoadverseshortorlong-termhealtheffectshavebeenfoundfromexposuretotheRFsignalsproducedbymobilephonesandbasestationtransmitters.RFsignalshavenotbeenfoundtocausecancer.Howeverresearchisunderwaytoinvestigatewhethertherearelikelytobeanysubtle,non-cancereffectsonchildrenandadolescents.Theresultsofthisresearchwillneedtobeconsideredinduecourse.

Sitingofmasts:WhensitingmaststhemaximumRFintensityalwaysoccursatsomedistancefromtheantennas.Whiletherehavebeensuggestionstolocatephonemastsawayfromplaceswherechildrengather,orawayfromhospitals,itshouldbeunderstoodthatformobilephonenetworkstooperateefficiently,aminimumlevelofsignalstrengthisneeded.Thisappliesirrespectiveofthelocationofthephonemast.Ifphonemastsarelocatedinsuboptimalpositions,thisresultsinhigherRFsignalsfromboththemastandmobilephonestocompensateforthis.ThenetresultcanbethatpeoplearesubjectedtohigherRFexposuresintheseareas,althoughthelevelsarestillsafe.ArecentfactsheetissuedbyWHOindicatesthattheRFsignalsfrombasestationsandwirelesstechnologiesaremuchtoolowtoaffecthealth(Annex2).

Mobilephoneusebychildren:Therearenodataavailabletosuggestthattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisahealthhazard.However,inSwedenandtheUK,theauthoritiesrecommendaprecautionaryapproachtoeitherminimiseuse(essentialcallsonly)orminimiseexposure(byusingahands-freekit).IntheNetherlandstheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisnotconsideredaproblem.Noresearchhasfoundanyadversehealtheffectsfromchildrenusingmobilephones,butmoreresearchonthisissuehasbeenrecommendedbyWHO.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) fieldsELFfieldsinduceelectricfieldsandcurrentsintissuesthatcanresultininvoluntarynerveandmusclestimulation,butonlyatveryhighfieldstrengths.Theseacuteeffectsformthebasisofinternationalguidelinesthatlimitexposure.However,fieldsfoundinourenvironmentaresolowthatnoacuteeffectsresultfromthem,exceptforsmallelectricshocksthatcanoccurfromtouchinglargeconductiveobjectschargedbythesefields.Noadversehealtheffectshavebeenestablishedbelowthelimitssuggestedbyinternationalguidelines.

Cancer:ThereislimitedscientificevidenceofanassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldsandchildhoodleukaemia.ThisdoesnotmeanthatELFmagneticfieldscausecancer,butthepossibilitycannotbeexcluded.Howeverconsiderableresearchcarriedoutinlaboratorieshasnotsupportedthispossibility,andoveralltheevidenceisconsideredweak,suggestingitisunlikelythatELFmagneticfieldscauseleukaemiainchildren.Neverthelesstheevidenceshouldnotbediscountedandsonoorlowcostprecautionarymeasurestolowerpeople’sexposuretothesefieldshavebeensuggested.

Sitingofpowerlines:Asaprecautionarymeasurefuturepowerlinesandpowerinstallationsshouldbesitedawayfromheavilypopulatedareastokeepexposurestopeoplelow.Theevidencefor50Hzmagneticfieldscausingchildhoodleukaemia

istooweaktorequirere-routingofexistinglines,andsothesemeasuresshouldonlyapplytonewlines.AnexampleofhowtheNetherlandshasdealtwiththisisavailableat:

www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=/docs/20051004_letter_to_municipalities.pdf

www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=/docs/20051004_elaboration.pdf

www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=/docs/20051004_guideline.pdf

Static fieldsNeitherstaticmagneticnorstaticelectricfields,atthelevelsmembersofthepublicarenormallyexposedtointheenvironment,areashort-termoralong-termhealthhazard.However,micro-shockscausedbythedischargeofelectrostaticfieldscancauseaccidentsifthepersonaffectedfallsordropssomethingbeingcarried.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)EHSisacollectionofsubjectivesymptoms,suchasheadaches,sleeplessness,depression,skinandeyecomplaints,thatsufferersattributetoEMFexposure.SymptomssufferedbyEHSindividualsarerealandcanbedebilitatingandrequireappropriatetreatment.ResearchhasnotestablishedanylinkbetweenEMFexposureandtheoccurrenceofEHSsymptoms.ArecentWHOfactsheetonthisprovidesmoredetailsandacopyisinAnnex3.

Are children and the elderly more sensitive to EMF?Currentlythereisnoscientificevidencethatchildren,diseasedadultsortheelderlyareanymoresensitivetoEMFexposurethanhealthyadults.However,theICNIRPinternationalguidelineshaveincludedanadditionalsafetyfactorof5intotheirexposurelimitstotakeaccountofthispossibility.AtarecentWHOworkshopconvenedtodeterminewhetherchildrenweremoresensitivethanadults,itwasconcludedthattheydonotappeartobemoresensitivethanadultsafterabout2yearsofage,andthatthecurrentICNIRPguidelinesseemtoprovidedsufficientprotectionforchildrenfromEMFexposure.

Risk perceptionManyfactorscaninfluenceaperson’sperceptionofariskandtheirdecisiontotakeorrejectthatrisk.However,oneveryimportantfactoriswhetherexposuretotheriskisvoluntaryorinvoluntary.AWHOreportpublishedin2002givesmoredetailsonhowpeopleperceiverisks,howtocommunicatebetteronEMFissuesandwaystomanagetheseissues.

Recommendations

International GuidelinesThereshouldbestrictcompliancewithICNIRPguidelines:TheICNIRPguidelinesonexposurelimitshavebeenrecommendedbytheEuropeanCommissiontoitsMemberStates,andtheyprovidescience-basedexposurelimitsthatareapplicabletobothpublicandoccupationalexposurefromRFandELFfields.Theyalsoprovidesoundguidanceonlimiting

�


exposurefrommobilephonesandmasts,aswellasforpowerlinefields.TheICNIRPguidelinesprovidesadequateprotectionforthepublicfromanyEMFsources.Whiletheguidelineswerepublishedin1998,theyareconstantlyunderreviewandstillhaveappropriatelyprotectivelimits.Theguidelinesarebasedonaweightofevidencereviewfromallpeer-reviewedscientificliteratureandnotontheconclusionsofanysinglescientificpaper.

GovernmentThereshouldbeanewfocusforGovernmenttoaddressEMFissues:CurrentlytheGovernmenthasdividedresponsibilityforEMFamonganumberofagencies.ThishasleadtoalackoffocusandcoordinationonEMFissues.InadditionthereappearstobeaconflictofinterestsincetheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResourceshasresponsibilityforbothpromotionanddevelopmentofmobilecommunications,aswellasprovisionofhealthadvice.ThefollowingrecommendationsaredirectedattheCentralGovernment:

Centralgovernment,itspolicymakersandregulators,shouldtakeamoreproactiveroleinprovidinghealthadviceinrelationtoEMFandmanagingthisissuethroughasingleagency.Thisagencyshouldbeestablishedandproperlyresourcedwithamandatetocoverbothionisingandnon-ionisingradiations.Thenon-ionisingradiationsshouldincludeelectromagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrange0-300GHz,infra-red,visiblelight,ultraviolet,lasersandultrasound.

Ideallythisagencyshould:

1. Haveamandatetocoverallradiationsandfieldsintheelectromagneticspectrumandultrasound

2. Provideadvicetolocalandcentralgovernment,andotherpublicbodies,onallappropriateradiationissues.Thisincludesadviceonregulationsandstandardsforthesafeuseofionisingandnon-ionisingradiations

3. Provideinformationtothegeneralpublicandthemediaonhealthandsafetyaspectsofradiation

4. Monitorradiationexposurestothepublic

5. Conductormanageresearchonradiationhealthandsafetyissues

Therationaleforhavingasingleagencyresponsibleforallradiationhealthandsafetyissuesisasfollows:

nTheskillsrequiredaresimilarforaddressingallradiationsandfieldsintheelectromagneticspectrum.

nWhileitwouldbepossibletoestablishseveralagenciestodealwiththeradiationhealthandsafetyissues,thecostsofthiswouldbesubstantial.Asingleagencywouldprovidevalueformoney.

nThisagencycanactasa‘onestopshop’forthepublic.

nInmanydevelopedcountriesnationalauthoritieshaveestablishedasingleagencytoprovidethisservice(e.g.someNordiccountries,Australia,NewZealand,Singapore,Malaysia,Germany)

nTherearemanyhealthconcernswithvariousradiationsthatarenotcurrentlybeingadequatelyaddressedbygovernment.NogovernmentagencyisresponsibleforthecontrolofUVexposure;forexamplefromsunbedsorlasersusedbythepublicorinindustryandmedicine.NogovernmentagencyhasaregulatoryroleforpublicexposuretostaticmagneticfieldsorELFfields.

nSimilarregulatoryissuesandpublicconcernsariseforbothionisingandnon-ionisingradiations.

nThisagencywouldeliminatethecurrentconflictofinterestwithintheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources.

Whilethisagencyshouldhaveemployeeswiththeknowledgeandexperiencetomanageradiationissues,itshouldalsoinclude:

nAScientificAdvisoryCommittee.Thisindependentscientificcommitteeshouldbeappointedtoreview,fromtheIrishperspective,thepublishedscientificdata.Itshouldbeservicedbytheagency,drawingonskillsintheCivilService,HSE,Irishuniversities,andinternationalbodies,andbemodelledontheUKAdhocGrouponNonIonisingRadiation(AGNIR)

nAnEMFSafetyUsersGroup.ConsultationwithstakeholdersonEMFissuesisanimportantpartoftheprocesstowardsequitablesolutionsWeproposethattheagencyandtheIrishScientificAdvisoryCommitteeshouldorganiseregularmeetingsandconsultationswithstakeholdersontopicalissues.ThiswouldbeespeciallyimportantwhenmajornewEMForotherradiationemittingfacilitiesweretobeestablished,suchasmajorpowerlinecorridors.

nAPolicyCoordinationCommitteeonHealthEffectsofEMF.OnthisCommitteethereshouldberepresentativesfromrelevantgovernmentdepartmentsandstateagencieshavingresponsibilityforEMFrelatedissuesandshouldbeoverseenbytherelevantGovernmentauthority.

Mobile telephonyToensurethatreadersunderstandwhatisbeingdiscussed,itisimportanttodefinethetermsusedinthisreport.AntennasaretheRFradiatingelements,mastsarethestructuressupportingtheantennas,andthebasestationsincludealltheantennasandtheirsupportstructuresaswellasthecommunicationelectronicsandtheirhousingstructure.

Sitingofmasts.Thisissuehasbeenoneofthemainreasonswhytherehasbeensomuchconcernexpressedaboutbasestations.InputsprovidedtotheExpertGroup,throughthepublicsubmissionsprocess,suggestthatthe

�


planningguidelinesforsitingbasestationsareseenaslackingtransparencyandlackinganyinputfromstakeholders(especiallythepublic),andthatinsufficientinformationisprovidedtolocalauthoritiestomakeinformeddecisionsforapprovalofnewbasestations.ThishasleadtoaperceptionofhealthrisksfromtheRFsignalsemittedfromtheantennasthatisoutofproportionwiththescientificevidence.

WhilethescientificevidencedoesnotindicateanyhealtheffectsfromexposuretotheRFfieldsemittedbybasestations,therehasbeenahighleveloffrustrationandanxietyaboutthelackoftransparencyintheapprovalprocessfornewbasestations.Partoftheproblemseemstobewiththeexemptionprocessthatappliestotheconstructionofreplacementmastsandtheplacementofantennasandbasestationsonexistingbuildings.Inadditionmanylocalauthoritieshaveadoptedtheirownplanningguidelinesfortheapprovalofnewbasestations,withdifferentrequirementsontheirlocation.

Itisstronglyrecommendedthatnationalguidelinesbeagreedontheplanningandapprovalprocessfornewantennasonexistingmastsandfuturebasestationsthroughapublicconsultativeprocess.OnceagreementhasbeenreacheditshouldbeimplementeduniformlythroughoutIreland.ExamplesofNationalAgreementsinUKandtheNetherlandsareavailableat:

www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144926

and

www.antennebureau.nl/index.php?id=185

respectively.

Resultsofemissionmonitoringonwebsite.Theresultsofmeasurementsmadenearover400antennasarepublishedontheComregwebsite(www.askcomreg.ie),andwerecommendthattheybemadeavailableinamoreuser-friendlyform,tofacilitatecomparisonwithsimilarmeasurementsmadeinothercountries,andcomparisonbetweensites.ThesedatashouldbelinkedwiththeindexofmastsitesmaintainedbyComReg.Iftherecommendedsingleagencytakesresponsibilityformonitoringpublicexposurestheyshouldmaintainthisdatabaseandwebsite.

Mobile phonesSARnotificationonmobilephonesisavoluntaryrequirement.AfullexplanationofSARisgivenintheresponsetoquestion1.Howevermanufacturershaveacceptedthatthepublicneedsthisinformationandmakesitavailableatthepointofsaleofmobilephones.ThesedataarealsoavailableontheMobileManufacturers’Forumwebsiteathttp://www.mmfai.org.AllphonessuppliedintheEuropeanUnionhaveaCEmark,whichindicates,amongotherthings,thattheycomplywiththeICNIRPguidelines.

Certification.ThisisinplacethroughtheNationalStandardsAuthorityandtheircertificationprocessthatcomplieswiththeEUregulationsinthisarea.

Power linesSitingofpowerlines:Wherepossiblenewpowerlinesshouldbesitedawayfromheavilypopulatedareassoastominimise50Hzfieldexposure.Wheremajornewpowerlinesaretobeconstructed,thereshouldbestakeholderinputontherouting.Thiscouldtaketheformofopenpublichearingsormeetingswithinterestedparties.TheinvolvementoftheEMFSafetyUsersGroupmentionedabovewouldbeappropriateforthisprocess.

GeneralIssuesUseprecautionarymeasures.Precautionarymeasuresarerecommended.WHOisdraftingaframeworkfordevelopingprecautionarymeasuresthatcouldbeappropriateforIreland.ItisimportanttonotethatloweringthelimitsininternationalguidelinesasaprecautionarymeasureisnotrecommendedbyWHO.

TreatmentofEHSindividuals.WhilesymptomssufferedbyEHSindividualsarenotdirectlyrelatedtoEMFexposure,treatmentshavebeendevelopedinanumberofcountries.AnexampleisgiveninAnnex4(Swedishtreatmentregime).ItisrecommendedthatGPsinIrelandbeprovidedinformationabouttheappropriatetreatmentforEHSsymptomsandbeinformedthatthesymptomsarenotduetoEMFexposure.

EMF research in IrelandTheGrouprecommendsthatsufficientfundsbemadeavailableinIrelandforscientificresearchonthehealtheffectsofexposuretoEMF.ArequirementforthisshouldbethattheresearchisperformedwithexpertiseavailableinIreland–theprincipalinvestigatorsshouldbeIrishscientists–butinternationalcollaborationshouldbeencouragedandinsomecasesisanecessity.ResearchshouldaddresstopicsintheResearchAgendasoftheWHOInternationalEMFProject,sincetheseprovidethemostcomprehensiveandup-to-datelistofgapsinknowledge.

Theresearchprogramshould:

nbemanagedthroughanestablishedagency.Thisbodywouldscientificallyandadministrativelymanagetheprogram,andfunctionasabufferbetweenthefinancingbodiesandtheresearchers,soastoguaranteethescientificindependenceoftheresearch.

nrunforatleast5yearswithabudgetco-fundedbygovernmentandtheindustry(e.g.mobiletelecomoperators,electricitycompanies).

Thereareanumberofbenefitstothis.Itwill

nincreaseglobalknowledgeaboutEMFeffects

nexpandtheexpertiseonthissubjectinIreland

nbebetteracceptedbypeopleastheygenerallyplaceahighervalueonresultsfromnationalresearchthanfromothercountries.

�


ThefollowingaresomeresearchtopicstheExpertGroupconsiderstobefeasibleandneededinIreland:

nAsurveyofEMFexposureofthepopulation.BothELF(50Hz)andRFexposure(arangeoffrequencies)needstobeconductedatavarietyoflocations,bothurbanandrural.

nApilotstudyontheuseofmobiletelephonesbychildrentodeterminepatternsofuse(texting,messaging,calling)andtheassociatedEMFexposures.

nTheeffectofmobilephoneuseontrafficsafety.Non-hands-freeuseofamobiletelephonewhiledrivinghasrecentlybeenprohibitedinIreland.However,thereissomescientificevidencethatroadsafetyisnotonlynegativelyinfluencedbyusingaphonewhiledriving,butalsobydiminishedconcentrationonthetrafficenvironmentwhenmakingamobiletelephonecall.ItcouldbeinvestigatedwhethertherecentmeasureshaveimprovedroadsafetyinIreland.

ContinueparticipationinInternationalprogrammes:TheIrishGovernmenthasbeeninvolvedininternationalinitiativesconcerningtheEMF-healthissueovermanyyears.Itproducedreviewsonthetopicin1988and1992.In1996itwasafoundermemberoftheWHOInternationalEMFProjectandoneoftheproject’sfirstandcontinuingfinancialsupporters.IthasparticipatedinallEUresearchinitiativesandlegislationconcerningEMFexposureeffects.In1997expertmedicaladvicewasprovidedtotheEUinvestigationontheextentofEHSinEurope.IrelandwasafoundermemberoftheEuropeanCo-operationonScienceandTechnology(COST)Action281,whichsoughtabetterunderstandingofthehealtheffectsofemergingcommunicationandinformationtechnologies.IrelandalsoprovidedtechnicalexpertisetoanEURecommendationonlimitingpublicexposuretoEMFandtotwooccupationalDirectivesdealingwithlimitingexposurestoEMFandOpticalRadiation.

Communication on EMF RisksItisrecommendedthatthepublicbeprovidedwithinformationabouttherisksofEMFexposureandkeptinformedofrecentscientificdevelopments.Thiscanbeachievedthroughanumberofavenues:

nAcentralcontactpersonwithintheproposedsingleagencyshouldbeappointedtoprovidetothepublicresponsesaboutEMFissuesandtorespondtoquestionsfromthemediaandotherparties

nAnactive,informativeanduser-friendlywebsitegivingdetailsofthehealtheffectsofEMF,whatthegovernmentisdoingtoensurecompliancewithEMFstandardsandothertopicalissuesofconcern.

nAbrochureaboutEMFthatcanbeprovidedtoconcernedcitizens.Thefrequentlyaskedquestionsectionofthisreportcouldbepublishedandmadeavailabletointerestedparties.

Optical radiationWhilethisreportdealsmainlywithlowerfrequencyEMF,opticalradiation(ultraviolet,lightandinfrared,includinglasers)alsoformpartofthenon-ionisingelectromagneticspectrum.Thereareimportanthealthissuesrelatedtoexposuretoopticalradiationthatshouldbeaddressed.Ultrasoundemissionsshouldbeaddressedwithinthesameframeworkespeciallyinthecontextofitssafeuseinindustryandmedicine.

�


Chapter1

Introduction

ManypeopleinIrelandhaveexpressedconcernthatexposuretoelectromagneticfields(EMF)frommobilephonebasestations(generallyreferredtobypeopleinIrelandasmasts)andhighvoltagepowerlinesmayhaveadverseeffectsontheirhealth.TheJointOireachtasCommitteeonCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources(JointOireachtasCommittee),examinedtheissueofnon-ionisingradiationandpublishedareport“Non-ionisingradiationfrommobilephonehandsetsandmasts”,inJune,2005.AtthesametimethisissuewasbeingdealtwithbystaffattheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources.AsaresultanInter-departmentalCommitteeonHealthEffectsofElectromagneticFields(Inter-departmentalCommittee)wasappointedbytheGovernmentinSeptember2005.ThisInter-departmentalCommitteeestablishedanExpertGroupontheHealthEffectsofEMFinNovember2005toprovideconclusionsandrecommendationsaboutEMFexposureunderthetermsofreferencegivenintheExecutiveSummary.

TheExpertGroupidentifiedquestionsrequiringdetailedconsiderationfromfoursources.Thesewerethetermsofreference,therecommendationsoftheJointOireachtasCommittee,thepublicconsultationprocessandtheInter-departmentalCommittee.

QuestionsarisingfromthisprocessaregiveninChapter3.

IssuesarisingfromtheExpertGroup’stermsofreferenceincluded:

nAretheelderlyandchildrenmoresensitivetoEMF?

nHowshouldtheissueoflocatingnewmastsbeaddressed?

nShouldpowerlinesbelocatedawayfromschools?

nWhatchangesinGovernmentstructureshouldbemadetobetteraddressEMFissues?

nWhatresearchshouldbeconductedinIrelandtobetteraddressandunderstandlocalissues?

nHowcanwebettercommunicateanyrisksfromexposuretoEMF?

Reviewswereconductedofscientificreportsonthehealtheffectsofexposureto:radiofrequency(RF)fields(frequenciesfrom300Hzto300GHz),includingthoseassociatedwithmobiletelecommunications,radioandtelevision;extremelylowfrequency(ELF)fields(frequencies>0to300Hzthatexistwhereelectricityisgenerated,distributedorusedinelectricalappliances;andstaticfields(frequency0Hz)associatedwithsuchdevicessuchasMagneticResonanceImaginginmedicineordirectcurrent(DC)usedfortransportationsystems.BriefreviewsofthehealtheffectsofexposuretoUVlightandlaserlightwerealsoprepared.

Consultationswereheldwithrepresentativesofcentralandlocalgovernment,concernedcitisensgroupsandindustry.Inaddition,thedraftreportwassubjectedtoaninternationalpanelofrecognisedscientificexpertsandreviewedbytheInter-departmentalCommittee.MembershipoftheExpertGroup,theInternationalPanelofexperts,andthoseinterestedpartiesconsultedbytheExpertGrouparelistedinAnnex1.

Thisreportprovidestheconclusionsfromthereviewofthescientificliterature,addresseskeytopicofconcern,andmakesrecommendationson:

nAdoptionandcompliancewithinternationalstandards

nParticipationininternationalprogrammes

nAppropriategovernmentstructurestobestmanagetheEMFissuesandtorespondtopublicandlocalauthorityconcerns

nUseofprecautionarymeasures

nPlanningforthelocationofnewbasestations

nSitingofnewpowerlines

nAssistanceforhypersensitiveindividuals

nEMFresearchthatwouldbeusefultoIreland

�


Electromagneticfields(EMF)areallaroundus.Weneedthemtosee,tolistentoradioandwatchtelevision,tocommunicateusingmobilephones,andwegeneratethemeverytimeweturnonalightswitchoruseanelectricappliance.

Ionisingversusnon-ionisingradiationAnelectromagneticfieldisagenerictermforfieldsofforcegeneratedbyelectricalchargesormagneticfields.UndercertaincircumstancesEMFcanbeconsideredasradiationwhentheyradiateenergyfromthesourceofthefields.Electromagneticwavesperiodicallychangebetweenpositiveandnegative.Thespeedofthechanges,orthenumberofchangespersecond,iscalledthefrequencyandisexpressedinhertz(1Hz=1fullcycleofchangepersecond).

OftenwhenpeoplethinkofEMF,theythinkofradiationthatisassociatedwithX-rays,radioactivityornuclearenergy.Whatpeopleconsideras‘radiation’isionisingradiationthatcontainssufficientenergytocauseionisation;thatis,theycandislodgeorbitingelectronsfromatomsorbreakbondsthatholdmoleculestogether,producingionsorchargedparticles.Productionofionsorionisationintissuesmayresultindirectdamagetocellscausinghealtheffects.Thesetypesofhigh-energyradiation,thatincludeX-rays,gammaraysandcosmicrays,arecalled“ionisingradiation”.

Butthesearenottheonlytypesofradiationintheelectromagneticspectrum:thereisacontinuousspectrumoffields(seefigure2.1).Allothertypesofradiationdonothaveenoughenergytoresultinionisationandsoarereferredtoas“non-ionisingradiation”.Thisfullspectrumofelectromagnetic

radiationandfieldscanbedividedintodiscretebandshavingdifferentinteractionsonlivingorganisms:ultravioletradiation,visiblelight,infra-redradiation,microwaves,radiofrequencyfieldsandlowfrequencyfields(figure2.1).

Thisreportcoversthreemaintypesofnon-ionisingEMFs–radiofrequency(RF)fields(definedasEMFswithfrequenciesintherangeof300Hzto300GHz),extremelylowfrequency(ELF)fields(EMFsinthefrequencyrangebetween0and300Hz),andstaticfields(electricandmagneticfieldsthatarenotvaryingwithtimeandthereforehaveafrequencyof0Hz).

Ultraviolet(UV)radiation,visiblelight,andinfraredradiationareonlybrieflycoveredinthisreport,butitisimportanttoemphasisethatthemainpublichealthimpactsofnon-ionisingradiationcomefromexposuretoUV,fromsunexposureandtheuseoftanningsalons.

Units:Hz hertz,cyclespersecondkHz kilohertz,103HzMHz megahertz,106HzGHz gigahertz,109HzTHz terahertz,1012HzPHz petahertz,1015HzV volt,unitofpotentialV/m voltpermetre,unitofelectricfieldstrengthA ampere,unitofcurrentA/m2 amperepermetresquared,unitofcurrentdensityW watt,unitofpowerW/m2 wattspermetresquared,unitofpowerdensityW/kg wattsperkilogram,unitofspecificabsorptionrate(SAR)

ionisingradiation

opticalradiation

radiofrequencies

Frequency300 Hz 300 GHz 3 PHz

1000 km

wave length

1 mm 100 nm

0 Hz

extremely lowfrequencies

Figure 2.1 The Electromagnetic Spectrum

Chapter2

WhatareElectromagneticFields?

�


Chapter3

FrequentlyAskedQuestions

IntroductionThefollowingninequestionsreflectspecificconcernsexpressedbyindividuals,groupsandorganisationsthatrespondedtotheDCMNR’srequestforsubmissionstotheExpertGroup.ThematerialusedinthepreparationoftheseresponsesistakenfromtheScienceReviewsectionofthisreport(Chapter4)thatgivesamoredetailedoverview.

GeneralbackgroundinformationonEMFisgiveninchapter2ofthisreport.Howeveritisveryimportanttorecognisethatnotallbiologicaleffectsresultinhealthconsequences.WhileexposuretoEMFmayresultinadetectablechangeintheexposedorganism,thiseffectwillonlyhaveaneffectonthehealthoftheorganismiftheeffectisoutsideitscompensatorymechanism.Forexample,ariseintemperatureresultsfromRFexposure.However,suchatemperatureincreasewillonlyhavedetrimentalhealthconsequencesifthetemperatureriseexceedsabout2-3°C.

Thefollowingquestionsarediscussed:

Question1:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearbasestationsorusingmobilephones?

Question2:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances?

Question3:Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed?

Question4:Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather?

Question5:Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoEMF?

Question6:WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects?

Question7:TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure?

Question8:ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure?

Question9:HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure?

Question1:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearbasestationsorusingmobilephones?Response:Fromalltheevidenceaccumulatedsofar,noadverseshortorlongtermhealtheffectshavebeenshowntooccurfromexposuretothesignalsproducedbymobilephonesandbasestationtransmitters.Howeverstudieshavemainlyinvolvedlookingatcancerandcancer-relatedtopics.Amongotherstudiesbeingplannedareprospectivecohortstudiesofchildrenandadolescentmobilephoneusersandstudiesofhealthoutcomesotherthanbraincancerincludingmoregeneralhealthoutcomessuchascognitiveeffectsandsleepquality.

Theonlyestablishedadversehealtheffectassociatedwithmobilephonesiswithtrafficaccidents.Researchhasclearlydemonstratedanincreaseintheriskoftrafficaccidentswhenmobilephones(eitherhandheldorwithahands-freekit)areusedwhiledriving.

Tofunction,amobilephonemustcommunicatebyradiosignalswithanearbybasestation.AmobilephonecallfromIrelandtoamobilephoneinAustraliaismadeupoftwolocalwirelessconnections:acalltothenearestbasestationinIrelandplusasecondcallfromthebasestationinAustralianearesttotheothermobilephone.Theworldwidecommunicationsnetworklinksthetwobasestations.

Eachofthe4500basestationsinIrelandisatthecentreofacell.Eachcellinturncanhandlealimitednumberofconcurrentphonecalls.Adjoiningcellsuseslightlydifferentfrequenciestopreventinterference.Howeverbecausethereareonlyalimitednumberoffrequenciesavailableformobiletelephonytheymustbereusedinothercells.Todothisnoimmediatelyadjacentcellsusethesamefrequencies.Becauseofthelimitednumberofcallsthatcanbehandledbyabasestationatonetime,thenumberofbasestationsinagivenareahastobeincreasedtoaccommodategreatermobilephoneuse.Asaresult,thesignalstrengthfrombasestationsandmobilephoneswillbereduced.Moreover,signalsbetweenthebasestationandthephoneconstantlyadjusttothelowestlevelnecessaryforefficientoperation.

Box 3.1 How a Mobile Phone Works

Shamsudin

Highlight

�0


Mobile phone useMobilephonesarenowanintegralpartofmoderntelecommunications.Insomepartsoftheworldtheyaretheonlyreliablephonesavailable.InIrelandtheirpopularityisduetotheeasewithwhichtheyprovidecontinuouscommunicationwithoutinhibitingfreedomofmovement.Worldwide,thenumberofpeopleusingmobilephonesisapproachingtwobillion.InIreland,overfourmillionmobilephonesarenowinuse.Withoutbasestationsthesephonescouldnotfunction.

Exposure characteristics: mobile phonesAperson’sexposuretoamobilephoneismeasuredintermsofSpecificAbsorptionRate(SAR).Thisisameasureoftherateofenergydepositioninaperson’sbodyduringacallandisexpressedinwattsperkilogram(W/kg).TheSARvariesdependingonthedistancetothenearestbasestationandwhetherthereareRFsignalabsorbingobstaclesbetweenthecallerandthebasestation,suchasbuildings,tunnelsetc.TheSARexposurefromthemobilephonewillbehighestwhenthebasestationisdistantand/ortheuserisinabuildingorastationaryvehiclethatimpedesthephonesignal.Thephonewillthenoperatewithmaximumsignalstrength.AllphonesareprovidedwithdetailsofthemaximumSARtheywillproducewhenoperatingundersuchconditions.TheSARvaluesareallmeasuredinexactlythesamewayinEUapprovedlaboratoriestoensurethevaluesobtainedareaccurateandcomparable.

SARvaluesforthemostwidelyusedphonesrangefrom0.1to1.2W/kg.

ThemaximumSARlevelsforexposureofthegeneralpublicrecommendedinthe1999RecommendationoftheEUCouncilofHealthMinisters(EU,1999)arecomparedtothetypicalmobilephoneSARsinBox3.2.

Frequency(MHz)

EUSARlimit(W/kg)

TypicalphoneSAR(range)(W/kg)

900 2.0 0.7(0.2–1.2)

1800 2.0 0.7(0.2–1.2)

1900 2.0 0.3(0.1–0.5)

Box 3.2 Comparison of EU SAR limits and actual mobile phone handset SARs

Exposure characteristics: phone mastsUnlikemobilephones,wheretheuser’sexposuretoRFfieldsislocalisedtothatpartofthebodyclosesttothephoneantenna,aperson’swholebodyisexposedtotheRFemissionsfromphonemastantennas(basestation).Exposuretoamobilephonebasestationismeasuredintermsofpowerdensity.ThisisameasureoftherateatwhichRFenergyisreachingapersonfromthatbasestation.Theunitofpowerdensityis‘wattpersquaremetre’(W/m2).Theactualexposureofanindividualdependsontheheightofthetransmittingantennasonthemast,thepoweroutputandgainoftheantennas,thedirectionofthebeam,andthedistanceoftheindividualfromtheantennas.

Onatypicalphonemasttheantennasaremountedatthetopofatriangularmetallatticetower20to30metresinheight.Antennascanalsobefoundmountedonshorterplatformsontheroofsofbuildings.Thepowerinputtotheantennasisoftheorderof20to30W.Theantennasshapeandemittheradiosignalsintoanarrowbeamthatisdirecteddownwardsatanangleofbetween5and10degrees.Thepeakexposureatgroundlevelistypicallyfound50to300metresfromthebaseofthetower,dependingonitsheight,andwhetherthegroundisflatandtherearenointerveningbuildingsorotherbarriers.Becausetherecanbemanyobstaclestothebeam,especiallyinurbanareas,thecalculationofpublicexposurestobasestationsiscomplex.ItisusuallysimplertodeterminethestrengthoftheRFfieldfromaphonemastbydirectmeasurement,althoughseveralmeasurementsaregenerallyrequiredbeforethehighestfieldstrengthanditslocationareidentified.

Publicexposuresinthevicinityof400phonemastsinIrelandweremeasuredin2004and2005(ComReg,2004).Measurementsrarelyexceeded0.01W/m2andmoreoftenwerearound0.001W/m2orless.Themaximumallowablepublicexposurelevels(EU,1999)arehundredstothousandsoftimesgreaterthanthis–4.5W/m2at900MHz.Onlybyapproachingthephonemastantennastowithinafewmetresandwithinthemainbeamisitpossibletoexceedthislimit.Suchaccessshouldbepreventedbybarriersorothermeans.

Health concerns: mobile phones in generalGiventhelargenumberofphoneusers,evensmalladverseeffectsonhealthcouldhavemajorpublichealthimplications.AlthoughpublicexposuretoRFfieldsfrommobilephonesarewithintheEUlimits,theseexposuresarestillmuchhigherthanthosepreviouslyexperiencedbythegeneralpublic.ThishasledpublichealthauthoritiesandtheWorldHealthOrganisationtopromoteresearchintothepossibleadversehealtheffectsofmobilephones.TheINTERPHONEstudy(http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCA4.php)isaleadingexample.

RFfieldspenetratetissuestodepthsthatdependonthefrequency.AtmobilephonefrequenciestheRFenergyisabsorbedtoadepthintissueofaboutonecentimetre.RFenergyabsorbedbythebodyisconvertedintoheatthatiscarriedawaybythebody.Allestablishedadversehealtheffectsarecausedbyheating.WhileRFenergycaninteractwithtissuesatlevelsthatdonotcausesignificantheating,thereisnoconsistentevidenceofadversehealtheffectsatexposuresbelowtheinternationalguidelinelimits.

Health concerns: mobile phones and cancerCurrentscientificevidenceindicatesthatexposuretoRFfieldsemittedbymobilephonesisunlikelytoinduce,progressorpromotecancer.SeveralstudiesofanimalsexposedtoRFfieldssimilartothoseemittedbymobilephonesfoundnoevidencethatRFcausesorpromotesbraincancer.

Shamsudin

Highlight

Shamsudin

Highlight

Shamsudin

Highlight

Shamsudin

Highlight

Shamsudin

Highlight

��


TheINTERPHONEstudyisamajorepidemiologicalstudytodetermineifthereisanyrelationshipbetweenmobilephoneuseandtumoursinthehead.Itisbeingco-ordinatedbyWHO’sInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC)andinvolves14studiesconductedin13countries,allusinganidenticalstudyprotocol.Nothinguntowardhasemergedfromtheresultspublishedsofar,althoughreportsofanincreasedincidenceofacousticneuroma(abenigntumouroftheacousticnerve)amongpeoplewhohavebeenusingmobilephonesformorethantenyearswillrequirefurtherinvestigation.HoweverthisresultswasnotconfirmedinarecentstudyconductedinDenmark.

AnanalysisofasetofSwedishstudiesconductedbythesameinvestigatorssuggestsanassociationbetweenmobilephoneuseandbraintumours,butthesestudieshavebeencriticisedtotheextentthattheresultstheyhaveproducedarenotconvincing.Otherrecentepidemiologicalstudieshavefoundnoconvincingevidenceofanincreaseintheriskofcanceroranyotherdiseasewithuseofmobilephones.

Health concerns: mobile phones and other health risksSomescientistshavereportedothereffectsofusingmobilephonesincludingchangesinbrainactivity,reactiontimes,sleeppatternsandself-reportedwell-being.Theseeffectsaresmallandhavenoclearhealthsignificance.Morestudiesareinprogresstotrytoconfirmthesefindings.

Drivingwhileusingamobilephoneisaprovencauseoftrafficaccidents.Theuseofahands-freekitdoesnotsignificantlyreducetherisk.(IEGMP,2000)

Whenmobilephonesareusedclosetosomemedicaldevicessuchaspacemakers,implanteddefibrillatorsandcertainkindsofhearingaid,thereisapossibilityofcausinginterference.Thereisalsoapossibilityofsuchinterferencewithaircraftguidancesystems.TheseconcernsaregraduallybeingovercomewithbetterdesigntostopthisequipmentbeinginterferedwithbyRFsignals.

Health concerns: phone masts in generalAconcernamongthepublicaboutbasestationsisthatwholebodyexposuretotheRFsignalstheyemitmayhavelong-termhealtheffects.TodatetheonlyacutehealtheffectsfromRFfieldshavebeenconfinedtooccupationalover-exposuresinindustrialsituations.Nopublicexposurefallsintothiscategory.Phonemastexposuresarebroadlysimilartoorbelowthosefromradioandtelevisionstationsthathavebeenbroadcastingworldwideforoversixtyyears.(WHO,2006)

FewstudieshaveinvestigatedgeneralhealtheffectsinindividualsexposedtoRFfieldsfrombasestationsbecauseofthedifficultydistinguishingtheirverylowsignalsfromotherhigherstrengthRFsourcesintheenvironment.Pagingandothercommunicationsantennassuchasthoseusedbythefire,Gardaí,andemergencyservicesoperateatsimilarorhigherpowerlevelsthanbasestations.

Someindividualsreportnon-specificsymptomsuponexposuretoRFfieldsfrombasestations.AsrecognisedinarecentWHOfactsheet(WHO,2005),EMFhasnotbeenshowntocausesuchsymptoms.Nonethelessitisimportanttorecognisetheplightofpeoplesufferingfromthem.

Health concerns: phone masts and cancerTherehavebeenmediareportsofcancerclustersaroundbasestationsthathaveheightenedpublicconcern.Generally,cancersaredistributedunevenlyamonganypopulation(National Cancer Registry,2005).Giventhelargenumberofbasestationsandtheirdistributionaroundcentresofpopulationitcanbepredictedthatsomeconcentrationsofcancerorotherdiseaseswilloccurinthevicinityofabasestation.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthebasestationisthecauseofthecancercluster.Investigationsofsuchclustersoftenshowthatthereisacollectionofdifferenttypesofdiseasewithnocommoncharacteristicorcause.

Overthepast15years,severalepidemiologicalstudieshaveexaminedthepotentialrelationshipbetweenRFtransmittersandcancer(NRPB,2004;WHO,2005;HCN,2005).ThesestudieshaveasyetprovidednoevidencethatRFexposurefromthetransmittersincreasestheriskofcancer.LikewiseanimalstudieshavenotestablishedanincreasedriskofcancerfromexposuretoRFfields,evenatlevelsthataremuchhigherthanthoseproducedbybasestations.

ConclusionsItremainsuncleartowhatextentthelong-termuseofamobilephoneisrelatedtotheoccurrenceofacousticneuromabecauseonestudyhasidentifiedanassociationandanotherhasnot.Further,iftheassociationisreal,thisappearstorelateonlytotheuseoftheolderanaloguephonesandnotthecurrentlyuseddigitaltypessuchasGSMphones.Thereissomeevidencefromoneseriesofstudiesofanassociationbetweenbraintumoursandmobilephoneusebutthesestudieshavebeenthesubjectofconsiderablecriticism.ForbothtypesoftumourtheresultsoftheINTERPHONEstudyandthepooledanalysisoftheseresultsbyIARC,whichwillbeavailablein2007,willprovideamorereliablepicture.

Whilethereisnoevidencethatmobilephonesaredetrimentaltohealth,theUKNRPB (2004)endorsedtherecommendationoftheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000)thattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenbelimited.IntheNetherlands,however,theHealthCouncilsawnoreasontorecommendthatmobilephoneusebychildrenovertheageoftwoberestricted(HCN,2002;2005).

Thequestionofwhetherlivingintheproximityofabasestationisassociatedwithanincreasedriskofdevelopinganillnessconcernsmanyofthepeoplewhofindthemselvesinthissituation.However,consideringtheverylowexposurelevelsandthescientificevidenceavailabletodate,itappearshighlyunlikelythattheweaksignalspeopleareexposedtofrombasestationscouldcausecanceroranyotheradversehealtheffects(WHO,2006)

Shamsudin

Highlight

��


Question2:Arethereanyharmfulhealtheffectsfromlivingnearpowerlinesandusingelectricalappliances?Response:PowerlinesandelectricalappliancesaresourcesofExtremelyLowFrequency(ELF)fields.TheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC)concluded,onthebasisoflimitedevidenceinhumansthatELFmagneticfieldsareapossiblyhumancarcinogen.ThisdoesnotmeanthatELFmagneticfieldsareactuallycarcinogenic,simplythatthereisthatpossibility.EvidencefortheassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandchildhoodleukaemiaderivesfromepidemiologicalstudies.Thesestudies,takenindividuallyorascollectivelyreviewedbyexpertgroups,areinsufficienteithertomakeaconclusivejudgementoncausalityortoquantifyappropriateexposurerestrictions.ApartfromthistherearenootheridentifiedharmfulhealtheffectfromELFexposure,wheresuchexposuresarebelowtheinternationallimits.

Exposure characteristics: power linesEveryoneinIrelandwhouseselectricityisexposedto50Hzelectricandmagneticfields.Thesetwotypesoffieldareassociatedwiththetransmission,distributionanduseofelectricpower.Theelectricfieldisrelatedtothevoltageofthepowersupplyandthemagneticfieldtotheelectriccurrentflowingthroughthewires.Thestrengthofthefieldsincreasewithincreasingvoltageandcurrentrespectively.Howeverthefieldsfalloffveryrapidlywithdistancefromsource.

Themaximumelectricfieldstrengthdirectlyunderthemid-spanofanESB220kVtransmissionlineis5kilovoltspermetre(kV/m).Thecorrespondingmaximummagneticfieldstrengthisabout7microtesla(µT).At30metresdistancefromthispoint,thestrengthoftheelectricfieldfallsfourteen-foldandthemagneticfieldten-foldto350V/mand0.7µTrespectively.Whilethewallsofahousewillshieldtheoccupantsfromtheelectricfield,themagneticfieldisnotimpededandpassesthroughbuildingswithlittleattenuation.

Exposure characteristics: electrical appliancesThefieldsclosetooperatingelectricalappliancescanbehigherthanthosefoundnearpowerlines;magneticfieldsfalloffatarateinverselyproportionaltothecubeofthedistancefromtheappliance.Forexample,anelectriccanopenercanproducefieldsof20µT,ahairdryercanexposetheusertomagneticfieldsof7µT,cookinghotplatesto4µTandaTVsetto2µT.Howevereveninabusykitchen,themagneticfieldinthecentreoftheroomwillrarelyexceed0.2µT.

Magneticfieldexposureslastonlyforaslongastheappliancesremainswitchedon.Ofthemorecommonelectricalappliances,electric(analogue)bedsideclocksandelectricover-blanketsprobablycontributemosttoanindividual’soverallaverageexposuretoappliancefields.Theuserofanelectricblanketwillbeexposedtofieldsofaround1µTto2.5µT.

Inmanyhomesthelevelofmagneticfieldexposurewilldependonthewiringconfigurationsemployedtosupplythepowersocketsandlightingcircuits.Intheelectricalsupplytopowersocketstheliveandneutralwiresusuallyruntogetherintheonecableandsothemagneticfieldsfromthewireslargelycanceloneanother.However,inmanylightingsystemstheliveandneutralwiresarecontainedinseparatecablesandthemagneticfieldsarenolongercancelledbutmaybeadditive.

Health concerns: power linesTheoriginoftheconcernoverexposuretohighvoltagepowerlinesisdiscussedintheScienceReview,section4.2.In1979thisconcernwascentredonanapparentincreasedincidenceofleukaemiaobservedamongchildrenlivinginresidencesclosetooverheadpowerlinesandtransformerscarryinghighcurrents.ThisledtofurtherstudiesintheUnitedStatesandinothercountries,todetermineiftherewasanassociationbetweenchildhoodleukaemiaandlivingnearpowerlines.Italsoledtostudiesinvestigatingwhetherothercancersandnon-cancerhealtheffects(Alzheimer’s,Parkinson’sdisease,miscarriage)amongvariouspopulationgroups(adults,electricalindustryworkers,workersusingelectricalmachinery)wasassociatedwithexposuretoelectricandmagneticfieldsfromvarioussources;powerlines,electricalsubstations,electricalappliances,industrial

Typesoftransmission

lines

Usage Magneticfield(µT)

MaximumonRight-of-Way

Distancefromlines

15m 30m 61m 91m

115kV Average 3 0.7 0.2 0.04 0.02

Peak 6.3 1.4 0.4 0.09 0.04

230kV Average 5.8 2.0 0.7 0.18 0.08

Peak 11.8 4.0 1.5 0.36 0.16

500kV Average 8.7 2.9 1.3 0.32 0.14

Peak 18.3 6.2 2.7 0.67 0.30

Box 3.3 Electric and Magnetic Field Strengths in the vicinity of power lines (NRPB, 2001)

��


machineryandelectrictransportationsystems.Inaddition,studieswereconductedonlaboratoryanimals,mainlyratsandmice,exposedfortheirlifetimetofieldsuptoathousandtimesstrongerthanthoseexperiencedbythegeneralpublic.

ThereisthereforesubstantialknowledgenowavailableonthehealtheffectsofELFelectricandmagneticfields.Healthoutcomesrangingfromreproductiveeffectstocardiovascularandneurodegenerativediseaseshavebeenexamined.However,theonlyconsistentevidencetodateconcernstheassociationwithchildhoodleukaemia.In2001,anexpertscientificgroupfromIARCreviewedstudiesrelatedtothecarcinogenicityofstaticandELFelectricandmagneticfields.UsingthestandardIARCclassificationmethodologythatweighshuman,animalandlaboratoryevidence,ELFmagneticfieldswereclassifiedaspossiblycarcinogenictohumans.Whilesupportforthisclassificationcamefromtheepidemiologicalstudiesofchildhoodleukaemiaanimalstudiesdidnotprovideanyconfirmatorysupport.TheIARCclassificationsystemissummarisedintheScienceReview,section4.2.

“Possiblycarcinogenictohumans”isaclassificationusedtodenoteanagentforwhichthereislimitedevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansandlessthansufficientevidenceforcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Evidenceforallothercancersinchildrenandadults,aswellasothertypesofexposure(i.e.staticfieldsandELFelectricfields)wasconsideredinadequatetoclassifyeitherduetoinsufficientorinconsistentscientificinformation.DespitetheclassificationofELFmagneticfieldsaspossiblycarcinogenictohumansbyIARC,forthisclassificationitispossiblethatthereareotherexplanationsfortheobservedassociation.AnexampleofasubstanceclassifiedbyIARCas‘possiblycarcinogenictohumans’iscoffee,whichmayincreasetheriskofkidneycancer.

TheevidenceisunconvincingthatELFisacauseofadversebirthoutcomesinhumans,noracauseofAlzheimer’sdisease,motorneurondisease,suicideanddepression,orcardiovasculardisease.ThereisveryweakevidencethatmaternalorpaternaloccupationalexposuretoELFcausesreproductiveeffects.

Conclusions on health effectsAcuteeffects,asdiscussedbelow,havebeenestablishedforexposuretoELFelectricandmagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrangeupto100kHz.Sincethesemayleadtohealthhazards,exposurelimitsareneeded.Internationalguidelines(ICNIRP,1998;IEEE,2004)existthathaveaddressedthisissue.Observingtheseguidelinesprovidesadequateprotectionagainstestablishedacuteeffects.

ThereisconsistentepidemiologicalevidencesuggestingthatchroniclowintensityELFmagneticfieldexposureisassociatedwithanincreasedriskforchildhoodleukaemia.However,laboratorystudiesdonotprovideconvincingevidenceforacausalrelationshipsotheimpactonpublichealthisuncertain.Exposurelimitsbaseduponthisepidemiologicalevidencearenotrecommended.

ThehealthriskassessmentcarriedoutintheScienceReview,section4.2,concerningELFhealtheffectsconcludedthatif,theassociationbetweenincreasedchildhoodleukaemiaandmagneticfieldexposureiscausal,then,usingtheresultsoftheUKchildhoodcancerstudyasabasis,approximatelyonecaseofchildhoodleukaemiain150mightbeduetomagneticfields.ThiswouldrepresentoneadditionalcaseinIrelandeverythreetofiveyears.HoweverthereisnoknownmechanismthatwouldexplainhowexposuretoELFmagneticfieldscouldleadtocancer.Apartfromthechildhoodleukaemiaissuethereisnoevidencethatthereareanyadversehealtheffectsassociatedwithexposuretosuchfieldsatenvironmentallevels.

TherehavebeenfewextensivestudiesoftherelationshipbetweenuseofappliancesandpersonalexposuretoELFmagneticfields.Sleepingonorunderanelectricblanketwhileitisswitchedoncanbeamajorcontributortomagneticfieldexposure.Atonetimetherewasconcernthatwomensleepingwithanelectricblanketswitchedonwouldbeathigherriskfrombreastcancerandpossiblereproductivedisorders.However,despiteanumberofresearchstudiesthereislittleornoevidenceforanassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandanincreasedriskforbreastcancer(IARC,2002).

Appliance Distance=25cm Distance=56cm

95thpercentile 5thpercentile Median 95thpercentile 5thpercentile Median

Non-ceilingfan 9.2 0.03 0.3 1.6 0.04

Canopener 32.5 0.2 21.0 3.2 0.2 2.4

Clock-radio(digital) 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.02

Clock-radio(analog) 2.5 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.2

Ceilingfan 1.6 0.03 0.3 0.3 <0.01 0.1

Electricrange 1.9 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.04 0.2

Microwaveoven 6.7 1.7 3.7 1.7 0.5 1.0

ColourTV 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2

Refrigerator 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

Box 3.4 Magnetic fields associated with the use of appliances (NIEHS, 1998)

��


IARC (2002)concludedthatELFelectricfieldsare“notclassifiableastotheircarcinogenicitytohumans”.Thismeansthatthereisnoscientificevidencetosupportthehypothesisthatelectricfieldsmightcausecancer.

Question3:Howcansafetybeassuredwhennewtechnologiesareintroducedbeforetheirhealtheffectscanbeassessed?Response:TherearealargenumberofnoveltechnologiesbeingdevelopedusingRFsignalsforvariouspurposes.ExamplesincludeWiFi,Bluetooth,Ultra-wideBand,andothers.AlloftheseareassessedforsafetybythestrengthandfrequencyoftheirRFemissions.Theseemissionsarethencomparedwiththelimitsallowedintheinternationalstandards.Ifthenewtechnologyemitsfieldslessthantheselimitstheyareconsideredsafe,andvice-versa.ThustheadvantageofhavingadoptedinternationalexposurelimitsisthattheyprovideinformationonsafelevelsofEMFexposurefromanyexistingdeviceoranydeviceproducedinthefuture,butalsoprovidesmanufacturerswiththeexposurelimitswithinwhichtheymustmanufacturetheirdevices.WithintheEuropeanUnion,deviceshavingthe“CE”markareconsideredtobesafefortheirintendedpurpose.

Theintroductionofanewtechnologyraisesquestionsofatechnical,legal,financialandmoralnature:

nIsthetechnologynew?

nIsthetechnologyuntested?

nWhataretheauthoritiesdoingtoensurepeople’shealthisprotected?

ThesequestionscanbeaddressedtoallthenewwirelesscommunicationtechnologiesdiscussedintheScienceReview,section4.4.

Is the technology new?Mobilewirelesscommunicationshaveexistedsince1910whentheyfirstbegantobeusedonships.ThesinkingofTitanicin1912gaveahugeboosttotheMarconicompany:withoutradiocommunicationmanymorewouldhaveperishedthatAprilnight.Police,thearmedforcesandtheemergencyserviceshavebeenusingmobilewirelesstelephonysincethelate1930s.Thetechnologyatthattimecouldneverhavehadwidespreadapplicationamongthegeneralpublicformanyreasons:thelimitedavailabilityofradiofrequencybands,theweightofthetransmittingandreceivingequipmentthathadtobecarried,andtoavoidbeingoverheardbyotherswithradioreceiversoneneededtotransmitmessagesincode.

Beforetheadventofthemicrochip,pocketsizedmobilephoneswereadreamfromthepagesofsciencefiction.Ifoneweretobuildamobilephonewithitspresentcomputingpowerusing

1960stransistorsonewouldneedalargetruckinwhichtocarryit.ThemodernGSMphonetransformstheuser’sspeechintoaseriesofencodeddigitalpulses.Thecodeischangedeveryfewsecondstopreventeavesdropping.Theresponsefromthepartyreplyingissentinasimilarlycodedformonacarrierwavefromthenearestphonebasestationwithsparecapacity.TheuseofdigitalradiotransmissionbyGSMphoneswasthefirsttimesuchtechnologyhadbeenemployedinacommercialapplication.Aconcernthatthepulsefrequencymightmimicsomenaturalfrequenciesthatoccurinthebody(e.g.brainsignals)andsoadverselyaffectsomebodilyfunctionshasbeendiscounted(Foster and Repacholi,2004).Therearenoknowndecodingmechanismsthatcouldaffectthebodyusingdigitaltransmissionsfrommobilephones.

So,isthetechnologynew?Themobilephonecombinesapowerfulcomputerwitharadiotransmitterandreceiver.Theelectriccurrentsflowinginthephonearemeasuredinmilliamps–ifhighercurrentswereneededthephonewouldforeverneedrecharging.ThepoweroftheRFsignalsfromthephoneisonlyafractionofawatt–illustratingtheefficiencyofdigitalradiotransmission.So,thetechnologyisnewinthatneverbeforehasitbeenpossibletocommunicatesomuchtosomanywithsolittlepower.

TheforegoingcommentsareequallyapplicabletothevariousnewapplicationsofwirelesstelephonydiscussedintheScienceReview,section4.4.

Is the technology untested?NountestedwirelesstechnologycanbeplacedonsalewithintheEuropeanUnion.Allsuchequipmentmustmeetabatteryofstandardsforelectricalsafety,electricalcompatibility,electricalinterference,performanceandfitnessforuse.

TheCEmarkisappliedtoalltestedelectricalgoodsmarketedwithintheEU.MobilephonesandotherwirelesshardwaremeetstheElectromagneticCompatibilityDirective89/336EEC,theLowVoltageDirective73/23EEC,theCE(Mark)Directive93/68EECandtheR&TTEDirective1999/EC.InadditionmobilephonesaredesignedandmanufacturednottoexceedthelimitsforexposuretoRFfieldsrecommendedbyinternationalguidelines.TheseguidelinesweredevelopedbyICNIRP,anindependentscientificcommission,throughperiodicandthoroughevaluationofscientificstudies.Theexposurelimitsintheguidelinesincludeasubstantialsafetymargindesignedtoensurethesafetyofallpersons,regardlessofageandhealthstatus.

What are the Irish authorities doing?AlthoughnoresearchonthehealtheffectsofEMFhastakenplaceinIreland,theIrishauthoritieshavebeenactiveparticipantsintheEMF-healthissueformanyyears.In1988.concernoverpowerlinemagneticfieldsledtheMinisterforEnergytostoptheenergisingofanewlyconstructed220kVlinefromArklowtoCarrickmines.Followinganinvestigation(McManus,1988)thelinewasenergised.HoweveracommitmentwasmadetocloselymonitorallscientificandtechnicaldevelopmentsconcerningEMFexposureand

��


participateininternationalforumsdealingwiththeissue.AfurtherreviewofthesciencewascompletedandpublishedbytheGovernmentin1992(McManus,1992).

InresponsetogrowingpublicconcernoverpossibleadversehealtheffectsfromanincreasingnumberanddiversityofEMFsources,theWorldHealthOrganisationlauncheditsInternationalEMFProjectin1996.IrelandwasafoundermemberoftheProject,providedasignificantfinancialcontributiontotheProjectandprovidedthefirstChairmanoftheProject’sInternationalAdvisoryCommittee.IrelandcontinuestoprovidefinancialsupporttotheProjectandtoparticipateinnumerousworkinggroupsandcommitteessetupbytheProject.

TheInternationalEMFProjectbringstogetherthecurrentknowledgeandavailableresourcesofkeyinternationalandnationalagenciesandscientificinstitutionsinordertoassessthehealthandenvironmentaleffectsofexposuretostaticandtime-varyingelectricandmagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrange0–300GHz.TheProjecthasbeendesignedtofollowalogicalprogressionofactivitiesandproduceaseriesofoutputsthatallowimprovedhealthriskassessmentstobemade.TheProjecthasproducednumerousWHOFactSheetsdealingwithmanysourcesandaspectsofEMF,includingseveraldealingwithmobilewirelesstelephony.In2006anEnvironmentalHealthCriteriamonographonstaticfieldswaspublished(WHO2006).FurtherEnvironmentalHealthCriteriahandbooksonthehealtheffectsofELFandRFfieldsarescheduledtobepublishedby2007and2009,respectively.

NoscientificresearchintopossiblehealtheffectsofmobilephonetechnologyhasyetbeencarriedoutinIreland.However,IrelandparticipatedinexpertgroupsinvolvedinthreemajorEUinitiativesrelatingtotheprotectionofthepublicandworkersfromtheadversehealtheffectsofexposuretonon-ionisingradiation.TheseweretheCouncilRecommendationonlimitingexposureofthepublictoelectromagneticfields(EU,1999),andthetwoPhysicalAgentsDirectivedealingwithlimitingoccupationalexposuretoelectromagneticfields(EU,2004)andopticalradiation(EU,2006).IrelandalsocontributedmedicalexpertisetoanEUsponsoredinvestigationofself-reportedelectricalhypersensitivityinEurope(Bergqvist,1997).

COSTistheacronymfor“EuropeanCo-operationintheFieldofScientificandTechnologicalResearch”.Itprovidesaframeworkforinternationalresearchandscientificco-operation,facilitatingtheco-ordinationofnationalresearchattheEuropeanlevel.COSTdoesnotfundresearchbutwasestablishedandisfinanciallysupportedbytheEuropeanCommissiontoco-ordinatejointresearchprojects,inareasofimportancetotheEUMemberStatesandotherEuropeancountries.COSTAction281,inwhichIrelandparticipatedasafoundermemberandasanExecutiveCommitteemember,wasanactionwithintheCOST-TelecommunicationInformationScienceandTechnology.ThemainobjectiveofCOST281,whichranfromSeptember2001toSeptember2006,wastoobtainabetterunderstandingofpossiblehealthimpactsofemergingtechnologies,especiallythoserelatedtocommunicationandinformationtechnologies

thatmayresultinexposurestoEMF.IrelandhostedamajorCOST281conferenceonmobilephonesandbasestationsatDublinCastlein2003.TheresultsoftheworkundertakenbyCOST281anddetailsofitsmanyresearchinitiativescanbefoundonthewebsitewww.cost281.org.

The“400Sites”surveyofmobilephonebasestationsconductedbyComRegtomeasurepublicexposuresfromthissourcewascompletedin2004.ItwasthenthelargestsurveyofitskindundertakeninEurope.In2005IrelandhostedtheannualmeetingoftheInternationalCommitteeonElectromagneticSafetyatDublinCastle.

TheleadroleinaddressingtheseissuesiscurrentlybeingtakenbytheDepartmentofCommunications,MarineandNaturalResources.AtthistimeresponsibilitiesarespreadoveranumberofGovernmentDepartments.Itisfeltthatthesituationcouldbeimprovedbyhavinganexistingornewagencytakeoverallresponsibilityforprovidingscientificandpolicyadvice.Thisreportisoneelementofthatinitiative.

What are other authorities doing?OneofthemostimportantresearchinitiativesisthatbeingundertakenbyWHOthroughIARC.IARCisco-ordinatingtheINTERPHONEstudy.Thisisamulti-centrestudytodeterminewhethertumoursofthebrain,acousticnerve,andparotidglandareassociatedwithRFemittedbymobilephones.Thestudyinvolvesepidemiologistsin13countriesstudyingtheassociationofthesediseaseswithmobilephoneuse,underacommonresearchprotocol.Theprojectisoneofthelargesteverundertakenonanytopicandthefirstresultsarenowbeingpublished.SevenreportsarenowavailableontheIARCwebsitewww.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCA4.php.IrelandisnotaparticipantinINTERPHONE.

Alargenumberofcountrieshavecontributedtomajorresearchprojectsonmanyaspectsofwirelesstelephony.MajorresearchprojectsareunderwayintheUnitedStates,Canada,UK,Sweden,Denmark,Finland,Norway,Russia,Germany,Poland,Hungary,Austria,Switzerland,Slovenia,theCzechRepublic,theNetherlands,Belgium,France,Spain,Australia,Japan,ChinaandKorea.

Question4:Isitsafeforchildrentousemobilephonesandshouldphonemastsbelocatednearplaceswherechildrengather?Response:Thereisnodataavailabletosuggestthattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisahealthhazard.Thetimeinchildren’sdevelopmentthatmightmakethemparticularlyvulnerabletoRFexposurestotheheadiswhentheyareagedtwoyearsandyounger.IntheUKandSwedentheauthoritiesrecommendaprecautionaryapproachtoeitherminimiseuse(essentialcallsonly)orminimiseexposure(useahands-freekit).IntheNetherlandstheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenisnotconsideredaproblem.

��


Thereisnoestablishedscientificbasisorevidenceofadversehealtheffectsaffectingchildrenoradultsasaresultoftheirexposuretomobilephonebasestations.Thisappliesirrespectiveofthelocationofthephonemast.

Children and mobile phonesThequestionconcerninghealthhazardsthatmightbefacedbychildrenusingmobilephoneswasfirstraisedintheUKbytheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000).

WhiletheStewartreportconcludedthatthebalanceofevidencesuggestedthatexposuretoRFbelowtheinternationalguidancelevelsdoesnotcauseadversehealtheffectsinthegeneralpopulation,itdidrecommendthatthewidespreaduseofmobilephonesbychildrenfornonessentialcallsshouldbediscouraged.Thereasongivenforthisrecommendationwasputintheseterms:

“If there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer time of exposure.”

TheUKGovernmentacceptedthisrecommendationanddirecteditsChiefMedicalOfficertoliaisewiththeStewartCommitteetodeterminehowbesttoachieveitsaim.

ThepublicitysurroundingpublicationoftheStewartreport,andparticularlyitsrecommendationconcerningchildren’suseofmobilephones,ledtoinvestigationsofthevariousassumptionsimplicitintherationalefortheStewartreportrecommendationquotedabove.Thekeyquestionswere:

nArethereunrecognisedadversehealtheffectsfromtheuseofmobilephones?

nDoesthedevelopmentofchildren’snervoussystemsattheageswhentheymightbegintousemobilephonesmakethemmorevulnerablethanadults?

nDoesachild’sheadabsorbagreaterproportionoftheRFenergyfrommobilephonesthananadulthead?

Therewasalsotheconcernthatiftherewerelongtermhealtheffects,theearlieronestartsusingamobilephone,thelongerwillbethelifetimeexposuretoitsfields,andsothegreatertheopportunityforharm.

SincethepublicationoftheStewartreportinMay2000,asubstantialamountofresearchworkrelevanttochildren’sexposuretoRFsourceshasbeencompletedandmoreisongoing.Amongtheorganisationsthathavedevotedconsiderableefforttoappraiseandinterpretthiswork,aretheSwedishRadiationProtectionInstitute(SSI),theHealthCounciloftheNetherlands(HCN),theNationalRadiologicalProtectionBoard(NRPB)andWHO.

ThemostrecentSwedishreview(SSI,2006)concludedthatworkoncognitivefunctionsinvolunteers(includingchildren)exposedtoRFfieldshadbeennegative;butmethodologicallimitationsinthestudiespreventedfirmconclusionsbeingdrawn.HowevertheywereabletoconcludethattherewasenoughevidencetoshowthatexposuretoGSMmobilephonesdidnotaffecthearing.

TheresultsoftwoepidemiologicalstudiesfromtheINTERPHONEprojectsuggestedthattherewasnoincreasedriskofbraintumoursfromeithershorttermorlongtermuseofmobilephones,althoughdataonlongtermusewassparse.However,therewasaconcernovertheassociationofacousticneuroma,abenigntumouroftheacousticnerve,withlongtermuse.

TheSwedishposition,asreflectedinthereportofSSI’sIndependentExpertGroup(SSI,2004)isthatwidespreadexposureofchildrentomobilephonesisrecentandthatnotenoughisknownaboutthepotentialsensitivityofchildren.Theabsenceofanobservedeffectdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatexposureisharmless,especiallywhencrucialstudiesfocussingonchildrenareyettobedone.TheSSIthereforeadoptedaprecautionaryapproach(SSI,2004):

“The existing knowledge gaps and the prevailing scientific uncertainty justify a certain precautionary attitude regarding the use of handsets for mobile telephony. Due to the widespread use of mobile phones even a very small risk could have consequences for public health. Because of the lack of knowledge in certain fields of research the Nordic authorities find it wise to use, for instance, a hands-free kit that reduces exposure to the head significantly. This information should be addressed to adults, young people and children. It is important that parents inform young people and children about how to reduce the exposure from mobile phones.”

TheElectromagneticFieldsCommitteeoftheHealthCounciloftheNetherlandspublishesregularreviewsandassessmentsofscientificliteraturerelatingtotheEMF–healthissue.Inregardtochildren’sexposuretomobilephonesthemostrecentreview(HCN,2005)referredtoits2002advisoryreporton“Mobiletelephones:ahealth-basedanalysis”(HCN,2002)wheretheHealthCouncilhadstatedthatthereisnoreason,basedontheexistingdataconcerningthedevelopmentoftheheadandbraininchildren,tosupposethattherearestillsignificantdifferencesinsensitivitycomparedwithadultsaftertwoyearsofage.Inthat2002report,theHealthCouncilconcludedthatitsawnoreasontorecommendthattheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenovertwoyearsofageshouldbelimitedonaccountoftheavailablescientificevidenceonpossiblehealtheffectsofexposuretoelectromagneticfields.TheHealthCouncilcontinuestoendorsethisposition.

TheBoardoftheUKNRPBrevisitedtheStewartreportin2004toreviewprogressonimplementingStewart’srecommendationsandprovidefurtheradvicetoaddresspublicconcernsaboutmobilephonetechnology(NRPB,2004).TheBoardconcludedthatintheabsenceofnewscientific

��


evidence,therecommendationintheStewartreportonlimitingtheuseofmobilephonesbychildrenremainsappropriateasaprecautionarymeasure.Theyrecommendedthattheusebychildrenofphonesfornon-essentialcallsshouldbediscouraged.Textmessagingandhands-freekitswereseenasgoodwaysforchildrentoreducetheirexposure.

ThemaininitiativeoftheWHOInternationalEMFProjectconcerningchildrenandEMFwastheexpertworkshopheldinIstanbulinJune2004(WHO,2004).Thisworkshopdealtwiththedevelopmentoftheembryo,foetus,andchild,withparticularattentiontothedevelopmentofthebrain.ItalsoexaminedchildhoodsusceptibilitytoenvironmentalagentsandchildhooddiseasesimplicatedinEMFstudies,andtheirexposuretoEMF.Themainoutputsoftheworkshopwerethepublicationofthepresentations(BEMS,2005),asummaryofitsfindings(Kheifets et al,2005),andrecommendationsforanRFresearchprogrammespeciallyaddressedtochildren’sexposure(WHO,2005).Itwillbeafewyearsbeforetheresultsofthisresearchbecomeavailable.

Children and mobile phones: conclusionRecentexpertanalysishasconcludedthattherearenomajoreffectsduetofocussingoftheRFfieldintheheadortootherpropertiesofachild’sheadthatmightresultinhigherabsorptionofRFenergy(Christ and Kuster,2005;Keshvari and Lang,2005).

Eventhoughchildrenareusingmobilephonesatayoungerandyoungeragetherearefewusersundertheschoolageoffive.Childrentendtousetheirphonesforsendingtextsratherthanvoicecalls;thisreducestheirexposure.Theuseofhands-freekitsalsoreducesexposuresbutthesearenotpopularamongchildren.

Threeexpertgroupshavereviewedthequestionofwhetherthereshouldberestrictionsonchildrenusingmobilephones.Twohaverecommendedthatthereshouldbesomerestrictions,whileonehassuggestedthatitwouldmakenodifference.Giventhisdisagreementitseemsprudenttosuggestthatmobilephoneuseshouldbelimitedinyoungerchildren.However,thereisnospecificscientificjustificationforthisadvice.

Children and base stationsItiscommonforthepublictoobjecttoproposalstobuildphonemastsintheirneighbourhood.Whentheproposalinvolvesthephonemastbeinglocatednearaschoolorcrècheorhealthcentreorindeedanywherechildrengatherthenumberofobjectionswillusuallyincrease.

InIrelandthereare4500basestationsinanareaofjustover70,000km2.Ifthesemastswereevenlydistributedgeographicallynoonewouldbemorethan2.5kmfromamast.Howeverbecausethedistributionofmastsreflectsthedistributionofthepopulation,inurbanareasnooneislikelytobemorethanakilometrefromthenearestmast.ThiscanbeconfirmedbyaccessingtheCommunicationsRegulator’swebsitewww.ComReg.ie.Itisclearthatitisnolongerpossibleforanyone,includingchildren,toliveanywhereinIrelandand

notbeexposedtotheRFfieldsemittedbyphonemasts.HoweveritisequallythecasethatthereisnowhereinIrelandwhereachildisnotexposedtotheRFfieldsproducedbylocal,nationalandinternationalradioandtelevisionbroadcastingstations.Indeedtherearenowfewadultswhohavenotbeenexposedtoradiobroadcastsalloftheirlives.FurthermorethefieldsfromTVandradiostationsareusuallystrongerthanthosefrommobilephonemasts.

OnereasonfortheabsenceofconcernregardingradioandTVisthatbroadcastingtransmittersaremorepowerfulthanbasestationphonemasts,sofewerofthemarerequiredtocoveranarea.Howeverover500transmittersarestillrequiredtoprovidenationalTVcoverage.AnotherexplanationisthatradioandTVtransmittersaregenerallylocatedonhighgroundthatisusuallyunpopulated;inthecaseofthemostpowerfultransmittersexclusionareasareemployedtorestrictpublicaccessfromtheareaswheretheRFfieldsmightexceedinternationalguidelinelimits.

Thelevelsofpublicexposuretophonemastsareusuallythousandsandoftentensofthousandstimesbelowtheinternationallimits.Thehighestexposuresatgroundlevelarefoundsome50mto300mfromthephonemast.Fieldsatgroundlevelatthesiteandwithin50mofthemastaregenerallylowerthanthoseat200mto300mdistance.

Nationalandinternationalhealthadvisoryauthoritieshaveconcludedthatexposuretobasestationphonemastsisnotassociatedwithadversehealtheffects.ThepositionissummarisedinaconclusionoftheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000):

“The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.”

ThefactthatexposuresareverysmallfractionsoftheinternationallyacceptedguidelinesofICNIRPhasbeendemonstratedbytheCommunicationsRegulator’s“400SiteSurvey”(ComReg,2004).TheWHOworkshoponchildren’sexposuretoEMF(WHO,2004)alsoconcludedthatfromthelowexposuresandthescientificevidencecollectedtodate,itappearedhighlyunlikelythattheweaksignalstowhichpeopleareexposedfrombasestationscouldcausecanceroranyotheradversehealtheffects.ThiswasexplainedintheWHOfactsheetonmobilephonebasestationsandwirelessnetworks(WHO,2006).

Children and base stations – conclusionsThereisnoscientificbasisfor,orevidenceof,adversehealtheffectsaffectingeitherchildrenoradultsasaresultoftheirexposuretoRFfieldsfromphonemasts.

Thisappliesirrespectiveofthelocationofthephonemast.Whilethemaximumexposuresfromaphonemastwilloccuratsomedistancefromthemast,andnotinitsimmediatevicinitynorunderneathit,theexposuresaresolowastomakeitimmaterialwheremastsarelocatedwithrespecttoschools,playgrounds,healthcentresorotherplaceswherechildrengather.

��


Theforegoingstatementsarenotinaccordwiththepositionsadoptedbysomemembersofthepublicoverwhataresuitableandunsuitableplacestolocatephonemasts.Thepubliccanhavelegitimateconcernsoverthephysicalappearanceofsuchmastsintheirneighbourhood.Itisalsotruethatsomewillbeworriedaboutthepossibleeffectsthemastmayhaveonthehealthoftheirfamily,butthescientificevidencedoesnotsupporttheirconcerns.

Question5:Iselectromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)causedbyexposuretoelectromagneticfields?Response:Theshortanswertothequestionposedisessentially“No”.

NostudieshaveestablishedthatEMFexposureleadstothesubjectivesymptomsreportedbyEHSindividuals.SeveralstudieshaveshownthatwhilethesymptomsreportedbyEHSsufferersarereal,theyarenotlinkedtoEMFexposure.EHSsufferersdonotexperienceworsesymptomswhenexposedtoEMFfields.

ThisresponsedoeslittletohelpthosesufferingthesymptomstheyattributetoEMF.

AmongtheexpertspresentattheWHO’s2004PragueworkshoponhypersensitivitywereanumberofclinicianswhodealspecificallywithEHSpatientsintheirmedicalpractices.Thisgroupprovidedadviceonthecharacterisation,diagnosis,managementandtreatmentofEHSindividuals(Hillert et al,2004).TheiradviceisavailabletointerestedpartiesinIreland.

InFebruary2006theExpertGroupmetrepresentativesofgroupsprovidingsupportandassistancetofellowsufferersfromEHS.Duringthediscussionsthatfollowed,twothingsbecameveryclear.Thefirstwasthattheaffectedindividualswerenotimaginingtheirpainandsuffering.ThesecondwasthatallattributedtheirillnesstoexposuretoEMFfromoneormoresources.Manyofthepeopletheyrepresentedhadtakenextraordinarymeasurestoreducetheirexposuretotheparticularfieldstheybelievedwerethecauseoftheirhealthproblems.Forsome,aparticularradiofrequency,whichtheyclaimedtobeabletodetect,wasidentifiedasthecausalagent.

TheattributionoftheillnessestoexposuretoEMFhasgeneratedwidespreadinternationalconcernsincethefirstcasesbegantoreceivemediaattentionin1987.ThefirstmajorinternationalstudyofelectromagnetichypersensitivitywascommissionedbytheEUandincludedIrishmedicalparticipationintheexpertteam(Bergqvist et al,1997).TheaimofthisstudywastodeterminetheextentofEHSacrossEurope,toreviewthescientificliteratureonthesubject,andprovideadviceonbetterhealthprotectionforaffectedindividuals.ThestudywasunabletoestablisharelationshipbetweenexposuretolowfrequencyorhighfrequencyEMF.IntheabsenceofacommondiagnosisfortheconditionitwasdifficulttocomparethereportedincidenceoftheillnessacrossEurope–the

estimateofseverecasesprovidedbyIrishself-aidgroups,between1000and10000,wasequalledonlyinSweden.ThestudyconcludedthatthelimitednumberofseriouslyaffectedindividualsandtheabsenceofevidenceforEMFasacausalfactordidnotjustifypublicalarmbutthatsubstantialadditionalresearchwasneeded.And,indeed,thelasttenyearshaveseenagreatdealofhighqualityresearchonEHS.

ThescientificfindingsconcerningapossiblelinkbetweenexposuretoEMFandEHShavebeenexaminedrecentlybytheSwedishRadiationProtectionInstitute(SSI,2004),theHealthCounciloftheNetherlands(HCN,2005),andbyWHOataPragueWorkshop(WHO,2004)andinarecentWHOFactSheet(WHO,2005).Theconclusionsoftheseorganisationshavebeenbroadlysimilar.

EHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptoms,whichaffectedindividualsattributetoexposuretoEMF.Thesymptomsmostcommonlyexperiencedincludeskinsymptoms(redness,tingling,andburningsensations)aswellasmoregeneralsymptoms(fatigue,tiredness,concentrationdifficulties,dizziness,nausea,heartpalpitation,anddigestivedisturbances).Thiscollectionofsymptomsisnotpartofanyrecognisedmedicalsyndrome.

EHSresemblesmultiplechemicalsensitivity(MCS):acollectionofsymptomsassociatedwithlow-levelenvironmentalexposurestochemicals.BothEHSandMCSarecharacterisedbynon-specificsymptomsthatlackapparenttoxicologicalorphysiologicalbasisorindependentverification.

StudiesonEHScanonlybemadeonhumans,andareeitherepidemiological(observational)orexperimental(provocation).AnumberofstudieshavebeenconductedwhereEHSindividualswereexposedtoEMFlevelssimilartothosethattheyattributedtothecauseoftheirsymptoms.Theaimwastoelicitsymptomsundercontrolledlaboratoryconditions.ThemajorityofsuchstudiesindicatethatEHSindividualscannotdetectEMFexposureanymoreaccuratelythannon-EHSindividuals.Wellcontrolledandconducteddouble-blindstudieshaveshownthatsymptomswerenotcorrelatedwithEMFexposure.

IthasbeensuggestedthatthesymptomsexperiencedbysomeEHSindividualsmightarisefromenvironmentalfactorsunrelatedtoEMF.Therearealsosomeindicationsthatthesesymptomsmaybeduetopreviousstressfullifeevents,aswellastostressreactionsasaresultofworryingaboutEMFhealtheffects,ratherthanEMFexposureitself.

TheconclusionofWHOisthatEHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptomsthatdifferfromindividualtoindividual.Thesymptomsarerealandcanvarywidelyintheirseverity.Whateveritscause,EHScanbeadisablingproblemfortheaffectedindividual.EHShasnocleardiagnosticcriteriaandthereisnoscientificbasistolinkEHSsymptomstoEMFexposure.EHSisnotamedicaldiagnosis,norisitclearthatitrepresentsasinglemedicalproblem(WHO,2005).

��


AnindependentexpertgroupsetupbytheSwedishauthorities(SSI,2004)cametosimilarconclusions.InstudiesofELFfieldsnoEHSindividualswereabletodetectelectricormagneticfieldsatlevelsthatarecomparabletothoseatwhichtheyclaimtoreact.ToofewRFexposurestudieshadreportedby2004topermitanyfirmconclusionstobemadeconcerningsuchexposure.Howevernostudyhad,sofar,beenabletoshowalinkbetweenEMFandtheoccurrenceofsymptoms.

How the EHS problem is dealt with in SwedenThedilemmaindealingwithEHSindividualsisthatwhiletheirsymptomsarerealandattimesdisabling,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatEMFexposureisthecauseoftheirillness.So,whatcanbedone?

InSweden,wherethereappearstobeagreaterproportionofEHSthanelsewhere,guidelineshavebeenissuedbytheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareconcerningthetreatmentofsuchpatients.Theseareinthemainbodyofthereport(section4.5).ThefocusinSwedenisonthesymptomspresentedbytheafflictedpersonandtherighttosickleave,sicknessbenefits,disabilitypensionetcisbasedonthedegreeofillhealthandfunctionalhandicapofthepersonregardlessofaknownorunknowncauseforthecondition.

Thereisnostandardmedicaltreatmentandsincetheclinicalpicturevariesfromcasetocaseanyrecommendationforinterventionsortreatmentisbasedonabroadevaluationofeachindividual’ssituation,includingmedicalinvestigation,psychosocialsituationandpossiblecontributingenvironmentalfactors.TreatmentsknowntoreducethetypeofsymptomspresentedhavebeenusedinSweden(Annex4).

Itisimportantthatagoodpatient-doctorrelationshipisestablishedandthataphysicianisavailabletoofferfollow-upvisitstoensure(aftertheinitialexaminationaimedatexcludingknownmedicalconditions)thatnewmedicalevaluationsaremadewhenrequiredbyachangeinsymptoms,forexample.EHShasnotbeenacceptedasaworkinjuryinSweden.

Initsmostrecentreview(HCN,2005)theHealthCounciloftheNetherlandsconcludedthattherewerenoscientificgroundsatpresentforsupposingthatphysicalcomplaintsofEHScanbedirectlycausedbyexposuretoEMF.ThishasbeenfurtherconfirmedbyarecentdetailedreviewandhighqualitystudybyRubin et al (2005,2006).

Question6:WhydoreportsofscientificstudiesoftenappeartoreachdifferentconclusionsonEMFhealtheffects?Response:Therearethreemainreasonsforthis:

nStudiesthatreportpositivefindingswillalwaysreceivemorepublicitythanreportswhosefindingsarenegative.

nStudieswhosefindingsarenegativefacemoredifficultygettingpublishedinscientificjournals.

nDifferencesintheresultsofbroadlysimilarscientificresearcharetobeexpected,givendifferencesinstudymethodology,analyticaltechniquesandtheexperienceandexpertiseoftheresearchersinvolved.

Scienceadvancesonthebasisofweightofevidenceasrepresentedbystudiespublishedinthemostauthoritative(peer-reviewed)journals.ThisweightofevidenceisnotnecessarilyreflectedinpopularreportsofEMFhealtheffects.

Foroverthirtyyearsnow,scaresinvolvingEMFhavegeneratedheadlinesaroundtheworld.TheheadlinescaresaregeneratedbystudiesthatsuggestanassociationbetweenEMFexposureandillness;bypoorlyconductedstudiesthatwouldneverpassthepeerreviewstageofanyreputablescientificjournal;andbyexaggeratedrumourandgossipthatthemediamightchoosetoreiterateonadaywhenlittlehardnewsisavailable.AgoodexampleofthelatterwaswhenabannerheadlinewaspublishedinaDublineveningnewspaperinMay1992.

ItannouncedanepidemicofcancerinthesuburbofBallymun,saidtobecausedbyexposuretooverheadandburiedelectricitydistributionlines.ThearticleinquestionledtoquestionsintheDáilaswellastomuchcommentinthemedia.Inresponsetheauthoritiesundertookanassessmentofindoorandoutdoorelectricandmagneticfieldsinthearea.TheMedicalOfficerofHealthoftheEasternHealthBoardmadeadetailedstudyofallthereportedcancersandofcancerincidenceinthesuburb.

TheinvestigationfoundthatpublicexposuretoelectricandmagneticfieldsinBallymunwaslowandtypicaloffieldsfoundelsewhereinIrelandinurbanareas(McManus,1992).TheHealthBoardreportfoundthatmanyofthereportedcancersweredoubleortriplecountedoroftendidnotexist.Theonlyexcessofcancerwasfoundamongheavysmokersaged50to69.ThemainconclusionsoftheHealthBoardreportwere(O’Donnell et al,1992):

nTheoveralldeathratefortheBallymunareawassimilartothatforDublinasawhole.

nTheoveralldeathrateandthecancerdeathrateswereslightlyincreasedinonlyonedistrictfortheyearsstudied.Oneobviouscausewasthehighincidenceoflungcancer.

nThepatternofdeathsdidnotsupportacommonenvironmentalagentasacause.

nElectromagneticradiationlevelswerewithinnormallimits.

nThelocalpopulationcanbecompletelyreassuredaboutelectromagneticradiationlevelsandtheirimpactonhealth.

ItwasdisappointingbuthardlysurprisingthatthenewspaperthatstartedthepanicfailedtogiveanymentiontotheHealthBoardreportoritsfindings.Therewasnocoverageprovidedelsewhereinthemediaeither.Althoughthiscasestudyof

�0


howthemediadealswithstoriesthatcanbecategorisedas‘healthscares’isperhapsanextremeexampleofunbalancedreporting,themediawillgivemorespacetoastudythatispositiveorsuggeststhatexposureisathreattohealththanonewhichisnegativeorfailstoconnectanexposuretoathreattohealth.Therefore,onthebasisofheadlines,columninches,andinvestigativetelevisionprogrammes,theaveragememberofthepublicwillseemoreadversecommentonEMFexposurethanwouldanexpertreviewofscientificpublicationsindicate.

Thereisafurtherfactorthatleadstoimbalanceinthemedia’sapproachtohandlinghealthscares.Thisarisesfromtheself-publicisingactivitiesofsomescientistswhoby-passthepeerreviewassessmentofthequalityoftheirworkandtaketheirfindingsdirectlytothepress.Muchoftheresearchreportedinthiswayisneverpublishedinpeer-reviewedjournals.Authorities,inassessingthescientificliterature,canconsideronlythosepapersthatmeetcertainstandards.InhercoveringlettertotheDutchMinisterfortheEnvironment,whichaccompaniedthe2005ElectromagneticFieldsUpdateReport(HCN,2005),theHealthCouncilVice-presidentstated:

“I would like to add that many publications on the influence of electromagnetic fields on health appear on closer scrutiny to be based on research that does not rise up to current scientific standards. This is specifically pointed out by the Committee in the present report.”

AnInternationalEvaluationCommitteesetupbytheItalianGovernmenttoinvestigatethehealthrisksofexposuretoEMF,onthequestionofwherecannationalauthoritiesseekreliablescientificadvice,stated(Cognetti et al,2003):

“It is important for governments that they obtain the best advice possible on issues before formulating national policy. When there is a reliance on scientific and technical information to help formulate national policy, there is a hierarchy of levels in science for provision of reliable advice. International or national peer review panels of independent scientists are recognised in the scientific community as providing the most reliable and scientifically supportable information. Individual opinions, even when provided by scientists, are not as reliable as those provided by multi-disciplined panels of experts. This is especially true in the EMF area, which involves many branches of science and where some discordant opinions have been expressed.”

Aswellashavingcriteriaforexpertadvisorygroups,itisalsonecessarytohavecriteriatoassessthescientificvalueofthescientificpaperstobeconsidered.Someoftheaspectstobeemployedinweightingscientificpapersforreviewbyanationalhealthadvisorybodyaresetoutbelow.

Aspectstobeconsideredforscientificreviews

nTheresearchisofadequatequalityaccordingtothestandardscurrentlyprevailinginthescientificcommunity.

nTheresearchhasbeenpublishedininternationallypeer-reviewedjournals,whichareofaqualitythatisgenerallyacceptedasadequateinthescientificcommunity.

nTheresultsoftheresearchhaveprovedtobereproducible(forlaboratoryresearch)orconsistent(forepidemiologicalresearch)basedonresearchofthetypereferredtoabove,whichhasbeenconductedbyotherindependentresearchers.

nTheoutcomeoftheresearchhasbeensubstantiatedbyquantitativeanalysis,whichleadstotheconclusionthatthereisastatisticallysignificantrelationshipbetweenexposureandeffect.

nThestrengthoftheeffectisrelatedtothestrengthofthestimulus;i.e.thereisadose-responserelationship.Thisrelationshipdoesnotalwaysneedtobesuchthattheeffectincreasesasthestimulusbecomesstronger;itmayalsosignifyaresonanceeffect,i.e.thatthereisamaximumeffectforaparticularstimulusandthattheeffectforastrongerorweakerstimulusislessmarkedorperhapsevencompletelyabsent.

(Source: HCN, 2005)

Question7:TheICNIRPguidelinesapplyonlytoshort-termexposure.Howcantheyprotectagainstlong-termexposure?

Response:WhentheICNIRPguidelinesaredrafted,thetotalityofthescientificevidenceisassessed.Studiesonbothshort-termandlong-termexposuresareevaluatedtoreachconclusionsonhealtheffects.Onlyshort-termacutehealtheffectshavebeenestablishedbythescientificevidence.HowevertheICNIRPlimitvaluesapplytoallexposuresituations,includinglong-termexposures.

ICNIRPICNIRPistheformallyrecognisednon-governmentalorganisationresponsiblefornon-ionisingradiationprotectionforWHO,theInternationalLabourOffice(ILO),andtheEU.AmongotherthingsitprovidesguidelinesonlimitingtheexposureofthepublictoEMF,opticalradiation,ultrasoundandinfrasound.TheICNIRPguidelineslimitingpublicandoccupationalexposuretoEMFareendorsedbytheWHO;havebeenadoptedbyagreatmanycountriesaroundtheworld;andareincorporatedintoanEUoccupationalexposureDirective(EU,2004)andapublicexposureRecommendation(EU,1999).InIreland,theICNIRPguidelineshavebeenadoptedbyboththeCommunicationsRegulatorandtheCommissionforEnergyRegulation.

��


ICNIRP guidelines and long-term exposureTheICNIRPguidelinesarebasedoncomprehensivereviewsofallrelevantpublishedpeer-reviewedliterature.Exposurelimitsarebasedoneffectsrelatingtoshort-termacuteexposureastheabovequestionimplies.Howeveritisnotthecasethatlong-termexposuresaredisregardedordiscounted,itissimplythattheavailableinformationonlong-termeffectsisconsideredtobeinsufficienttoestablishexposurelimits.Forexample,therehavebeenseveralverylargelifetimeexposurestudiesinvolvinganimals.ThesestudieshaveinvolvedexposurestobothELFandRFfields,correspondingrespectivelytopowerlinefieldsandmobilephonefields.Sofar,noneofthesestudieshaveestablishedanyadversehealtheffectsatexposurescorrespondingtothepresentguidelinelimitsorathigherlevels.

Threshold levelsInitsappraisalofthescientificliteratureICNIRPmonitorstheaccumulationofnewevidence,leading,asappropriate,toupdatingitsriskassessments.Thelatterarebasedonthetotalityofthescience,notjustonthelatestinformation.InthehealthriskassessmentsthelowestlevelofEMFfieldthatcausesanadversehealtheffectisidentified;thisistermedthethresholdlevel.OvertheEMFfrequencyrangefrom0Hzto300GHz,therearedifferentthresholdsatdifferentfrequencies.ThesedifferencesarisebecausethenatureoftheinteractionofEMFwiththehumanbodychangeswithfrequency.

Thelowestestablishedthresholdlevelsforanadversehealtheffectbecomethebasisoftheguidelines.Toallowforuncertaintiesinscience,thislowestthresholdlevelisreducedfurthertoderivethelimitvaluesforhumanexposure.Forexample,ICNIRPreducesthelevelofthethresholdby10timesfortheoccupationallimitsforworkersandby50timestoarriveattheexposurelimitsforthegeneralpublic.Thelimitsvarywithfrequencyashasbeenexplained(WHO,2002).

EssentiallytheICNIRPguidelinesarebasedonestablishedhealtheffects.Anyevidencethatestablishedanadversehealtheffectatexposuresbelowthecurrentthresholdvalueswouldleadtoare-examinationandreviewofthepresentguidelines.FollowingthepublicationoftheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportsonstatic,ELF,andRFfields,theICNIRPguidelines(ICNIRP,1998)willbesubjecttofurtherreview.

Thermal and non-thermal effectsSometimesitwillbesaid,particularlyinrelationtotheICNIRPguidelinesforRFexposure,thatthelimitsarebasedonthermaleffectsofRFexposureandignorenon-thermaleffects.Whileitistruethelimitsarebasedonthermaleffectsthisisbecausetheyaretheonlyeffectsestablishedtohaveanyadversehealthconsequences.TheEUCo-operationonScienceandTechnologyinitiative,COST281,examinedthisquestioninaworkshopon“SubtleTemperatureEffectsofRF-EMF”(COST,2002).Concerningtemperatureeffects,theconclusionreachedwasthatmanyofthebiologicaleffectsreportedastakingplaceunderisothermalconditionswereinfactresponsestominorchangesinthebulktemperatureoftheinvestigatedsystem(COST,2003).Inlivingcells,temperaturechangesaslowas

threeone-hundredthsofadegreeareenoughtoincreasetheirchemical,andthereforebiologicalactivity.Fewexperimentalsystemscancontroltemperaturetobetterthanonetenthofadegree.Inotherwords,reportednon-thermaleffectsmaybeduetosmallthermaleffects.

ConclusionTheICNIRPguidelinesareemployedbygovernmentsandhealthadvisoryauthoritiesworldwidetoensuretheprotectionofcitizensfromanyadversehealtheffectsthatmightarisefromexposuretoEMF.TheguidelinesareundercontinualreviewandallmedicalandscientificevidencethatmeetsspecifiedcriteriaofscientificacceptabilityistakenintoconsiderationbyICNIRPinthesereviews.

Question8:ShouldprecautionarymeasuresbeadoptedinrelationtoEMFexposure?Response:ThereisnodoubtthattheprudentuseofprecautionarymeasureswouldhelpreassuremanyinIrelandwhohaveconcernsoverEMFexposure.WHO’sEMFProjecthasbeenworkingtodevelopguidanceforMemberStateswhowanttoadoptprecautionarymeasuresanditishopedthesewillbeavailablesoon.

Precautionary PrincipleThe‘Precautionaryprinciple’wasfirstusedinGermanenvironmentallawintheearly1970sasthe‘Vorsorge-prinzip’.‘Sorge’meanscare,and‘Vorsorge’meansforesightorcareforthefuture.ThePrecautionaryprinciplehassincebeenusedwidelyininternationalpolicystatements;conventionsdealingwithenvironmentalconcernsanduncertainscience;andsustainabledevelopmentstrategies.

Theprinciplewasintroducedin1984attheFirstInternationalConferenceonProtectionoftheNorthSea.Followingthisconference,theprinciplewasintegratedintonumerousinternationalconventionsandagreements,includingtheBergendeclarationonsustainabledevelopment,theMaastrichtTreatyontheEuropeanUnion,theBarcelonaConvention,andtheGlobalClimateChangeConvention(Foster et al.,2000).

TheWorldCommissionontheEthicsofScientificKnowledgeandTechnology(COMEST,2005)hasproducedaworkingdefinitionofthePrecautionaryPrinciplethatisapplicabletoscientificissues.

Whenhumanactivitiesmayleadtomorallyunacceptableharmthatisscientificallyplausiblebutuncertain,actionsshallbetakentoavoidordiminishthatharm.

Morally unacceptable harm referstoharmtohumansortheenvironmentthatis

nthreateningtohumanlifeorhealth,or

nseriousandeffectivelyirreversible,or

��


ninequitabletopresentorfuturegenerations,or

nimposedwithoutadequateconsiderationofthehumanrightsofthoseaffected.

Thejudgementofplausibility shouldbegroundedinscientificanalysis.Analysisshouldbeongoingsothatchosenactionsaresubjecttoreview.

Uncertainty mayapplyto,butneednotbelimitedto,causalityortheboundsofthepossibleharm.

Actions areinterventionsthatareundertakenbeforeharmoccursthatseektoavoidordiminishtheharm.Actionsshouldbechosenthatareproportionaltotheseriousnessofthepotentialharm,withconsiderationoftheirpositiveandnegativeconsequences,andwithanassessmentofthemoralimplicationsofbothactionandinaction.Thechoiceofactionshouldbetheresultofaparticipatoryprocess.

AdefinitiongivenbytheEuropeanEnvironmentAgencygraspstheessentialconceptthatitisapolicyframeworkthatallowsrationalandcosteffectivedecisionstobemadeconcerningpotentialdangerstohealthortheenvironmentinareasofscientificuncertainty(Gee,2001).

When should the precautionary approach be used?Inthepublichealtharena,priorityisusuallygiventocontrollingrisksthatareclearlyestablished;thatis,involvingriskfactorswithaclearcausalrelationshiptoknowndiseases.However,rapidtechnologicaldevelopmentsproduceanever-increasingvarietyofagentsandexposuresituationswhosehealthconsequencesarelessclear,andsocietiesincreasinglywishtoaddresstheseuncertainconsequences.

Waitingforconclusiveevidenceofahealththreatcanhaveunfortunateconsequences(Gee,2001).Therefore,whenanagentisubiquitousorthepotentialharmgreatorthepossibleeffectsareirreversible,itissensibletoconsidertakingprecautionsbeforeacause–effectrelationshiphasbeenquantifiedorevenestablished.Precautioncanbeintegratednaturallyintoexistingpublichealthpolicyandshouldcomplementconventionaldiseasepreventionmeasures,whichareusuallytakenonlyafteracause-effectrelationshiphasbeenestablished.

However,caremustbetakentohaveadueprocesswhenestablishingpoliciesbasedonprecaution.Notallsuggestedhealthrisksarefoundtobereal.Indiscriminateuseofprecautionarymeasuresmaymeanthatinnovationswithundoubtedhealthbenefitswillnotbedeveloped,orthebenefitstheybringwillbedelayed.Further,itmayleadtowidelydifferingnationalpoliciesandtoincreasedpublicanxiety.

What reasons are there for applying a precautionary approach to EMF?ThejustificationforconsideringaprecautionaryapproachtolimitingexposurestotheELFfieldsassociatedwiththetransmission,distributionanduseofelectricityisbased,inpart,

ontheclassificationofELFmagneticfieldsasapossiblehumancarcinogenbyIARC.ICNIRP,inanassessmentofthesameevidencestatedthattheevidenceforELFfieldscausingcancerorotherhealtheffectsatlevelsbelowthosesetoutintheirguidelinesisnotsufficienttowarrantrevisedexposurelimitsat0.3or0.4µT.ICNIRPstatedthatthisstepwasnotappropriatebecause:

1. Thereistoomuchuncertaintyintheinterpretationoftheepidemiologicalstudiestobeconfidentthattheseareindeedtheappropriatelevels.

2. Simplisticapplicationoflimitsattheselowlevelsislikelytohavecostsdisproportionatetoanybenefit.

3. TheycouldunderminetheconsistentadoptionofICNIRPguidelines.

However,giventhatthereisstilluncertaintyaboutwhetherlong-termexposuretoELFmagneticfieldscouldcausechildhoodleukaemia,useofprecautionarymeasurestolowerpeople’sexposure,thatarelowornocost,wouldthereforeappeartobewarranted.

Asecondareawhereprecautionarymeasuresmightbeappliedistomobilephones.Atthistimethereisnofirmevidencetosupportaviewthatmobilephonesareahealthhazard.Indeed,thescientificevidenceforRFfieldscausingadversehealtheffectsatthelevelswherethegeneralpublicarenormallyexposedismuchweakerthanthatforELFmagneticfields(NRPB,2004).Howeveranumberofimportantresearchprojectsonthissubjecthaveyettobecompletedandthesecouldchangethepicture.

TheUKAdvisoryGrouponNon-IonisingRadiation(AGNIR,2003)concludedthatresearchpublishedsincetheStewartreport(IEGMP,2000)didnotgivecauseforconcernandtheweightofevidenceavailabledidnotsuggestthattherewereadversehealtheffectsfromexposuretoRFfieldsbelowtheguidelinelevels.However,becausethepublishedresearchonRFexposuresandhealthwasconsideredtohavelimitationsandbecausemobilephoneshadbeeninuseforarelativelyshorttime,theAGNIRfeltthepossibilityremainedopenthattherecouldbehealtheffectsfromexposuretoRFfieldsbelowtheguidelinelevels;hencemoreresearchwasneeded.Untiltheresultsofcurrentandplannedscientificresearchstudiesbecomeavailableitisprudenttoconsidersomeprecautionaryactions.

How might precautionary measures be applied to EMF?AkeypointthatmustbemadeisthattheadoptionofaprecautionaryapproachtoEMFdoesnotnecessarilymeantakingmeasurestoreduceexposure.Itcanincludeotheractions.Aprecautionaryapproachcancoveramultitudeofmeasures,varyingfrommoderatemeasuressuchasthemonitoringofscientificdevelopmentsortheprovisionofinformation,throughmoreactiveparticipationintheprocessofacquiringknowledgebycarryingoutresearch,uptostrongermeasuressuchasloweringexposurelimits(HCN,2004).

��


Ahierarchyofoptionsthatmightbeconsideredwhenapplyingprecautionarymeasuresto(i)ELFfieldsand(ii)mobilephonesisgivenbelow.

InthecaseofELFfields:

nTakenoaction;

nMoreresearch;

nBettercommunications;

nImprovedelectricwiringinhomes;

nImprovedarrangementforthetransmissionanddistributionofelectricpower;

nImprovedelectricalappliancedesign;

nChangesinland-useregime–newplanninglaws.

Formobilephones:

nGreateravailabilityofdataonphoneemissionlevels;

nEncouragementofcontinuedreductionofRFtransmissionlevelsusedbyphones;

nImproveddesignofhands-freekits;

nGreaterprovisionofhands-freekits;

nGreaterencouragementtousehands-freekits.

InthecaseofphonemastsitisdifficulttoidentifyspecificmeasuressincemastsareneededtoprovideRFcommunicationsinthesurroundingenvironment.Theiremissionsaredeterminedbynetworkneeds;toolittlesignalcausesgapsinmobilephonecoverage,andtoomuchsignalwouldcauseinterferencewithneighbouringmasts(cells).HoweverinformationonEMFexposures,publicconsultation,andreducingpublicconcern,shouldbepartofimprovementstobasestationlicensingregimesandplanningpolicy.

Are there drawbacks to precautionary policies?Theprecautionaryapproachcouldbedetrimentalwereittobecomeabureaucraticobstacletoinnovationorencouragehighcostactionsthatprovidedlittlebenefittohealth.

TheEuropeanCommissionResolutionin2000statedthatthePrecautionaryPrinciplecanbeinvokedonlywhentheriskisscientificallyplausible,thatthemeasurestakenshouldbeproportionate(costsshouldrelatetobenefits),andthattheuncertaintiesshouldstimulateappropriateresearch.WhilethePrecautionaryPrinciplecanreassurethepublicbyshowingthateverythingthatcanbedoneisbeingdone,riskmanagementshouldtakeintoaccountriskperceptionandacceptability.

ConclusionThereisnodoubtthattheprudentuseofprecautionarymeasureswouldhelpreassuremanyinIrelandwhoareconcernedoverEMFexposure.ThreespecificareasinwhichthiscouldbeappliedinIrelandaretheuseofmobilephonesbychildren,thesitingofhightensionelectricitysupplycables,andthesitingofmobilephonemasts.

Question9:HowdothePlanningLawsconcerningphonemastshaveregardtopublichealthandsafetyregardingEMFexposure?Response:ThereisscopeforimprovementsinthePlanningLawanditsapplicationthatcouldleadtoanimprovementinthepublicacceptanceofbasestations.LocalAuthoritiesareresponsibleforhavingthemlocatedwheretheyareleastobjectionablebutstillpermittingahighqualitynetworktooperate.WHOisdraftinganadvisorydocumentforLocalAuthoritiesworldwidetoassistthemindealingwithplanningapplicationsforbasestationsandonhowtobestinvolvetheaffectedcommunityinaneffectivemanner.ThisdocumentshouldprovideusefulandrelevantadvicetoIrishauthorities.

Present planning arrangementsAcommonconcernexpressedbyalmosteveryindividual,groupandorganisationthatrespondedtotheExpertGroup’srequestforsubmissionstoaiditinitsworkwasdissatisfactionoverthepresentarrangementsinIrelandgoverningtheerectionofbasestations.Neitherconcernedcitizens’groups,localauthorityrepresentativesnorthephonecompaniesthemselvesconsideredthesituationsatisfactory.InsomecasesbasestationswerebeingerectedwithoutplanningconsentbyexploitingloopholesinthePlanningandDevelopmentAct(2000)anditsRegulations(S.I.600of2001).Inothercasessomelocalauthoritiesadoptapolicythatplacesrestrictionsonthelocationofmastsinrelationtobuildingssuchasschools,hospitalsandresidences.Thissituationneedstobeaddressedsothatsuchloopholescannotbeexploitedandthepublicfeelthattheapprovalprocessforerectionofnewphonemastsisopenandtransparent,andfollowsagreedrules.

AnexampleofexploitingaplanningloopholeUnderSchedule2,Part1,ofthePlanningandDevelopmentRegulations(2001)antennasplacedonanexistingpylonstructureareanexempteddevelopmentunderPlanningLaw.Thereforeifpylonlightingisinstalledonasportsgroundfollowingplanningconsentandwithoutobjection,itbecomesanexistingpylonstructure.Afewweekslatermobilephoneantennasareattachedtooneofthelightingpylonsasexempteddevelopment.

Issues that concern the publicOnthebasisofthescientificevidence,thereisnohealthconsequenceassociatedwithexposuretotheRFsignalsfrombasestations.Essentially,theRFfieldsemittedbytheantennas

��


arenotonlytoolowtobeahazard,butareofcomparableandoftenlowerstrengthsthanthoseproducedbytelevisionandradiobroadcasting,towhichmostpeoplehavebeenexposedformuchlonger.Howeverthereareotherissuesconnectedwiththelocationofbasestations.Theseareissueswherethelegitimateinterestsofthepubliccouldbebetteraddressed.

Governmentpolicies,togetherwithappropriateplanningregulations,tailoredtoaddresstheissuesthatconcernthepublicwouldhelpprovidethepublicwiththereassurancesitseeks.Itcouldalsoimprovethepublic’sacceptanceofnewwirelesscommunicationtechnologies.Someissuesthathavegivenrisetoparticularconcernsare:

nProposalstolocatebasestationsinareasofgreatnaturalbeauty.Thereisscopeforadisguisedmastthatblendswithitssurroundings.

nProposalstolocatebasestationsinplacesdetrimentaltothelocalurbanarchitectureorstreetscape.Thereisacaseforhousingthebasestationinsideanexistingstructure.Ifnosuitablestructureexiststhenthebasestationshouldbelocatedelsewhere.

nProposalstolocatebasestationsnearplaceswherechildrengather.WhileitisknownthattheRFemissionsshouldnotproduceanyhealtheffectsinchildren,itcreatesunnecessarysensitivitiesandconcernsamongparents.

nInsufficientinformationisprovidedonthephysicalsize,shapeandstyleoftheproposedbasestationandthenumberandkindsofantennastobeattachedtoit;andonfutureplansforadditionalantennaslikelytobeplacedonthemastanddetailsoftheadditionalantennas.

nThereshouldbeenoughinformationontheRFenergyemittedbyeachantennaandaccurateestimatesofthegroundlevelexposuresofthepublicinthevicinityoftheproposedbasestation.Also,onceerectedabasestationbecomesanexistingstructureandfurtherantennasareconsideredanexempteddevelopment;itshouldbearequirementthatsimilardetailsbeprovidedofallpossibleadditionalantennasatthetimeofsubmittingtheplanningapplication.

nInsufficientinformationonpublicexposures,bothoutdoorsandindoors,toEMFfieldsfromphonemastsandthecontributionofotherRFsourcestothepublic’soverallexposureattheselocations;

nInsufficientinformationonthesafedistancesfromphonemasts.ThispointrelatestoaquestionputtotheExpertGroupbyLocalAuthorityrepresentatives.Thequestionwas“Canonecalculatethesafedistancefromaphonemastantenna?”Inotherwords,howclosecanapersongotoaphonemastantennabeforethatperson’sexposureexceedsinternationalexposurelimits?Inmostcasesthedistanceislessthan2m.

nAbsenceofanycentralexpertbodythepubliccanconsultconcerningphonemastsandotherEMFissues.

nAbsenceofregularlyupdateduser-friendlyinformationonEMFissues.

ThefinaltwopointscouldbedealtwithbyabodyinIrelandappointedtoco-ordinateEMFactivities,provideEMFadvice,andpublishinformationontheEMFissueinbrochures,onawebsite,andinregularreviewsofthescientificliterature.ThishasbeenaddressedintherecommendationsoftheExpertGroup.

ConsultationInmanyEuropeancountries,effortstoresolvetheproblemofgainingpublicacceptanceofbuildingnewphonemastshavecentredoninvolvingpeopleintheareasaffectedbytheproposalsinthedecisionmakingprocess.Thedecisionis,however,notusuallyoneof“Shouldthemastbebuilt?”but“Whereshoulditbebuilt?”Publicinvolvementinphonemastdecisionsworksbestwherethereisanacceptancebyallthatthemastneedstobeerectedsomewhereinthearea.WHOisdraftinganadvisorydocumentforLocalAuthoritiestoassistthemindealingwithplanningapplicationsforphonemastsandonhowbesttoinvolvetheaffectedgeneralpublicinaneffectivemanner.

��


4.1RadiofrequencyFields

Natural sources of radiofrequency (RF) fieldsOnamorninginFebruary1942Britishradaroperators,scanningtheskiesforenemyaircraft,detectedmassiveinterferenceor“jamming”ontheirscreens.Asthedayprogressedthesourceoftheinterferencemovedtothesouth,thentothewestandfinallyendedaftersunset.Surprisingly,itwasonlyfollowingseveralweeksofsimilarinterferencethatthesourceofthejammingwasfoundtobethesun.Studiesofthesunsomeyearsbeforehadfailedtodetectradiowaves.Conventionalwisdomatthetimewasthattherewerenoextra-terrestrialradiosources.Theexplanationwassunspots!In1942the12-yearsunspotcyclewasatitsmaximum;earliermeasurementshadbeentakenduringasunspotminimum.Thisdiscoveryledtothecreationofanewscience,calledradio-astronomy.Withinthenextthirtyyearsradio-astronomershaddetectedthebackgroundradiosignalsthatprovidedthemostconvincingevidenceofthebig-bangoriginsofouruniverse.

TodaythesunisstillthestrongestnaturalsourceofRFfields.Thesearesufficientlypowerful,attimes,tointerferewithsatellitebroadcastingandevencausedapowerfailureacrossthenorth-easternUnitedStatesandCanadainthe1990s.Anothernaturalsourceofradiowavesislightning,asevidencedbyitsinterferencewithTVandradioreceiversduringthunderstorms.IndeedeveryobjectemitsaconstantmeasurableamountofRFradiationbyvirtueofitstemperature.

Man-made sourcesWorld-widebroadcastingbeganinthe1920sandtherearenowfewpeopleundertheageof80whohavenotspenttheirentirelivesbathedinradiowavesfromtheincreasingnumberofbroadcastingtransmitters.AnexploratorytripalongthewavebandsofagoodradioreceiverwillrevealseveralhundredAM,FMandshortwavestationsvyingforourattention.MostoftheanalogueTVsetsinuseinIrelandhaveavailablesome60channelstoreceiveterrestrialtelevisionbroadcasts.AsthereareonlyfournationalterrestrialstationsplusfourfromtheUKavailable,onemightwonderwhytheTVsetsareprovidedwith60ormorechannels?Theextrachannelsareneededtoensurethatthereisnointerferencefromdifferenttransmittersusingsimilarfrequencies.Whilemostpeopleareawareofthelargenumberofphonemastsrequiredformobilephones(around4500atthelatestcount),fewareawarethatalargenumberofTVtransmittersarealsoneededforterrestrialbroadcasting,withover500transmittersaroundIreland.

BesidesradioandtelevisionthegeneralpublicareexposedtomanyothercommonsourcesofRFfields.Theseincludecomputermonitorsandvideodisplayunits,storeandairport

securitysystems,remotecontrolaccesssystems,inductionheatingelements,mobilephonesandphonemasts,pagingsystems,multi-pointmicrowavedistribution(MMDS)television,microwaveovens,radar,satellitebroadcasting,microwavecommunicationlinks,GPSnavigationsystems,andWLAN,WiFiandotherwirelesstechnologiesusedforin-housecomputeroperationandinternetaccess.

Inmedicaltreatmentanddiagnosis,patientexposurearisesfrommanysourcesincludingdiathermyequipment,electro-cauterydevices,patientmonitors,MRIscanners,hyperthermiamachinesusedforcancertherapyandvarioussurgicaldevices.

Figure 4.1 Photos of mobile phone mast and microcell-antennas.

General health effectsAllestablishedhealthhazardstopeopleassociatedwithRFfieldsoccuratexposurelevelsthatcauseheatingofthebodytissues.Theresultingtemperatureelevationdependsonhowwellthebodycandissipatetheexcessheat.InhighintensityexposuresituationsRFheatingcanbesufficienttoovercomethebody’scoolingabilityandresultintissuedamage.Tissueswithapoorbloodsupplyareparticularlyvulnerable.Inthecaseofthelensoftheeye,whichhasnobloodsupply,cataractscanresultfromhighintensityexposuresthatraisethetemperatureofthelensbymorethanafewdegrees.Howeverthecircumstancesthatgiverisetosucheffectsareveryrareandconfinedtooccupationalenvironmentswhereanaccidentalover-exposuremayoccur(COMAR,2002).

StudiesinvolvinganimalsandhumanvolunteershavefoundthatadversehealtheffectsareobservedonlywhentheheatingproducedbyRFexposureraisestissueorbodytemperaturebymorethanabout1ºC.Inducedheatingofthismagnitudemayprovokevariousphysiologicalandthermoregulatoryresponses,includingadecreasedabilitytoperformcertaintasks.Theeffectsaresimilartothoseexperiencedbypeopleworkinginhotenvironmentsorsufferingaprolongedfever.Thedevelopmentofthefoetusmayalsobeaffectedbyinducedheating,andbirthdefectscouldoccurifthefoetus’temperaturewereraisedby2-3ºCforanumberofhours.Inducedheatingcanalsoaffect

Chapter4

ScienceReview

��


malefertilityand,asdescribedabove,causecataracts.Itisquiteunlikely,however,thatamemberofthepublicwouldeverbeexposedtofieldstrengthsofthemagnitudenecessarytoproducesuchsignificantheating(WHO,1998).

Fromover1300peerreviewedscientificstudiespublishedsince1945hascomeaconsistentandclearconclusionthatadversehealtheffectsariseonlywheretheabsorptionofRFenergygeneratesariseintemperaturethatcannotbeaccommodatedbythebody’scoolingsystem.ThisconclusionhasbeensupportedbyrecentnationalreviewsofRFhealtheffectsundertakeninanumberofcountries:(Australia,2002);(EU,2002);(France,2001,2005);(Netherlands,1997);(Hong Kong,2003);(Japan,2001);(New Zealand,2000);(Canada,1999);(Singapore,2002);(Sweden,2003);(UK,2004);and(USA,2003).

Health effects of mobile phonesThereisnodoubtthatconcernsoverthehealthandsafetyofmobilephonebasestationshavebeenraisedbysomemembersofthegeneralpublic.Thereissignificantlylessconcernoverthemobilephonesthemselves,althoughRFexposuresfromthephonesareconsiderablygreater.

Base stationsAcommonconcernaboutbasestationsisthatwholebodyexposuretotheRFsignalstheyemitmayhavelongtermhealtheffects.Todate,theonlyacutehealtheffectsidentifiedfromRFfieldsarerelatedtoincreasesintemperatureofmorethanabout1ºC,asdiscussedabove.ThelevelsofRFexposurefrombasestations(andotherlocalwirelessnetworks)aresolowthatthebody’stemperatureriseisinsignificant.

ThestrengthofanRFfieldisgreatestatitssourceanddiminishesrapidlywithdistance.Atorneargroundlevel,inthevicinityofatypical25-metrehighbasestationmast,RFexposureismuchlowerthanthatreceivedfromamobilephone.Becausebasestationantennasdonotradiateequallyinalldirections,butinacollimatedbeamtiltedslightlytotheground,themaximumgroundlevelexposureisalwaysatsomedistancefromthebaseofthemast.RecentmeasurementsmadeinIrelandaspartofthe“400Site”survey(ComReg,2004)indicatethatRFexposuresfrombasestationsarethousandsoftimesbelowinternationalexposureguidelinesandaresimilartoorbelowthosefromradioandtelevisionbroadcastingantennas.

Overthepast15yearsasmallnumberepidemiologicalstudieshavebeenundertakentoexaminetheassociationbetweencancerincidenceandlivingnearRFtransmitters(UK,2004;WHO,2005).ThesestudieshaveprovidednoevidencethatRFexposurefromtransmittersincreasestheriskofcancer,eventhoughtheRFexposuresaremuchhigherthanthosefoundnearbasestations(WHO,2006).

ItisofinteresttonotethatmoreoftheenergyfromtheRFfieldsemittedbyTVandFMradiotransmittersisabsorbedinthebodythanthosefrombasestations.ThisisbecausethefrequenciesusedinFMradio(around100MHz)andinTVbroadcasting(around450MHzto600MHz)arelowerthanthoseemployed

inmobiletelephony(900MHzand1800MHz).Attheselowerfrequenciestheheightoftheadulthumanactsasamoreefficientreceivingantenna.Children,becauseoftheirsmallersize,absorbsomewhatmoreRFenergyathigherfrequenciesthandoadults.Whileradiostationshavebeenbroadcastingfor80yearsandTVforover50yearswithoutbeingassociatedwithadversehealtheffects,therehasbeenonlyalimitedamountofresearchundertakeninthisarea.Essentially,therehavebeenfewreasonstocarryoutsuchstudies.

Mobiletelephonyinvolvesthetransmissionofcomplexdigitalsignals.SoonmanyradiostationsandmostTVstationswillalsobetransmittingtheirprogrammesdigitally.Detailedreviewsconductedonthepossiblehealtheffectsofdigitalsignalshave,sofar,notrevealedanyhazardspecifictodifferentRFmodulations(Foster and Repacholi,2004;WHO,2005)

Inadditiontothesestudiestherehavebeenoccasionalmediareportsofcancerclustersaroundmobilephonebasestationsandthesehaveheightenedpublicconcern.Whentheseclustersareanalyseditisoftenfoundthatthereportedclusterdoesn’texist.Thiscanbeduetoanumberoffactorsincludingmultiplereportingofthesamecases;someofthereportedcancershavingoccurredmanyyearsbeforetheexistenceofthebasestation;orthatanumberofthecancerswereclearlyassociatedwithheavysmokingorsomeothermorelikelycause.Indeed,becausecancerisprimarilyadiseasethataffectsolderpeople,over20%oftheIrishpopulationwilleventuallydieofcancer.

Althoughmostcancerclustersreportedinthemediacanbeexplained,thedistributionofcancerinapopulationfollowswhatistermedinstatisticsasa‘Poissondistribution’.Becauseofthis,thedistributionoftheincidenceofcancerinsmallareaswillbeveryuneven,withsomelocationshavingmanymorecasesthantheaverage,andothersfarfewer.Further,sincethereare4500phonemastsinIreland,distributedrelativelyevenlyamongthepopulation,itistobeexpectedthatatanylocationwhereacancerclusterisreported,thereislikelytobeaphonemast.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthephonemastisthecauseofthecluster.

Mobile phonesThereviewsmentionedabovehaveallconcludedthatwhileRFenergycaninteractwithbodytissuesatlevelstoolowtocauseanysignificantheating,nostudyhasestablishedthatanyadversehealtheffectsoccuratexposurelevelsbelowinternationalguidelinelimits.Moststudieshaveexaminedtheresultsofshort-term,wholebodyexposuretoRFfieldsatlevelsfarhigherthanthosenormallyassociatedwithwirelesscommunications.HoweverthealmostuniversaluseofmobilephonesinmanycountrieshasdrawnparticularattentiontothepossibleconsequencesoflocalisedRFexposuretotheheadandbrain.Itshouldbenotedthatcurrentmobilephonesuseadigitalsignal,whileearlierphonesemployedanaloguesignals.Thepoweroutputofthedigitalphonesishalforlessthanthatoftheiranaloguecounterparts.

��


SeveralstudiesofanimalsexposedtoRFfieldssimilartothoseemittedbymobilephoneshavefoundnoevidencethatRFcausesorpromotesbraincancer.Whileonestudy(Repacholi et al,1997)foundthatRFfieldsincreasedtherateatwhichgeneticallyengineeredmicedevelopedlymphoma,otherstudieshavefailedtosupportthisfinding(Utteridge et al,2002;Zook and Simmens,2001;Heikkinen,2003).TheHealthCouncilofTheNetherlands(HCN,2003)concludedthatthereisnoconvincingevidencethat,inexperimentalanimals,theincidenceoflymphomasandothertypesoftumoursisinfluencedbylifetime,dailyexposuretoEMFsuchasthoseassociatedwithmobiletelephony.

Thefirstcase-controlstudyofbraintumoursandmobilephoneusewasconductedinSweden(Hardell et al,1999).Itindicatednooverallassociationofphoneusewitheitherbraintumoursoracousticneuroma(abenigntumouroftheacousticnerve),norwasthereanyassociationwithanalogueordigitalphoneuse,whetherconsideredtogetherorseparately,andwhetherphoneusewasmeasuredstarting1,5or10yearsbeforethediagnosis.Subsequentre-analysisofthesamedata(bysideoftheheadthatthephonewasusedversussideoftumouroccurrence)showedanassociation,ofborderlinesignificance,fortumourstooccuronthesamesideoftheheadthatthephonewasused(Hardell et al,2001).WhilepooledanalysesofstudiesconductedbytheHardellgroup(Hardell et al2006a,b)suggestanassociationbetweenmobileandcordlessphone,useandanincreaseintheincidenceofbraintumoursandacousticneuroma,theoriginalstudieswerecriticisedonmethodologicalgrounds(Boice and McLaughlin,2002;Sweden,2003).Moreusefulinformationwillcomefromthepooledanalysesoftheverylarge,13-country,WHO-sponsoredINTERPHONEstudythatisdueforpublicationin2007.

TheresultsofsomeindividualINTERPHONEstudieshavebeenpublishedinpeerreviewedscientificjournals.Theseresultsshowgenerallylittleornoassociationbetweenheadtumoursandmobilephoneuse(SSI,2004).Somestudieshaveshown(Lönn et al,2004)anincreasedincidenceofacousticneuromainthosewhohavebeenusingmobilephonesformorethantenyears.Thisfindingwillrequirefurtherinvestigationandreplication.However,thosewhohaveusedmobilephonesformorethantenyearswerealmostalwaysinitiallyusingtheolderanaloguephones.

Inotherstudiesscientistshavereportedeffectsfrommobilephoneusethatincludechangesinbrainactivity,reactiontimes,andsleeppatterns.Theeffectsaresmallandtransitory,andunlikelytohaveanylong-termhealthconsequences.Furtherstudiesinthisareaareinprogress.

Researchhasclearlydemonstratedanincreaseintheriskoftrafficaccidentswhenmobilephones(eitherhandheldorwithahands-freekit)areusedwhiledriving(IEGMP,2000).

InastudyoftheprevalenceofsymptomsamongmobilephoneusersinNorwayandSweden(Oftedal et al,2000),heavyusersofmobilephonesreportedfeelingsofwarmthon,aroundorbehindtheear,headache,dizziness,fatigueanddifficultyconcentrating.

Howeverthereportedsymptomsdidnotappeartoberelatedtothekindofmobilephonebeingused(analogueordigital).

Standards and WHO responseTheICNIRPguidelinesforlimitingpublicexposurehavebeenadoptedinagreatmanycountries.TheyhavebeenadoptedinIrelandandhavebeenrecommendedbytheEU,initsCouncilRecommendation(EU,1999)andinthePhysicalAgentsDirective(EU,2004).TheICNIRPguidelinesareunderconstantreviewandarelikelytobereissuedwithorwithoutamendmentfollowingthepublicationoftheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportonRF,expectedtobepublishedin2009,aninitiativeoftheWHOInternationalEMFProject.

SummaryWithacknowledgementtothemanyreviewsmentionedaboveandparticularlytotworecentpublicationsfromtheUK(NRPB,2003;2005)thefollowingisasummaryofthefindingssofaronthehealthquestionsraisedbymobiletelephony.

nThescientificevidencesuggeststhatRFfieldsdonotcausemutationintheDNAorinitiate,progressorpromotetumourformation.

nTheepidemiologicalevidencedoesnotsuggestacausalassociationbetweentheoccurrenceofbraincancerandexposurestoRFfields,inparticularfrommobilephones,andradioandTVtransmitters.

nArecent,well-conducted,case-controlstudyfromSweden(Lönn et al,2004)hasidentifiedaslightlyincreasedriskofacousticneuromaamongpeopleusingamobilephonefortenyearsormore.Thisconclusionwasbasedonsmallnumbers.Noassociationwasseenwithuseforlessthantenyears,whichwasconsistentwithpreviousstudies.Epidemiologicalstudiesinprogressshouldprovidemoreinformationonthis.

nAmemberofthegeneralpublicwouldnotbeexposedtoRFfieldsthatexceedtheguidelinelimitsiftheyaremorethanabout1-3metresfromtheantennasofabasestation.

nExposurestoRFfieldsofmembersofthepublicnearmobilephonebasestationsareaverysmallfractionoftheguidelinelimits;currentscientificevidenceindicatesthatsuchexposuresareunlikelytoposeanyrisktohealth.

nExposuresofanimalstoRFfieldscharacteristicofmobilephonesystemshavefoundnoevidenceofgenotoxic,mutagenic,orcarcinogeniceffects.

nRFexposuredoesnotaffectsurvivalortumourincidenceinanimalswhentumoursareinducedbyx-raysorchemicals.Furtherwell-conductedresearchinthisareaissoontobepublished(PERFORM-AstudiesundertheEU’sFifthFrameworkResearchProgramme),althoughpreliminaryresultsreleasedbytheinvestigatorsindicatethatnoneofthestudiesfoundanyincreaseincancerriskfromRFexposure.

��


nMalefertilitystudiesinanimalsshowasusceptibilitytoRFexposureatlevelsthatresultinasignificanttemperatureincrease,butnotatlowerlevelsofexposure.

nMostanimalstudieshavenotreportedanyRF-fieldexposureeffectsonthebrainornervoussystem.

nThereismixedscientificevidenceconcerningtheeffectofRFexposureonhumanbrainactivityandcognitivefunction.ArecentstudyintheNetherlandssuggestedsomeeffectsofUMTSsignals(butnotGSMsignals)onself-reportedwell-being,butareplicationstudyinSwitzerlandwithanimproveddesigncouldnotconfirmthis(Regelet al2006).Theevidenceforadirecteffectofmobilephonefieldsoncognitiveperformanceisinconsistentandunconvincing.

nAcuteexposuretohighintensitiesofRFfieldscancausethermalinjurytotissues.Theguidelinelimitshavebeendesignedtoprotectagainstthiseffect.

nSomeindividualsreportsymptoms(mostcommonlyofwarmthoralteredsensationintheearandadjacentpartsofthescalp)whentheyusemobilephones.ItispossiblethatlocalisedheatingoccursasaconsequenceoftheRFfieldsfromthephone’santennaalthoughlackofconductionofthebody’sownheatfromahandsetmadeofthermallyinsulatingmaterials,isamorelikelyexplanation.

nTheepidemiologicalstudiesconductedtodateprovideonlyindirectinformationonRFexposure,andthismayhavedilutedrealeffects,ifthereareany.Thedesignofthestudieshasoftenbeenweak,anddataonpotentialconfoundershavebeenlimitedorabsent.Thepowerofmanyofthestudieshasbeenlow.Hence,althoughthestudieshavenotfoundanyincreasedriskofcancerfromRFexposure,moreinformationisneededfromongoinglargehighqualitystudies.

nTheweightofevidencedoesnotsuggestthatthereareadversehealtheffectsfromexposurestoRFfieldsbelowtheguidelinelimits.Howevermobilephoneshaveonlybeeninwidespreaduseforarelativelyshorttime,lessthan20years.AsevidencedbytheLönnstudy(Lönn et al,2004)thepossibilityremainsthattherecouldbehealtheffectsfromlong-termexposuretoRFfieldswithintheguidelinelimits:hencecontinuedresearchisneeded.Furthertherehavebeenfewstudiescompletedondiseasesotherthancancerorthatinvolvechildren.

4.2PowerLine&ExtremelyLowFrequencyFieldsWhilelifeinIrelandwouldbeclosetoimpossiblewithoutaccesstoelectricityandthesupplyinfrastructurethatdeliversit,ourveryexistenceiscriticallydependentonelectricity.Thekickthatdeliversascoreinafootballgameandthesubsequentreactionsofthespectators,thecryofababyandtheresponseoftheparentarealldependentontheharmonisedoperationofbillionsofcircuitsthatcarrytheelectriccurrentswhichcontrolthesignalssentbackandforthbetweenourbrainandnerveandmusclecells(Hille,1984).

Thesenatural,orendogenous,currentsareasmuchapartofourbodies’functionasareourheartandlungs,andnolessimportant.Theinductionoffurtheradditionalcurrentswithinthebodyasaresultofexposuretoanexternalmagneticfieldisabiologicaleffect.Shouldtheseadditionalcurrentsbeofsufficientmagnitudetoaffectnormalbodyfunctionthenthiscouldresultinanadversehealtheffect.Thestudyoftheseinteractions,betweenexternalELFelectricandmagneticfieldsandtheendogenouscurrentswithinthebody,isamajorelementinthescienceofbio-electromagnetics.

ELF electric and magnetic fieldsELFelectricfieldsexistwhereveratime-varyingvoltage,forexamplemainselectricityat50Hz,ispresent,regardlessofwhetherornotanycurrentisflowing.Almostnoneoftheelectricfieldpenetratesintothehumanbodybecausethebodyisagoodelectricalconductor.Atveryhighfieldstrengths,electricfieldscanbeperceivedbyhairmovementontheskin.Themainsourcesofpublicexposuretosuchelectricfieldsareassociatedwiththetransmission,distributionanduseofelectricity.

ELFmagneticfieldsareproducedwheneveratime-varyingelectriccurrentisflowing.Magneticfieldsreadilypenetratethehumanbodywithlittleattenuation.Exposuretoatime-varyingmagneticfieldwillgenerate,withinthebody,time-varyingelectricfieldsandcurrentsinanyconductingtissue.

Figure 4.2 Power lines: an important source of ELF fields

Health effectsFromitscommencementin1996theInternationalEMFProjectofWHOhasmademajoreffortstopromoteandco-ordinatetargetedresearchprogrammesintothepossibleadversehealtheffectsassociatedwithexposuretoELFfields.Theseprogrammeshaveinvolvedepidemiological,animalandin-vitrostudiesthatexplorepossiblehealtheffectsandinteractionmechanismsatlevelsbelowcurrentinternationalguidelines.

Inrecentyearstherehavebeenanumberofauthoritativereviewsofthisresearch.ThesewerecarriedoutbyICNIRP (1998),the(UnitedStates)NationalInstituteforEnvironmentalHealthSciences(NIEHS,1998),NRPB(2001),HCN(2001,2004and2005),IARC(2002),the(UK)HealthProtectionAgency(HPA,2006)andbyWHO (1998,2001).

��


ThereviewsallagreedthattherewerenoestablishedadversehealthconsequencesarisingfromexposuretoELFatlevelsbelowthelimitssetoutintheICNIRP1998guidelines.

The IARC position on ELFIARCisthespecialisedWHOagencyestablishedtoinvestigateanycancerrisksofthemanychemicals,substancesandphysicalagents.Inaformalassessmentofthescientificinformationavailable,IARC,mainlyonthebasisofepidemiologicalstudiesonchildren,classifiedELFmagneticfieldsasa“possiblehumancarcinogen”.Essentially,aclassificationofasubstanceorenvironmentalagentasa“possiblehumancarcinogen”denotestheagenttobeoneforwhichthereislimitedevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansandlessthansufficientevidenceofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.ThisclassificationistheweakestofthethreecategoriesusedbyIARCtoclassifypotentialcarcinogensbasedonpublishedscientificevidence.Thethreecategoriesinascendingorderofpotentialcarcinogenicityare“possiblycarcinogenictohumans”;“probablycarcinogenictohumans”;and“iscarcinogenictohumans”.

Regulatorypoliciesforagentsclassifiedaspossiblecarcinogensvarybycountryandbyagent.TheclassificationofanagentbyIARCdoesnotautomaticallytriggeranationalregulatoryresponse.Whilepickledvegetablesandcoffeeareamongagentsclassifiedas“possiblehumancarcinogens”therehasbeenlittleefforttolimittheirexposure.

ELF fieldsWHO’sInternationalEMFProjecthasembarkedonthemostdetailedandextensiveanalysisofthescientificliteratureonthepossibleadversehealtheffectsofELFyetundertaken.ThisreportisdueforpublicationinWHO’sEnvironmentalHealthCriteriaSeriesin2007.

Previousreviewsofthescientificevidence(e.g.NRPB,2004)haveconcludedthat:

nPeoplecanperceiveelectricfieldsbyhairmovementbuttherearenoapparentadversehealtheffects,exceptwhensparkdischargesoccur.

nPeoplecannotperceivemagneticfieldsuntilthefieldstrengthisveryhighandinduceselectricfieldsandcurrentssufficienttocausenerveandmusclestimulation.Thesefieldstrengthsarewellabovethoseencounteredinourlivingenvironment.

nNoconsistentorconvincingeffectshavebeenfoundatELFfieldlevelsnormallyencounteredintheenvironmentonthecardiovascular,immuneorhaematologicalsystems,oronreproductionordevelopment.

nIARC(2002)classifiedELFmagneticfieldsasapossiblehumancarcinogenbasedonepidemiologicalstudiessuggestinganassociationbetweenexposuretoELFmagneticfieldsandchildhoodacuteleukaemia.Howevertheevidenceforacausalassociationisweakenedconsiderablybecausethereisverylittlesupportfromlaboratorystudies.Alsotheevidenceforanassociationwithotherchildhoodcancersremainsveryweak.

TheIARCClassificationSystemGroup 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedwhenthereissufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumans.Exceptionally,anagentmaybeplacedinthiscategorywhenevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansislessthansufficientbutthereissufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalsandstrongevidenceinexposedhumansthattheagentactsthrougharelevantmechanismofcarcinogenicity.

Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedwhenthereislimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansandsufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Insomecases,anagentmaybeclassifiedinthiscategorywhenthereisinadequate evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansandsufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalsandstrongevidencethatthecarcinogenesisismediatedbyamechanismthatalsooperatesinhumans.Exceptionally,anagentmaybeclassifiedinthiscategorysolelyonthebasisoflimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumans.

Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedforagentsforwhichthereislimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansandless than sufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Itmayalsobeusedwhenthereisinadequate evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansbutthereissufficient evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimals.Insomeinstances,anagentforwhichthereisininadequate evidence ofcarcinogenicityinhumansbutlimited evidence ofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalstogetherwithsupportingevidencefromotherrelevantdatamaybeplacedinthisgroup.

Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humansThiscategoryisusedmostcommonlyforagentsforwhichtheevidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. Exceptionally,agentsforwhichtheevidenceofcarcinogenicityisinadequateinhumansbutsufficientinexperimentalanimalsmaybeplacedinthiscategorywhenthereisstrongevidencethatthemechanismofcarcinogenicityinexperimentalanimalsdoesnotoperateinhumans.Agentsthatdonotfallintoanyothergrouparealsoplacedinthiscategory.

Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humansThiscategoryisusedforagentsforwhichthereisevidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity inhumansandinexperimentalanimals.Insomeinstances,agentsforwhichthereisinadequateevidenceofcarcinogenicityinhumansbutevidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity inexperimentalanimals,consistentlyandstronglysupportedbyabroadrangeofotherrelevantdata,maybeclassifiedinthisgroup.

�0


Health risk assessmentELFelectricandmagneticfieldscaninduceelectricfieldsandcurrentsinthebody.Atveryhighexposurelevelsthiscanaffectthenervoussystemwithconsequencesforhealthsuchasnervestimulationorinvoluntarymusclemovement.Exposureatlowerlevelsmayinducechangesintheexcitabilityofnervoustissueinthecentralnervoussystemthatcouldaffectmemory,cognitionandotherbrainfunctions.Theseacuteeffectsonthenervoussystemformthebasisforinternationalexposureguidelines.Theinternationalguidelinesforpublicexposurearesettoprotectindividualsfromalloftheseeffects.Inanyeventexposurelevelsthatleadtosucheffects,orexceedtheinternationalguidelines,arehighlyunlikelytobeencounteredbythegeneralpublicundernormalcircumstances.

EpidemiologicalstudiesoftheassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandchildhoodleukaemiasuggestthatwheretheaverageexposureexceeds0.3µTto0.4µTtheincidenceofchildhoodleukaemiaisdoubled.HowevertheexposureofchildreninEuropetoELFmagneticfieldsisgenerallymuchlowerthanthis,averaging0.025µTto0.07µT,dependingonthelocationoftheparticularepidemiologicalstudy.Theproportionofchildrenwhoareexposedtomagneticfieldsabove0.3µTinEuropeisestimatedatlessthan1%(Greenland and Kheifets,2006).NoIrishexposuredataareavailable.

TheinterpretationofepidemiologicalstudiesEpidemiologistsstudythecausesofill-healthandtheconsequencesofexposuretopotentiallyharmfulagentsinhumanpopulations.Unlikeanimalstudies,wheregenerallyexposureispreciselycontrolled,andtheanimalsshareenvironmentsidenticalapartfromtheexposurebeingstudied,inhumanstudiesthelevelofexposuretotheagentmaynotbeverypreciselyknown,andthepeopleexposedwilloftenliveinverydifferentenvironmentsandhavedifferentpatternsofexposuretootheragents.Forexample,somemaysmoke,andsomenot;someliveincities,othersinruralareas;somemayberichandotherspoor.

TherearetwomaintypesofepidemiologicalstudyusedtoexplorethehealtheffectsofEMF.CohortstudiesidentifyagroupofpeopleexposedatdifferentlevelstoEMF,andseewhathappenstothemovertime.Case-controlstudiesenrolagroupofpeoplewithaspecifieddisease,andacomparisongroup(controls)without,andbotharethenaskedaboutpreviousexposures.Thesestudieshavedifferentstrengthsandweaknesses.

Interpretingtheresultsofepidemiologicalstudiescanbedifficult.Manyprofessionalsarguethatnosinglestudyissufficientlyreliabletostandalone.Similarresultsfromseveralstudies,especiallyfromstudiescarriedoutinmorethanonecountryaremuchmorelikelytobetrue,thantheresultsfromanysinglestudy.

Itisnotablethatonlyhalfofthechildrenexposedtothehighestlevelsoflowfrequencyfieldsreceivetheirexposurefromoverheadpowerlines.Therestreceivetheirexposuresfromtheelectricitysupplywithinthehomeeitherfromthewaythehouseholdwiringwasconfiguredorfromusingelectricalappliances(HPA,2005).

IftheassociationbetweenELFmagneticfieldexposureandchildhoodleukaemiawerecausalthen,givendataonthenumberofchildreninIrelandwhoareexposedtofieldsgreaterthan0.4µT,itwouldbepossibletomakeanestimateofthenumberofadditionalcasesthatcouldbeexpectedtoarisefromsuchexposure.UnfortunatelynoreliabledataareavailableonthemagneticfieldexposuresofIrishchildrenthatwouldpermitthisestimatetobemade.If,however,weweretoassumethattheexposureofIrishchildrentomagneticfieldsisbroadlysimilartothatofchildreninEnglandandWaleswhere0.5%ofchildrenareexposedtofieldsabove0.4µT,thenanestimatecanbemadeoftheadditionalchildhoodleukaemiacausedbythisexposure.InEnglandandWalesitwascalculatedthatacausalassociationbetweenmagneticfieldexposureandleukaemiainchildrenwouldexplaintwocasesineveryfivehundredcasesofchildhoodleukaemia(NRPB,2004).InIrelandthenumberofcasesofchildhoodleukaemiareportedannuallyvariesfromaround35to55.OnthebasisoftheUKdata,onecouldconcludethatonecaseofchildhoodleukaemiaeveryfiveyearsmighttheoreticallybeduetomagneticfieldexposure,iftheassociationiscausal.

Alternatively,ifweusetheestimatethatupto1%ofEuropeanchildrenareexposedtofieldsabove0.3µTthenonecanestimatethenumberofIrishchildrensoexposedtobearound10,000.Onthebasisofadoublingoftheincidenceofleukaemiaamongthisgroup,thenwherethenumberofcasesrangesfrom35to55eachyear,onecaseeverysecondorthirdyearmighttheoreticallybeduetomagneticfieldexposure,iftheassociationiscausal.

Uncertainties in the health risk assessmentEvidenceofotherpossibleeffectsassociatedwithEMFexposurederivesprincipallyfromepidemiologicalstudiesandfromsomeexperimentalstudies.Themainbutnottheonlysubjectofsuchstudieshasbeencancer.Thesestudieshavebeenextensivelyreviewedbyanumberofexpertgroups.TheiroverallconclusionisthatcurrentlytheresultsofthesestudiesonEMFandhealth,takenindividuallyorascollectivelyreviewedbyexpertgroups,areinsufficienteithertomakeaconclusivejudgementoncausalityortoquantifyappropriateexposurerestrictions(NRPB,2004).

Exposure standards TheaimoftheICNIRPexposureguidelinesforELFfieldsistoavoidsituationswheretheelectricfieldsandcurrentsinducedbyexternalfieldsovercomeorotherwisecompromisetheendogenousfieldsandcurrentsinthebodyandsocreateanadversehealthsituation.Theguidelinevaluesarebasedonreproduciblethresholdeffectsonhumanvolunteersandexperimentalanimalsandareset50timeslowerthantherelevantthresholdeffect.

��


FollowingtheclassificationbyIARCofELFmagneticfieldsasapossiblehumancarcinogen,ICNIRPissuedastatementindicatingthattheevidenceforthesefieldscausingleukaemiainchildrenwastooweaktorecommendanychangestotheirexposureguidelines(ICNIRP,2001).FollowingpublicationoftheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportonELFfields,ICNIRPwillundertakeafurtherreviewofitsELFguidelines.

TheEuropeanUnionhasalsocontinuedtorecommendandusetheICNIRPguidelines:intheRecommendationoftheCouncilofHealthMinisterstolimitpublicexposurestoelectromagneticfieldsinMemberStates(EU,1999)andmorerecentlyinthePhysicalAgentsDirectivelimitingoccupationalexposuretoEMF(EU,2004).

4.3StaticFields

Static magnetic fieldsAtthecentreoftheearththereisasolidcorethatisasbigasthemoonandashotasthesurfaceofthesun.Itprovidestheheatandenergythatmeltsanddrivesthesurroundinglayerofmoltenironmagmawhosemovementcreatestheearth’smagneticfield.Thisnaturalgeomagneticfieldvariesinstrengthfrom35to70microtesla(µT)andisenoughtodeflectcompassneedles,andassistinthenavigationandmigrationofsomebirdsandfish.Staticman-mademagneticfieldsaregeneratedwhereverdirect(DC)currentsareused,asforexampleinDublin’sDARTandLUASsuburbantransportationsystems,andinanumberofindustrialprocessesincludingaluminiummanufactureandgaswelding.

Figure 4.3 Photograph of a LUAS tram in Dublin

Morerecenttechnologicalinnovationshaveledtotheuseofstaticmagneticfieldsoftenverymuchstrongerthantheearth’smagneticfield.Theyareusedinresearchandinmedicalapplicationssuchasmagneticresonanceimaging(MRI)thatprovidethree-dimensionalimagesofthebrainandothersofttissues.Inroutineclinicalsystems,scannedpatientsandmachineoperatorscanbeexposedtostrongmagneticfieldsofupto3T.Inmedicalresearchapplicationsfieldsof10Tcanbeemployedinwholebodyscanning.AsthefieldstrengthsusedinMRIsystemsincrease,sotodoesthepotentialforvariousinteractionsofthefieldwiththebody.

Static electric fieldsCollisionsbetweencosmicraysandairmoleculesintheupperatmosphereproduceachargedlayerofaround300000voltssome25kmabovetheearth’ssurface.Thiscreatesanaturalstaticelectricfieldofaround10to100voltspermetre(V/m)atgroundleveltowhichweareallexposed.Duringthunderstormsthisfieldcanincreaseoverahundredfoldandthepotentialforlightningstrikes,dischargesbetweentheatmosphereandtheearth,canposeaseriousdangertoanyonecaughtoutintheopen.Electrostaticfieldsinahazardousatmospherecaninitiateexplosions.Acommonexperienceindailylifeisthesparkdischargeexperiencedwhentouchingsomethingmetallicafterwalkingoveracarpet.Whiletheseelectrostaticfieldscanmeasuretensofthousandsofvoltspermetreandcanbeanirritation,theyaregenerallynothazardousbecausetheyarenotassociatedwithenoughelectricalchargetocauseinjury.Howeversuchsuddenshockscancauseaccidentswhentheaffectedpersonfallsordropssomethingtheyarecarrying.

Figure 4.4 Photograph of Lightning

TheuseofDCelectricity,asintheDARTandLUASforexample,isanothersourceofstaticelectricfields.Televisionandcomputerscreensemployingcathoderaytubescanalsogenerateelectrostaticfieldsasevidencedbydustparticlesattractedtothescreen.

Health effectsFewstudieshavebeencarriedoutconcerningthepossiblehealtheffectsofstaticelectricfields.

Exceptforlightningstrikesresultingfromthedischargeoftheelectricfieldsassociatedwiththunderstorms,theresultstodatesuggestthattheonlyadverseacuteeffectsareassociatedwiththedirectperceptionoftheelectricfieldthroughitsinteractionwithbodyhairanddiscomfortfromsparkdischarges.Chronicordelayedeffectsofstaticelectricfieldshavenotbeenintensivelyinvestigated,butsucheffectsseemveryunlikely.IARCnotedthattherewasinsufficientevidencetodeterminethecarcinogenicityofstaticelectricfields(IARC,2002).AdetailedexplanationoftheIARCclassificationsystemisgiveninthesectionon‘PowerLineandExtremelyLowFrequencyFields’.

��


ThefollowingobservationsaredrawnfromtheWHO’sEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareport,Static Electric and Magnetic Fields (WHO,2006).

Inthecaseofstaticmagneticfields,acuteeffectsareonlylikelytooccurwhenthereismovementinthefield.Thiswouldarisefromthemotionofapersonorofaninternalbodymovement,suchasbloodfloworheartbeat.Apersonmovingwithinafieldabove2Tcanexperiencesensationsofnauseaandvertigo,andoccasionallyametallictasteinthemouthandperceptionsoflightflashes.Althoughonlytemporary,sucheffectsmayhavesafetyimplicationsforworkersexecutingdelicateprocedures(suchassurgeonsperformingoperationswithinMRIunits).

Staticmagneticfieldsexertforcesonmovingchargesintheblood,suchasions,generatingelectricfieldsandcurrentsaroundtheheartandmajorbloodvesselsthatcanslightlyimpedetheflowofblood.Possibleeffectsrangefromminorchangesintheheartbeattoanincreaseintheriskofabnormalheartrhythms(arrhythmia)thatmightbelife-threatening(suchasventricularfibrillation).However,suchkindsofacuteeffectsareonlylikelyinfieldsabove8T.

Withregardtochronicanddelayedeffectssuchascancer,theavailableevidencefromepidemiologicalandlaboratorystudiesisinsufficienttodrawaconclusion.IARCconcludedthattherewasinadequateevidenceinhumansforthecarcinogenicityofstaticmagneticfields,andnorelevantdatawasavailablefromexperimentalanimals.Theyarethereforenotatpresentclassifiableastotheircarcinogenicitytohumans(IARC,2002).

Staticmagneticfieldscanaffectimplantedmetallicdevicessuchaspacemakers,andthiscouldhavedirectadversehealthconsequences.Itissuggestedthatthewearersofcardiacpacemakers,ferromagneticimplantsandotherimplantedmedicalandsurgicaldevicesshouldavoidlocationswherethemagneticfieldexceeds0.5millitesla(mT).Also,precautionsshouldbetakentopreventhazardsfromlooseferromagneticobjectsbecomingprojectilesinareaswherethefieldexceeds3mT.

Standards RecommendedstaticfieldexposurelimitswereissuedbyICNIRPsomeyearsago(ICNIRP,1994).TheselimitsarenowunderactivereviewfollowingtheWHOEnvironmentalHealthCriteriareportonstaticelectricandmagneticfieldexposure(WHO,2006)andtheEuropeanUnion’sPhysicalAgents(ElectromagneticFields)Directive(EU,2004).Astherewereinsufficientdataavailableonstaticmagneticfields,theEUdidnotincludetheminthisoccupationalEMFdirective.ThereviewbeingundertakenbyICNIRPofitsstaticfieldsexposureguidelinesisparticularlyrelevantinthecontextofthehighstaticmagneticfieldstrengthsnowbeingemployedinmanyMRIimagingsystems.HoweverinthevicinityofMRImachines,exposuresareconfinedtomedicalandsupporttechnicalstaffwhoworknearthemagnetandtopatientsandvolunteerpersonnelundergoingscans.Nomemberofthegeneralpublicwillexperiencesuchfieldsunlessheorshebecomesapatient.ThecurrentstaticmagneticfieldexposurelimitrecommendedbyICNIRPis40mTforthegeneralpublic.

4.4NewWirelessTechnologiesandHealth

Wireless communicationEinstein,whenquestionedbyayoungcorrespondentaboutradio,explained:

“You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.”

IntheseventyyearsthatfollowedAlexanderGrahamBell’sinventionofthetelephonehalfabillionfixedtelephonelineswereinstalledworld-wide.Yetthisimpressivestatisticisdwarfedbytheuptakeofthemobilephone:onebillioninusewithintenyearsofitsintroductionandaroundtwobillionatpresent.Neitherthemotorcar,northetelevisionset,noranyotherinventioninthehistoryofmankindhasbeensoquicklyanduniversallyacceptedorhasachievedsucharateofgrowth.

Einsteinmighthavementionedthatinsteadofthecatyouneededatransmitterandareceiver.Inmobiletelephonythephoneandthebasestationtransmitter(thephonemast)haveantennasthatcanbothtransmitandreceivesignals.Whilethepublic’sloveaffairwithmobilephonesgrows,andtheapplicationsandfunctionsprovidedbythemseemlimitedonlybyourimagination,thenecessarycorollaryofprovidingmoreandmorephonemaststofacilitatetheirusegeneratesanoppositeemotion.

Itisunavoidablethatallnewwirelesstechnologieswillrequiretransmittersandreceivers.Itisalsothecasethatmanynewtechnologieswillrequirelargenumbersofradiotransmitterslocatedinplaceswheretheyarereadilyobservableandgeneratefurtherpublicconcern.Thepurposeofthischapteristohighlightthedevelopmentsinwirelesstechnologymostlikelytoimpactthegeneralpublicoverthenextfiveorsoyearsandidentifyandcommentontheradio-frequencyexposuresassociatedwiththesetechnologies.

The new technologies

GSMTenyearsagotherewerefewerthan400,000mobilephonesinuseinIreland;todaythereare4million.Theserequiresome4500basestationstoprovideanalmosttotalnationalcoverage.ThesebasestationsoperateundertheGlobalSystemforMobileCommunication(GSM).Itisthemostwidelyusedmobilestandardwitharoundtwobillioncustomersin200countries.GSMcanoperateintwomainfrequencybands:onebetween880MHzand960MHz,theotherbetween1710MHzand1880MHz.Thephonescommunicatewiththemastsbymeansofcodedpulsedsignalsandavoidinterferingwithoneanotherbystayingwithintheconfinesoftheirallocatedfrequencybandsor‘carrierwave’.

��


Typicalmobilephonehandsettransmitterpowerduringacallliesintherangeof0.2to0.6Wwhichcontrastswithotherhand-heldtransmitters,suchas“walkietalkies”thatcantransmitupto5W.Becausethedesignofthehandsetandthecommonpositionofuse(againstthehead),theheadoftheuserreceivesthehighestexposure.

SinceOctober2001,underavoluntaryagreementbetweentheEuropeanindustryassociationsandtheEU,allphonesonsalewithintheEUareprovidedwithinformationontheirspecificabsorptionrate(SAR).TheSARisameasureofhowmuchRFenergyisdepositedintheheadpersecondwhenthephoneisoperatingatmaximumpower.AllmobilephonesonsalemustoperatebelowaSARlimitof2.0wattsperkilogram(W/kg),measuredoverany10gramsoftissue.TypicalSARlevelsforphonescurrentlyonsaleinIrelandrangefrom0.2to1.2W/kg.Theexposurelevelsfalloffveryrapidlywithdistancefromthehandset.Forexample,theRFexposuretoaperson30cmfromatransmittingphoneisonlyone-hundredththatreceivedbythephoneuser(ICIA,2001;WHO,2000).

Thirdgeneration(3G)mobiletelephony–UMTSTheintroductionofa3GnetworkformobiletelephonyiscurrentlyunderwayinIreland.Handheld3GphonesgenerallyoperateatlowerpowerlevelsthanGSMhandsets.Thetypicalpoweroutputfroma3Gphonecanvarybetween0.125Wand0.250W.3GphonesaresimilartoGSMphonesinthattheyutiliseadaptivecontroltechnologythatenablesthemtooperateatthelowestpowerrequiredforgoodradiocommunicationatanytime.TheSARsfrom3GphonesarebetweenonehalfandonetenthofthoseproducedbyGSMphones.

Thebroadbandcommunicationsthat3Gprovideenableshigh-speedaccesstoservicessuchastheInternet,videoconferencingandfastere-mail.The3GnetworkinEuropeisbasedontheUniversalMobileTelecommunicationsSystem(UMTS)standard.Plannedterrestrialoperationwillemployfrequenciesbetween1900and2170MHz.Thefrequencyrangefrom2170to2200MHzisreservedforsatellitephones.

TheaverageRFemissionfrom3Gbasestationtransmitters,around3W,islowerthanfromGSMbasestations.Thereasonforthelowerantennapowerisduetotheuseofsmarttechnologytoencodeinformationonabroadbandradiosignalandtothesmallersizeofthe3Gcell.Maximumpublicexposurelevelsfrom3Gmastsareusuallylessthanonethousandthoftheinternationalexposurelimits.Atadistanceof200metresfroma3Gbasestation,publicexposuresfalltoonefiftythousandthoftheselimits.(Australia,2003)

TerrestrialTrunkedRadio(TETRA)TETRAisadedicateddigitalmobiletelephonesystemforemergencyservicesandparticularlynationalpoliceforces.TETRAwillreplacetheanalogueradiosystemsthatareinusebyAnGardaSíochána.TheadvantageofTETRAisthatitcanprovideclearer,moresecureandextensivecoveragethantheanaloguesystem.TETRAallowsgroupcallstobesetupquicklyanditcancopewithveryhighpeakdemand.AnadditionalbenefitisthatemergencyservicesandGarda

operationswillnotbeimpededduringamajorincident:insuchcircumstancesitisnotunusualforGSMandanaloguecommunicationnetworkstobecomeoverloadedbypublicuse.Thereferenceto“trunked”intheTETRAacronymmeansthatradiochannelscanbesharedbytwoormoreusersatthesametime.

TETRAoperatesatfrequenciesfrom380to399.9MHzandfrom870to921MHz.IntrunkedoperationtheradioequipmentcommunicatesthroughbasestationssimilartotheGSMmobiletelephonesystem.ThetransmissionpoweremployedbyTETRAbasestationscanbe25Wpercarrier.HoweverTETRAalsosupportsdirectmodeoperationwherebyTETRAradioequipmentcanlinkdirectlytootherTETRAradioequipmentwithoutgoingthroughabasestation.

TETRAhandsetscanoperateateither1or3Windatatransmissionmode.Inspeechmodetheoutputsarereducedto0.25or0.75Wdependingontheclassofradioused.TheTETRAbasestationshaveoutputsofafewtensofwattsandaresimilarinthisrespecttoGSMbasestations(UK,2004).HoweverTETRAbasestationsoperatecontinuously,whereasGSMbasestationsoperateonlywhenmobilephoneusersintheareaaremakingcalls.

Wirelesslocalareanetwork(WLAN)andWiFiThefirstWirelessLocalAreaNetworkorWLANbeganoperationin1971asaresearchprojectattheUniversityofHawaii.ALOHANET,asitwascalled,wasdeployedoverfourislandsandconnectedtoacomputeronOahuwithoutusingconventionalphonelines.Today,laptops,personalcomputers,personaldigitalassistantsuseWLAN,orWiFiasitismoreoftencalledinIreland,tocommunicatewithoneanother,toprovideuserswithgo-anywhereInternetaccess,andtoconnecttowirelesshubsthatconnectarangeofhomedevices.(Link,2002)

WhileWiFiwirelessnetworkscanreachuptoonekilometreinrange,themostwidelyusedapplications(inoffices,schools,homesandhotels)haveamuchshorterrange.ComputerswithWiFihaveantennasmountedexternallyorinternallytoeffecttheradiocommunication,whichusesfrequenciesbetween2.4and5.88GHz.EachWiFicellrequiresacentralantenna.Duetothefrequenciesemployedandthegenerallysmallsizeofacellthecentralantennasareusuallyverysmallandlowpowered.

ManymobilephonesnowcontainWiFichipstoallowthemhookuptotheInternetwirelessly.UserswillthenbeabletousetheWiFinetworktomakephonecallsovertheInternetusingVoiceoverInternetProtocol(VoIP).Atatouchofabuttonontheirphones,userswillbypasstheirmobilephonenetworkandconnecttotheWiFinetworkinstead.

WiFiequipmentoperatesinoneoffourdesignatedfrequencybands.Themaximumpoweroutputperdevicerangesfrom0.1Wat2.4GHzto2Wat5.88GHz.WiFiuserscanexpectmaximumtransmissionspeedsofbetween24to35megabitspersecond(Mbps)overopenspacesofabout50metres.Atgreaterdistancesorindoorsinthepresenceofobstacles,WiFi,likeallshortrangeradiosystems,reduces

��


itsdatatransmissionspeedtocompensate.BecauseWiFitransmissionsareintermittent,onatimeaveragedbasis,userexposurewillbeloweranddependontheamountofdatabeingtransmitted.ActualexposureofauserofWiFiequipmentwillalsodependonwherethetransmittingantennasarelocatedwithrespecttotheuser’sbody.IntensitylevelswithinofficesequippedwithWiFiarewellbelowexposureguidelinelimits.However,insituationswheretheantennainalaptopcomputeriswithinacentimetreorsofromthelaponwhichthecomputerisplaced,exposurelevelswillbehigher(Leeper,2002;UK,2004).OnlyonereportonEMFexposureisavailableatthistime(Schmid,2005).

DECT(Digitallyenhancedcordlesstelephones)CordlessphonesoperatinginadomesticenvironmentaresimilartoGSMphonesinthattheyalsoneedabasestation.Howeverthebasestationusuallydoublesasacordlessphoneholderandispoweredbymainselectricity.Thissmallbasestationcommunicateswithuptosixcordlessphoneslinkedtothesystembyradiosignals.

Thesignalsaredigitallyencodedtopreventeavesdropping.DECTsystemsoperateatfrequenciesbetween1880and1900MHz.Theyareextremelylowpowered–theirrangeistypically50metresfromindoors.(Eircom,2003).Thebasestationpoweroutputsarelimitedto12milliwatts(mW)andthephoneoutputsto10mW.AtypicalGSMbasestationcanhaveanoutputbetween20and50W,whichissome2000to5000timesgreaterthanDECT.

BluetoothShort-rangewirelesscommunicationamongelectronicdevicescanbeachievedbyuseofBluetooth(thenamederivesfromthatofatenthcenturyDanishkingwho,unusualforthetime,fosteredpeaceandharmonyamonghisneighbours).Bluetoothisthebestknownofwhatarecalledwirelesspersonalareanetworks(PANs).WirelessPANscanreplacetheUSBandothercablesusedtopassdataamongcloselylocatedelectronicequipment.ThetypicaldatatransmissionspeedofBluetoothisaround700kilobitspersecondoverdistancesupto10metres.DevicesincorporatingBluetoothincludemobilephoneheadsetsandcomputeraccessoriessuchasprinters,keyboards,thecomputermouse,andpersonaldigitalassistants.Thistechnologyisbeingincreasinglyusedinbusinessandinthehome.Bluetoothoperatesinafrequencybandaround2.45GHz.ThemaximumpowerofBluetoothdevicesis100mW,25mWor1mW,dependingonthepowerclassofthedevice.(UK,2004)

Ultra-Wideband(UWB)Fewtechnicaldevelopmentsbetterillustratethemarchofcommunicationstechnologythanultra-wideband(UWB)wirelesstechnology.WhereasonehundredyearsagoMarconi,bymeansofbulkycoilsandcapacitors,couldconveytheequivalentof10bitsofdatapersecond,UWBtechnology,withtinyintegratedcircuitsandtunneldiodes,cansendmorethan100millionbitsofdigitalinformationinthesametime.

UWBwirelessisunlikeothermorefamiliarformsofradiocommunicationsuchasAM/FM,shortwave,emergencyservices,radioandtelevision.Thelatterareallnarrowband

services,whichavoidinterferencewithoneanotherbystayingwithintheconfinesoftheirallocatedfrequencybands,usingwhatiscalledacarrierwave.There,thedatamessagesareimpressedontheunderlyingcarriersignalbymodulatingitsamplitude,frequencyorphase.UWBtechnologyisquitedifferent.Insteadofacarriersignal,UWBmessagesarecomposedofaseriesofintermittentpulses.Byvaryingthepulses’amplitude,polarity,timingorothercharacteristicacrossarangeoffrequenciesinformationiscodedintoastreamofdata.

Becauseoftheirextremelyshortduration–apulseonlylastsforafractionofabillionthofasecond–theseultrawidebandpulsesfunctioninacontinuousbandoffrequenciesthatcanspanseveralGHz.UWBtransceiversarenowabletoprovideveryhighdatatransmissionspeedsintherange100to500Mbpsacrossdistancesoffiveto10metres.Ultrawidebandcommunicationsystemsoperateatpowerlevelssolowthattheyemitlessradioenergythanahairdryeroranelectricdrillorevenalaptopcomputer.Thislowpower,however,restrictstherangeofUWBdevicestousuallyaround10metres.Atypical200microwatt(µW)UWBtransmitterradiatesonlyonethree-thousandthsoftheaverageenergyemittedbya0.6Wmobilephone.(Leeper,2002)

Radio-frequencyIdentification(RFID)SystemsLowpowerwirelesscommunicationiswidelyusedinradio-frequencyidentification(RFID)ofpeopleandobjects.

TherearetwobasictypesofRFID–activeandpassive.Intheactivesystemtheobjectorpersonwhosemovementsarecontrolledormonitoredcarriesaradiotransmitter.Thesignalfromthetransmitterisdetectedbyafixedreceivermountedontheentryorexitundersurveillance.Informationfromthereceiveristhenanalysedbyacomputerthatsendsinstructionstopermitorpreventpassage.

Figure 4.5 Photo of one day old baby wearing RFID tag

Inthepassivesystemtheobjectorpersoncarriesamicrochipattachedtoatinyantenna,calledatransponder.Theradiotransmitterismountedontheentryorexitundersurveillance.Thesignalfromthetransmitterpromptsarespondingsignalfromthetransponder.Thisresponseisthenrelayedtoacomputer,whichtakestheappropriateaction.MostoftheRFIDdevicestowhichthepublicareexposedarepassive(i.e.nonbroadcasting)devices.

��


AninterestingnewapplicationinuseinsomeIrishmaternityhospitalsistheuseofRFIDanklebandsonnewbornbabiesasamoresecurealternativetotheirconventionalidentificationbyahandwrittenidentificationtag.Doorscanbeautomaticallyclosedandalarmssoundedshouldanunauthorisedpersonmovethebabyoutofadesignatedarea.

ThepoweroutputofRFIDdevicesisgenerallysmall,oftheorderof10mW.AlargenumberofspecificwirelessfrequenciesareapprovedforshortrangeRFIDdevices,from9kHzto17.3GHz.

Health effects of new wireless technologiesAquestionthatisoftenasked,particularlyinthefieldofwirelesstechnology,iswhynewtechnologiescontinuetobeintroducedwithoutbeingsubjecttoakindofhealthcheck?Newpharmaceuticalproductsmustundergorigoroustestingbeforetheycanbeprescribed.Whyarethesamemeasuresnotundertakenpriortotheintroductionofnewcommercialapplicationsofwirelesstechnology?

Thisimportantquestionisdealtwithindetailelsewhereinthisreport.Theanswerisfoundedonstandards.Essentially,thereexistscientificallywell-supportedexposurestandardsbasedonextensiveandon-goingresearchthatcanbeusedasayardsticktoassessthesafetyofvirtuallyallnewapplicationsofwirelesstechnology.Ifoneknowstheoperationalpoweroutputofthenewdevice,thefrequencyorfrequenciesatwhichitoperates,andtheproximityoftheuserorthegeneralpublictothedevice,thenitispossibletocalculateormeasurethemaximumfieldstrengthandthenatureoftheradio-frequencyfieldtowhichamemberofthepublicissubjected.

Thismeasuredorcalculatedexposureisthencomparedtothemaximumrecommendedexposurelimitssetoutinthestandard.Thestandardsforpublicexposurehavesafetyfactorsofmorethan50builtintotheirvaluesandanyexposurelessthanthislimitisnotharmful.Likewiseanysmallexcursioninexposureabovethelimits,whilerequiringinvestigation,isunlikelytopresentanadversehealthriskbecauseofthesafetyfactorincorporatedintothelimit.

OnewayoflookingatthenewtechnologiesdiscussedaboveistocomparethemtotheGSMmobilephoneexposuresthatarediscussedearlier.UMTS3Gphonesystemsoperatearound2000MHz.ThisfrequencypenetrateslessintothehumanbodythantheGSMfrequencies(900MHzand1800MHz).

ThemaximumpoweroutputofaUMTSphonevariesis0.25W,comparedto2Wat900MHZand1Wat1800MHzfortheGSMphones.HoweverbecausetheUMTShandsettransmitscontinuouslywhiletheGSMhandsetoperatesinpulsedmode,theexposuretoaUMTShandsetisessentiallythesameasthatfroma1800MHzGSMhandset.UMTSbasestationoutputsaresmallerthanthoseofGSMbasestationsbecausetheUMTScellsizeisgenerallysmaller.

TETRAhandsetsoperateateither1or3Windatatransmissionmode.Whenoperatinginspeechmodetheoutputsarereducedto0.25or0.75Wdependingontheclassofradio

used.TheTETRAbasestationshaveoutputsofafewtensofwattsandaresimilarinthisrespecttoGSMbasestations.Measurementsundertakenusinganartificialhead(UK,2004),haveshownthata3Whandsetoperatingatmaximumpower,heldclosetotheheadforlongerthansixminutes,couldresultinthemaximumexposurestandardforamemberofthepublicbeingexceeded.Howeverthisexposurewouldnotexceedtheoccupationalexposureguideline.Theoccupationalexposurelimitsarefivetimeshigherthanthoseforthegeneralpublic,butstillincorporateasafetyfactorof10overthelevelatwhichanyhealthriskmightarise.

DECT,WiFi,Bluetooth,UWBandRFIDtechnologiesinvolveshortrangeradiosignallingwithassociatedlowpoweroutputsandcorrespondinglylowuserexposures.Howevertheseexposurescanbehigherthanexpectedbecauseitispossiblefortheusertogetextremelyclosetothetransmitter.ThisisparticularlythecasewithDECT,WiFiandBluetoothtransmitters.RecallingthatthelimitingSARforGSMphonesis2W/kg,thefollowingpeakspatialSARexposuremeasurementswerereportedattheWHO2005workshoponbasestations(Kuhn et al,2005):

nDECT:Fourdevices,maximumSARs:0.019W/kgto0.052W/kg

nWiFi:Threedevices,maximumSARs:0.06W/kgto0.81W/kg

nBluetooth:Fourdevices,maximumSARs:0.005W/kgto0.466W/kg

4.5ElectromagneticHypersensitivity

What is EHS?Theterm‘electromagnetichypersensitivity’(EHS)isoftenusedtodenoteaphenomenonwhereindividualsexperienceadversehealtheffectswhileusingorbeinginthevicinityofelectric,magnetic,EMFsourcesanddevices,andwhentheindividualsthemselvesattributetheirsymptomstoEMFemissionsfromthesesourcesanddevices.Therearenostandardiseddiagnosticcriteriaavailableand,althoughthesymptomsexperiencedvarysubstantiallyamongtheaffectedindividuals,theyaregenerallynon-specificwithnoobjectivesignspresent.Theseverityoftheconditionvaries;themajorityofcasespresentmildsymptoms,butsomepeopleexperiencesevereproblemswithmajorconsequencesforworkandeverydaylife(SSI,2004).

Thereislittlesupportfortheterm‘electromagnetichypersensitivity’todescribethisconditionamongmedicalspecialists.Thesymptomsandthedistresstheycauseclearlyexist,but,sofar,nostudyhasbeenabletoprovealinkbetweenEMFexposureandtheoccurrenceofsymptoms.AtarecentworkshoporganisedbytheWHOonthesubject(WHO,2004),itwasproposedthat,thetermshouldnotbeused.Insteadtheexpression‘idiopathicenvironmentalintolerance’orIEIwassuggested.TheIndependentExpertGrouptothe

��


SwedishRadiationProtectionAgency,whoalsorecommendagainsttheuseoftheterm‘electromagnetichypersensitivity’,believethatanytermthatcombinesexposuresandhealthconsequenceswillhinderfurtherstudies(SSI,2004).

Prevalence of EHSAssessmentsoftheprevalenceofEHSdependonthemethodsusedtoidentifycases,andthequestionsaskedineachspecificsurvey.ThereportedprevalenceofEHSvariesconsiderablythroughouttheworldandbetweenreports.AtthetimeofamajorinvestigationfortheEuropeanCommission(Bergqvist,1997)EHSwasmostcommonintheNordiccountriesandGermanybutrareornon-existentintheUKandTheNetherlands.AsurveyofthepopulationofStockholmreportedaprevalenceof1.5%(Hillert, et al,2002),whileasurveyinCaliforniaestimatedEHSprevalenceat3.2%(Levallois, et al.2002).However,thereportedprevalenceofEHSindifferentstudiesstronglydependsonthedefinitionofEHSandthemethodusedtocollectthedata.

Sources and symptomsInaSwissEHSstudy(Röösli et al,2004)itwasfoundthatthemostcommonreportedsymptomsweresleepdisorders,followedbyheadaches,nervousnessordistress,fatigueandconcentrationdifficulties.Themostcommonsourcestowhichthesubjectsattributedtheirsymptomsweremobilephonebasestations(74%),mobilephones(36%),cordlessphones(29%)andpowerlines(27%).Symptomsreportedinotherstudiesincludethoseoftheskin(redness,tingling,andburningsensations)aswellastiredness,dizziness,nausea,heartpalpitation,anddigestivedisturbances.

ThereisnodoubtthatthesymptomsaffectingEHSindividualsarereal.ThishaslednationalandinternationalauthoritiestosetupinvestigationstodetermineifandhowexposuretoEMFmightgiverisetothesesymptoms.

Studies of individualsIn2005,amajorreviewwaspublishedof31provocationstudiesinvolving,intotal,725individualswhosufferedEHSsymptoms(Rubin et al,2005).Onlyblindordoubleblindstudieswereincludedinthereview.AblindprovocationstudyisanexperimentinwhichtheparticipantsaresystematicallyexposedornottoEMFwithoutknowingwhethertheEMFsourceisonoroff.

TheauthorsconcludedthatwhilethesymptomsdescribedbyEHSsuffererscanbesevereandaresometimesdisabling,itwasdifficulttoshowunderblindconditionsthatexposuretoEMFcantriggerthesesymptoms.TheyconcludedthatEHSwasunrelatedtothepresenceofEMF.ThisconclusionissharedbyaUnitedStatesreview(Ziskin,2002)whichconcludedthatintestswherethesubjectsdidnotknowwhetherornottheywereactuallyexposedtoEMF,therewasacorrelationbetweenthepresenceofthesymptomsandwhenthesubjectsbelievedtheywereexposed,butnocorrelationtoactualexposures.

MorerecentlyRubin et al (2006)reportedtheresultsofadoubleblindstudyinvolving60EHSpeopleand60controls

(peopleunaffectedbyEHS)whowereexposedto(i)a900MHzGSMphonesignal;(ii)anon-pulsingcarrierwavesignal,and(iii)ashamconditionwithnosignalpresent.Theprincipaloutcomeintheexperimentwasheadacheseverity.Sixothersubjectivesymptomswerealsomonitored,includingtheparticipant’sabilitytojudgewhetherasignalwaspresentornot.Theresultsshowedthatheadachesandothersymptomseveritiesincreasedduringtheexperimentanddecreasedimmediatelyafterwards.Thesymptomswerenottrivialandsomeexperimentshadtobestoppedearlyandsomeoftheparticipantswithdrewfromthestudy.Howeverthesereactionsoccurredunderbothactiveandshamexposuresituations.

Theauthorsconcludedthattherewasnoevidencetoindicatethatpeoplewithselfreportedsensitivitytomobilephonesignalsareabletodetectsuchsignalsorthattheyreacttothemwithincreasedsymptomseverity.Asshamexposurewassufficienttotriggerseveresymptomsinsomeparticipants,psychologicalfactorsmayhaveanimportantroleincausingthiscondition.

How the EHS problem is dealt with in SwedenThedilemmaindealingwithEHSindividualsisthatwhiletheirsymptomsarerealandattimesdisabling,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatEMFexposureisthecauseoftheirillness.So,whatcanbedone?

InSweden,wherethereappearstobeagreaterproportionofEHSthanelsewhere,guidelineshavebeenissuedbytheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareconcerningthetreatmentofsuchpatients.Theseguidelines,whichareaimedatdoctors,particularlyinprimarycare,readasfollows:

“In many cases, the investigation does not result in a specific medical diagnosis. Besides skin changes, it is rare to find any pathological abnormalities in the clinical investigation or in the laboratory tests. The patient’s conception that the symptoms are caused by electricity (electromagnetic fields) may persist and the patient may insist that reducing the exposure to electromagnetic fields is important. The doctor’s job is then to provide information on current knowledge based on science and medical experience.

It is not the job of attending physicians to recommend whether actions to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields should be carried out. There is no firm scientific support that such treatment is effective. Instead, these questions may be dealt by the employers or local authorities, who in some cases have decided to grant home adaptation grants (for such actions).

Replacement of electric equipment e.g. fluorescent tubes with light bulbs, replacement of cathode ray tubes with displays of liquid crystals, so-called LCD, may be tested as a part in a rehabilitation plan. Some measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields is sometimes also part of such actions. Advantages and potential drawback of such actions should

��


carefully be considered in each individual case, before implementation, e.g. how to handle the situation if there is no improvement in health.” (Hillert, 2005)

ThefocusinSwedenisonthesymptomspresentedbytheafflictedpersonandtherighttosickleave,sicknessbenefits,disabilitypensionetcisbasedonthedegreeofillhealthandfunctionalhandicapofthepersonregardlessofaknownorunknowncauseforthecondition.Thereisnoscientifictreatmentandsincetheclinicalpicturevariesfromcasetocaseanyrecommendationforinterventionsortreatmentstobetriedisbasedonabroadevaluationofeachindividual’sspecificsituation,includingmedicalinvestigation,psychosocialsituationandpossiblecontributingenvironmentalfactors.Treatmentsknowntoreducethetypeofsymptomspresentedbythepatientcanbetried.

Itisimportantthatagoodpatient-doctorrelationshipisestablishedandthatamedicalphysicianisavailabletoofferfollow-upvisitstoensure(aftertheinitialmedicalworkaimedatexcludingknownmedicalconditions)thatnewmedicalevaluationsaremadewhenrequiredbyachangeinsymptoms,forexample.EHShasnotbeenacceptedasaworkinjuryinSweden.

The 2005 UK HPA report on EHSAmajorreviewofEHSincidenceandtreatmentwaspublishedrecentlybytheUKHealthProtectionAgency(Irvine,2005).ThestartingpointforthereviewwasrecognitionbytheHPAoftheneedtoconsiderEHSintermsotherthanitsaetiology–themedicalstudyofthecausationofdisease–asthispositionalonewasfailingtomeettheneedsofthosewhoconsiderthemselvesaffectedbyEHS.

TheEHSsymptomsthatpredominatedintheUKwereheadacheandfatigue.Thesesymptomscanhavesevereconsequencesforthesocialfunctioningofthoseaffected.TherewasaconsiderableoverlapbetweenEHSandagroupofotherconditionsknownassymptom-basedconditions,functionalsomaticsyndromesoridiopathicenvironmentalintolerances.

NousefulestimateoftheprevalenceofEHSintheUKwasfound.RecommendationsforfutureresearchincludedcarryingoutstudiestodescribeandunderstandEHSandestimateitsprevalencewithintheUK;engagingwiththerapistscurrentlytreatingsuffererstoidentifyothertreatments;andconductingrobusttrialsofcognitivebehaviouraltherapy.

ConclusionAWHOworkshopinPrague(WHO,2004),attendedbyleadingEuropeanresearchersonEHS,concludedthatEHShasnoscientificbasistolinkitssymptomstoEMFexposure.Further,EHSisnotamedicaldiagnosis;ithasnocleardiagnosticcriteria,norisitobviousthatitrepresentsasinglemedicalproblem.AWHOfactsheetonEHSsummarisesthesymptoms,knownprevalenceandcurrenttreatments,butconcludesfromtheexistingscientificevidencethatEMFexposureisnotthecauseofthesymptoms(WHO,2005).

4.6ChildrenandEMF

Children and diseaseChildreneverywhereareexposedtoavarietyofchemical,physicalandbiologicalenvironmentalagents.Theseincludeindoorandoutdoorairpollution,waterandfoodcontaminants,chemicals(e.g.,pesticides,leadandmercury),andphysicalagents,suchasultravioletradiationandexcessivenoise.Changesinexposuretotheseagentsarelinkedtoincreasesintheincidenceofcertainchildhooddiseases,suchasasthma,leukaemia,braincancer,andsomebehaviouralandlearningdisabilities.Environmentalexposurescanbeparticularlyharmfultochildrenbecauseoftheirvulnerabilityduringdevelopment.

Childrenarenotsmalladults.Theymaybemorevulnerabletoenvironmentaltoxinsthanadults.Theymayreceivehigherdosesthanadults,eitherbecauseofspecificbehaviours,orbecauseoftheirsmallerbodysize.Theyhavealongertimetodemonstrateharmfuleffectsofaccumulatedexposures,astheycanexpecttolivelongerthanadults.

Ithasbeenrecognisedforsometimethatchildrenaremoresusceptiblethanadultstothehealthrisksassociatedwithover-exposuretoinfraredandUVradiation.Sunburnsinchildhoodseemtobeparticularlypotentinincreasingtheriskofskincancerlaterinlife(Nole and Johnson,2004).TherearealsoindicationsthatchildrenmaybemorepronetoleukaemiafromexposuretoELFmagneticfieldsarisingfromthedistributionanduseofelectricity.ThisraisesthequestionofwhetherchildrenarelikelytobemoresensitivethanadultstoRFfields.

Children and ELF magnetic fieldsIARChasclassifiedELFmagneticfieldsas“possiblycarcinogenictohumans”(IARC,2002).Thisclassificationwasbasedonepidemiologicalstudiesofchildhoodleukaemiathatconsistentlydemonstratedanassociationthatwasconsideredcredible,butforwhichotherexplanationscouldnotberuledout.Experimentalstudiesusingculturedcellsandanimalsdidnot,however,supporttheviewthatELFmagneticfieldsinduce,promoteoracceleratetheprogressionofcancer(Kheifets et al,2005).

Acuteleukaemias,especiallyacutelymphoblasticleukaemia(ALL),arethemostcommoncancertoaffectchildren,accountingfor25%to35%ofallchildhoodmalignancies.InIrelandandotherdevelopedcountries,theincidenceofALLrisesrapidlyafterbirthtopeakaround3yearsofagebeforedeclining.Therateofleukaemiaamongchildrenunder15hasbeenestimatedataround4casesper100,000childrenperyearinWesternEurope.

EveryoneisexposedtoELFelectricandmagneticfieldsathome.Highvoltagepowerlinesareamajorsourceofexposuretothosechildrenwholivenearthem.Howeveronlyabout1%ofchildrenliveclosetopowerlines.Formostchildren,exposuretoELFmagneticfieldsismadeupofacontinuouslow-levelexposurefromthehousewiringandanintermittentexposuretohigherfieldsproducedbydomesticappliances.Typicalmagneticfieldsinthehomeareintherange0.05to0.1µT.BasedonUKdataitisunlikelythatmorethan1%to2%ofIrishhomeshavefieldsgreaterthan0.2µT(HPA,2005).

��


Resultsofpooledanalysisofaroundtwentyepidemiologicalstudiessuggestadoublingoftheriskofleukaemiaforchildrenexposedtoaveragemagneticfieldsover0.3to0.4µT.However,becauseofthelimitedknowledgeoftheaetiologyofchildhoodleukaemia,itispossiblethatsomeotherexposure,(aconfounder)maybethecauseofthisassociation.Atpresentthereisnoexperimentalevidencethatsupportstheviewthatthisrelationshipiscausal(Kheifets et al,2005).HowevertwoexplanatoryhypotheseswereadvancedataWHOexpertworkshop(WHO,2004)devotedspecificallytoanevaluationofchildren’ssensitivitytoEMFandtoidentifyresearchneedsinthisarea.

Theimplicationsfortheincidenceofleukaemiainchildrenoftheabovefindingsaredealtwithindetailinthehealth risk assessment section.EssentiallytheincreasedincidenceofchildhoodleukaemiainIreland,ifcausedbyELFmagneticfields,wouldbeoneextracaseeverythreetofiveyearswheretheannualincidencefromothercausesrangesfrom35to55.

Children and RF fieldsConcernsaboutthepotentialvulnerabilityofchildrentoRFfieldsfrommobiletelephonywerefirstraisedintheUKStewartReport(IEGMP,2000).Thebasisforthisconcernwasthatchildrenwouldhavealongerlifetimeexposurethanadultsand,fromaphysiologicalpointofview,theyhavedevelopingnervoussystems;thepossibilitythattheirbraintissueismoreconductive;agreaterpotentialforabsorptionofRFenergyintheheadatmobilephonefrequencies.Thisviewwasre-affirmedbytheUKNRPB (2004).

ThisquestionofwhetherchildrenabsorbgreaterdosesofEMFthanadultswasdiscussedatbothanEUCo-operationonScienceandTechnology(COSTAction281)workshop(COST,2002)andataWHOworkshopinIstanbul(WHO,2004).RecentexpertanalysisofthisquestionledChrist and Kuster (2005)toconclude:

“The analysis of the results could not reveal major effects due to focussing or other properties of child heads, which might result in higher specific absorption rates (SAR). … The variations between child and adult phantoms are not higher in magnitude than those between different adult phantoms. …In conclusion no evidence could be found for a correlation between energy absorption and head size.”

Keshvari and Lang (2005)cametoasimilarconclusion:

“The analyses suggest that the SAR difference between adults and children is more likely caused by the general differences in the head anatomy and geometry of the individuals rather than age. It seems that the external shape of the head and the distribution of different tissues within the head play a significant role in RF energy absorption. …There is no systematic difference in the RF energy absorption between anatomically correct MRI-based child and adult head models.”

In2002,theHealthCouncilofTheNetherlands(HCN,2002)conductedanevaluationofthehealtheffectsofmobilephonesandforchildrenitconcluded,onthebasisoftheavailablescientificdataonthedevelopmentofchildren’sheadsandbraintissue,that:

“It is unlikely from a developmental point of view that major changes in brain sensitivity to electromagnetic fields still occur after the second year of life. The Committee, therefore, concludes that there is no reason to recommend that mobile telephone use by children should be limited as far as possible.”

Twoyearslater,whentheHealthCouncilrevisitedthetopic(HCN,2004)inthelightofadditionalscientificinformation,itconcludedthattherewasnoreasontoreviseitsrecommendationswithregardstopublicexposurelimitsinTheNetherlandsandreiterateditsopinionthat

“there are no health-based reasons for limiting the use of mobile phones by children”.

ThispositionisincontrasttothatoftheUKStewartReport(IEGMP,2000)whereitwassuggestedthatthewidespreaduseofmobilephonesbychildrenfornon-essentialcallsshouldbediscouragedandthatthemobilephoneindustryshouldrefrainfrompromotingtheuseofmobilephonesbychildren.HowevertheUKreportdidnotbasetheirrecommendationsonspecificscientificevidence,butonprecautionarymeasures.

The WHO workshop on children and EMFUndertheauspicesoftheWHOInternationalEMFProject,150oftheworld’sleadingEMFresearchersandpaediatricspecialistsmetinJune2004forascientificworkshopinIstanbul(WHO,2004).Theaimsofthemeetingincluded:

nToexamineatwhatstageofdevelopmentchildrenmaybemoresensitivetoEMF,

nToassessthescientificliteraturewithregardtopossiblehealtheffectsfromEMFexposuretochildren,

nToidentifygapsinknowledgethatneedfurtherresearchtobetterevaluatechildren’sEMFsensitivity,

nTocompilearesearchagenda,

ThereisnodirectevidencethatchildrenaremorevulnerabletoEMF.

nThereis,however,littlespecificresearchthataddressesthisquestion.

nThereisconsensusthat,frompresentknowledge,thecurrentinternationalexposureguidelines(ICNIRP,1998)incorporatesufficientsafetyfactorsintheirgeneralpubliclimitstobeprotectiveofchildren.

��


DuringthemeetingaresearchagendawasdevelopedtoidentifygapsinknowledgeaffectingtheunderstandingoftheeffectsofEMFexposureonchildren(WHO,2005).Later,theRFcomponentofthisresearchagendawasincorporatedintoa“ConsolidatedWHOresearchagendaforradiofrequencyfields”(WHO,2006).AsaresultfurtherepidemiologicalstudiesrelatingtochildrenwererecommendedbyWHOandsomearealreadyunderwayinanumberofcountries.

Overall conclusionEpidemiologicalstudiessuggestthatELFmagneticfieldsabove0.3to0.4µTareassociatedwithanincreasedincidenceofchildhoodleukaemia,butthereislittleornosupportforthisbywellconductedlaboratorystudies.Howeverwehavenounderstandingofhow,orevenif,ELFmagneticfieldsmightbeassociatedwithleukaemogenesis.Essentially,theevidenceforacausalrelationshipisinsufficient.

InthecaseofRFfieldsthescientificevidencedoesnotsuggestthatchildrenaremoresusceptiblethanadultstosuchexposure.However,withoutfurtherresearch,theabsenceofanobservedeffectdoesnotruleoutthepossibilitythatRFexposuremighthavesomelatentadversehealtheffect.Muchofthisnecessaryresearchisnowunderway,incoordinatedstudiesacrossEuropeandelsewhere,andmoreisplanned.Theresultsofthisworkwillhelpanswermanyoftheoutstandingquestionsonthehealtheffectsofchildren’sexposuretoRFfields.

4.7RiskCommunication

Perception of RiskSome30kmfromtheNorwegiancityofStavangeryouwillfindLysefjord.HereanarmoftheNorthSeacleavesagorgebetweentwoverticalcliffs.Halfwayalongthenorthernsideisaprominentfeaturecalled‘Preikestolen’or‘PulpitRock’.PulpitRockhasaninterestinggeology:itisover2000fthigh;itoverhangsthefjord;ithasaflattopthesizeofafootballfield,anditisseparatedfromthesurroundingrockbyadeepverticalfissure.OncetheprospectofsixmilliontonnesofrockslippingintothefjordwasenoughtodiscourageallbutthemostfoolhardyfromventuringontoPulpitRock.ResidentsofthevillageofForsandatthemouthofLysefjordworriedthatthenextthunderstormmightbringdowntherockandwashthemawayinatidalwave.

Buttodaynooneworries.ThetopofPulpitRockprovidesaplatformforsunbathers,achallengetorockclimbersandahavenforthosewishingtodistancethemselvesfromthepressuresofmodernlife.Thevillageatthemouthofthefjordisnowasizeabletown.So,whathaschanged?ThefissureisolatingPulpitRockisasdeepandwideaseverandthunderstormsarenolessfrequent.ThischangeinattitudefollowsaninvestigationbyateamofNorwegiangeologistsandengineerswhosefindingsaresummarisedthusinalocalguidebook:

“Scientists have now surveyed the area and can assure everyone that the Pulpit Rock is perfectly safe.”

ThecontrastbetweenthecasualattitudetoriskofthesunbathersonPulpitRockandthecontinuingfearsmanypeopleinIreland(andelsewhereinEurope)haveconcerningEMFandparticularlymobilephonemastsispuzzling.Thefearsofthepublicinviteexplanation,particularlywhentherehavebeennumerousassurancesfromnationalandinternationalhealthadvisoryauthoritiesthatphonemasts,forexample,donotpresentahazardtohealth.

Risk perceptionManyfactorscaninfluenceaperson’sperceptionofariskandtheirdecisiontotakeorrejectthatrisk.However,byfarthemostimportantfactoriswhetherexposuretotheriskisvoluntaryorinvoluntary.HikingtothetopofPulpitRockisachallengetotheyoungandfit.Totheoverweight,middle-agedbusinessmanonbeta-blockerstheclimbcouldbecomeaseriousrisktohealth.FortunatelytheNorwegianauthoritiesdonotrequirethatallvisitorstoStavangermakeapilgrimagetotherock.Itissomethingthatisentirelyvoluntary.

Incontrast,whenwecometoconsiderexposuretophonemasts,thereisnoescape.The4,500phonemastsinIrelandareincontinualcommunicationwitheverymobilephoneinIrelandthathappenstobeswitchedon.ThatcouldmeanfourmillionphonesownedbyIrishresidentsplushundredsofthousandsmorebroughtinbyvisitors.ExposuretoEMFassociatedwithmobilewirelesstelephonyisinvoluntary.

Whereexposuretoanenvironmentalagentisinvoluntaryandthereisgoodevidencethattheexposurehasapotentialadversehealtheffectthentheauthoritieswillbepressedtotakeactiontoeliminateorreducethepublic’sexposure.Suchpressuresled,inthe1960s,totheendingofatmosphericnuclearweaponstestingandmorerecentlytotheremovalofleadfrompetrol.Howeverthedilemmawithphonemastsisthatthereisnogoodevidenceofanadversehealtheffectandtheirremovalwouldstopeveryoneusingtheirmobilephone.Thesuddenadverseimpactonbusiness,sociallife,healthandsafetycanonlybeimagined.

Health hazard and riskProgressinthebroadestsenseofthewordhasalwaysbeenassociatedwithvarioushazardsandrisks,bothperceivedandreal.Theindustrial,commercialandhouseholdapplicationofEMFisnoexception.SomepeopleareconcernedthatexposuretoEMFfromsuchsourcesashighvoltagepowerlines,electricitysubstations,radars,mobilephonesandphonemastscouldleadtoadversehealthconsequences,especiallyinchildren.Asaresult,theconstructionofnewpowerlinesandmobilephonenetworkshasmetwithconsiderableoppositioninanumberofcountries.

Inexaminingpeople’sperceptionofrisk,itisimportanttodistinguishbetweenahealthhazard andahealthrisk.Ahazardcanbeanobjectorasetofcircumstancesthathaspotentialtoharmaperson’shealth.Arisk,inthesenseusedbyprofessionals,isthelikelihoodorprobabilitythatapersonwillbeharmedbyaparticularhazard.Thepublicuseoftheword‘risk’

�0


canbequitedifferent.Rockclimbingisanactivityassociatedwiththehazard offalling.Therisk orprobabilityofdeathisoncein250,000climbs(H&SE,1997).

Almosteveryactivityhasanassociatedrisk.Simplygettingoutofbedinthemorningandgettingdressedareassociatedwithrisks.EachyearintheUK,forexample,20peopleareelectrocutedbybedsidelightsandalarmclocks;another20arekilledfallingoverastheygetoutofbedand60areseriouslyinjuredpullingontheirsocks.Evenstayinginbedandnotgettingupdoesn’tavoidrisk.IntheUnitedStatessome6000adultsmanagetoinjurethemselvesontheirbedclotheseveryyear(Equinox,1999).Indeed,autopsystudiesshowthattheriskofthrombosisfollowedbyalethalpulmonaryembolismisdirectlyrelatedtothedurationoftimespentinbedpriortodeath(Le Fanu,1996).Livingisassociatedwithagreatmanyrisks.TheseincludeEMF-emittingsources,whichcanbehazardousundercertaincircumstances.Thereisnosuchthingaszerorisk.

Influencing a person’s decision to accept or reject a riskPeopleusuallyperceiverisksasnegligible,acceptable,tolerable,orunacceptable.Thenatureoftheriskisthencomparedtothebenefits.Wherethebenefitsgreatlyexceedtherisk,thentheriskmaybeconsideredworthtaking.Opinionsanddecisionswilldependonaperson’sage,sex,educationandculturalbackground.Someyoungpeoplefindthefunofbungeejumpingoutweighstheattendantrisk:aviewthatwouldbeunlikelytobesharedbytheirparents.

Thenatureoftheriskcanleadtodifferentperceptions.Surveyshavefoundthattheparticularcharacteristicsofasituationaffectaperson’sviewsoftheriskofEMF(andotherexposures)(WHO,1998):

nVoluntary or involuntary exposure. Peoplewhodonotusemobilephonesperceivetheriskfrombasestationsashigh,despitethelowpowerofthefieldsemittedfromthissource.Incontrast,mostmobilephoneusersperceivethefieldsfromtheirphonesasloweventhoughtheyareinfactmuchmoreintense.

nLack of personal control over a situation. Ifpeoplehavenosayovertheinstallationofpowerlinesorphonemasts,especiallyneartheirhomes,schoolsorplayareas,theywillperceivetheriskfromsuchinstallationsasbeinghigh.

nFamiliar or unfamiliar situation. Wherepeoplearefamiliarwithasituationorfeeltheyunderstandthetechnology,thelevelofperceivedriskissmaller.Theperceivedriskincreaseswhenthesituationorthetechnology,suchasEMFtechnology,isneworunfamiliarorhardtounderstand.Perceptionaboutthelevelofriskcanbesignificantlyincreasedwherethereisanincompletescientificunderstandingofthepotentialhealtheffectsfromaparticularsituationortechnology.

nDegree of dread. Somediseasesandhealthconditions,suchascancer,severeorlingeringpainanddisability,aremorefearedthanothers.Thus,eventhesmallestpossibilityofcancer,especiallyinchildren,fromEMFexposurereceivessignificantpublicandmediaattention.

nFairness or unfairness of situation. IfpeopleareexposedtoRFfieldsfromphonemasts,butdonothaveamobiletelephone,oriftheyareexposedtotheelectricandmagneticfieldsfromahighvoltagetransmissionlinethatdoesnotprovidepowertotheircommunity,theyconsideritunfairandarelesslikelytoacceptanyassociatedrisk.

The phone mast dilemmaWhileitmightbearguedthatitisnotunreasonableforpeoplewhoneitherownnoruseamobilephonetoobjecttobeingexposedtounwantedRFfieldsfromphonemasts,itisafactthatwearealsoexposedtothebroadcastsofseveralhundredradioandTVstations,manyofwhichweneitherlistentonorareevenawareexist.

Thereclearlymustbesomeparticularkindoffearassociatedwithphonemaststhatconcernssignificantnumbersofpeople,mostofwhomaremobilephoneusers.Thefactthatmanynationalandinternationalhealthadvisoryauthoritieshavereiteratedthattherearenoreasonablegroundsforbelievingphonemastsareahazardtohealthhasdonelittletoallaypublicfears.RFexposurestotheheadfrommastsaresomethousandstotensofthousandsweakerthanthosegeneratedbymobilephoneuse.Whyshouldpeopleworryoverthelesserexposureandgenerallyignorethegreaterone?TheexaminationofsuchquestionsbringsusintothescienceofRiskCommunication.

Risk communication about EMFInthespecificissueofEMFexposureandhealth,complexity,uncertaintyandambiguityallplayapart.

MostscientistsagreethatsignificantadversehealthimpactsofEMFareunlikely,butnotimpossible.However,thepossibilityofnegativehealtheffectscannotbeexcluded.Sciencecanonlyprovideproofthatsomethingmightbeunsafeormightposearisk.Thiscanbedifficulttocommunicateandcanleadtothepublicaskingthatsocietyrefrainfromanyactivityifthereistheremotestpossibilitythatitisdangerous.Fromthescientificpointofviewsuchapropositioncanneverbesupported.Thisisfrustratingformanypeople.

WehaveonlylimitedknowledgeaboutthelongtermeffectsofEMF.Manywillusethisuncertaintyasareasonforaskingregulatorstoadoptaprecautionaryapproachand,byreducingexposureguidelinesbelowthepresentlevels,provideagreatermeasureofsafety.Theexistingguidelinesforpublicexposurearesetatsafetyof50timesbelowtheestablishedthresholdforharm.Itshouldbenotedhowever,thatmobilephoneexposureisshorttermathighlevelswhilebasestationsgivelongtermlowlevelexposures.Peoplegenerallyworrymoreaboutthelongtermeffectsthatareunknownthanshorttermacuteeffects.

��


Formostpeopleitmakesadifferenceiftheyfeeltheriskisvoluntaryandundertheircontrol,likedriving,ratherthanhavingasafetylevelimposedonthembysomegovernmentagency.RiskperceptionstudiesshowthatinGermany,forexample,amajorityofthepopulationbelievesthatmobilephonesarefairlysafe,whereasbasestationsarebelievedtoposegreaterrisks(Zwick and Renn,2001;Wiedemann et al,2003).Yetfromascientificpointofviewthereisnodoubtthatmobilephoneusersreceivemuchgreaterexposuresthanpeoplelivingnearbasestations.Evenwheninformedaboutthisdifference,residentswillmaintainthatthebasestationantennasarethemoreseriousproblembecausetheyareerectedwithouttheirapprovalortheirbeingabletoavoidthem.

Thetablebelowgivesexamplesoftheprobabilityofvariouscausesofinjuryordeathineverydaylife.

Somecausesofdeath,injuryorillnessandthechancesofthemaffectingyouinyourlifetime

Deathbyheartattack 1in4

Havingasthmaasachild 1in7

Seekinghelpformentalillnessinyourlifetime 1in8

Becomingdependentonalcohol 1in25

Havingaseriousfireathome 1in160

Deathinacaraccident 1in200

Deathrelatedtosmoking10cigarettesaday 1in200

Deathfromafall 1in380

Seriouslyinjuringyourselfonexerciseequipment 1in400

Deathwhilehang-gliding 1in560

Beingallergictoafoodadditive 1in1,000

Deathasaresultofmotorcycling 1in1,100

Deathasaresultofmountainclimbing 1in1,750

Deathfromtheflu 1in5,000

Deathinadomesticaccident 1in25,000

Beingmurdered 1in100,000

Deathfromtampon-relatedtoxicshocksyndrome 1in1.4million

Deathbylightning 1in10million

Beinginjuredorkilledinasingletripinalift 1in17million

Deathastheresultofaplanefallingonyou 1in25million

Deathastheresultofameteoritefallingonyou 1in1millionmillion

Box 4.1: Lifetime Risks

CommunitiesfeeltheyhavearighttoknowwhatisbeingproposedandplannedwithrespecttotheconstructionofEMFfacilitiesthattheyperceivetoaffecttheirhealth.Theywanttohavesomecontrolover,andbepartof,thedecisionmakingprocess.Unlessoruntilaneffectivesystemofpublicinformationandcommunicationsamongststakeholdersisestablished,andtheyhaveinvolvementinthesitingprocess,newEMFtechnologieswillcontinuetobemistrustedandfeared.UsefuladviceondealingwiththepublicontheEMFissuecanbefoundintheWHObooklet“Establishingadialogueonrisksfromelectromagneticfields”(WHO,2002).

Overall conclusion WHOhaveproducedasetofprinciplesforriskcommunicationinthisarea:,andwereproducethese:

“In all situations where local government has a responsibility to address public and other stakeholder concerns about health issues it is essential to carry out “risk management” and not “crisis management”.”

Thatis,earlydialoguewithallstakeholders–carriers,landlords,localcommunitiesandinterestgroupstofindacceptablesolutionsispreferableto“11thhour”attemptstoresolveconflictsbetweenstronglyheldviews,rightsandresponsibilities.

TheWHOInternationalEMFProjecthasakeyroleinhealthriskcommunicationbygivingunambiguousadviceonhealthaspects.Allstakeholders–carriers,regulators,localgovernmentandlocalpublicshouldrecognisethattrustisavaluablecommodityand,thatrights,andresponsibilitiesgohandinhand.

Centralgovernment–policymakersandregulators–needtotakeamoreproactiveroleinprovidinghealthadviceinrelationtoEMF.

nLocalgovernmentshouldacceptmoreresponsibilitybyavoidingtheimpositionofarbitrarysitingpoliciesthatmayunderminehealth-basedexposureguidelines.

nMobiletelecomsoperators(carriers)needtoremainpro-activeandmeetcommitmentsforcommunicatingwithallstakeholdersonRFissuesofconcern.

CommunicatingwithstakeholdersonRFisachallenge–itrequiresastrategy,planning,expertise,consistencyandtraining.Atri-partiteapproachtodialoguebetweenmobiletelecomsoperators,localgovernmentandlocalcommunitygroupsworkswellwhenthereisajointcommitmenttofindingworkablesolutions.

WHOcanprovideessentialclarityandaframework–butitisnecessaryfornational,stateandlocalgovernmentstotakeagreatershareoftheresponsibilityforcommunicationontheseissuesbyprovidingconsistentandunambiguousadvice.

��


4.8UltravioletLightLasersandultraviolet(UV)lightarethetwotypeofelectromagneticradiationwherethehealthhazardsarebestestablished.Despitethistheygiverisetolittlepublicconcern,andUVinparticularislessregulatedthanotherEMFsources.Wehavesummarisedthemainconclusionofarecentreporton‘Ultravioletradiationandhealth’(AFFSET,2005).WehaveadaptedaWHOfactsheetonlaserpointers(WHO,1998),withpermissionfromWHO,toprovideaconvenientreference.

Ultraviolet lightUltravioletlightiselectromagneticradiation,whichliesbetweenvisiblelightandionisingradiation,withwavelengthsof400nmto100nm.ItisconventionallydividedintoUVA,UVBandUVC.ThestandarddefinitionoftheseistheCIEdefinitiongiveninthetablebelow,butotherdefinitionshavebeenusedintherecentpast.

Source UVC UVB UVA

CIE,1989 100-280nm 280-315nm 315-400nm

Parrsh et al.,1978 200-290nm 290-320nm 320-400nm

Riordan C et al.,1990 <280nm 280-320nm 320-400nm

Box 4.2: Definitions of UV Regions

ThedominantsourceofUVlightexposureis,ofcourse,thesun.Othercommonexposuresareoccupationalexposures,forexamplewelders,metalworkers,certainfoodworkers,andsomeotherindustrialworkers,andtanningsalons.VerylittlesolarUVClight,themostenergeticandshortestwavelengthUVlight,reachestheground.HoweverbothUVBandUVAareclassifiedasprobablehumancarcinogens.

Biological effectsUVlighthasonebeneficialbiologicaleffect–itpromotesthesynthesisofvitaminDintheskin.Quiteasmallexposure,15to25minutesofheadandarmsforexample,maximisesUVinducevitamin-Dsynthesis.InIrelanddietaryintakeofvitamin-DisusuallyfargreaterthanUVinducesynthesis,andisdefinitelyasaferwayoftreatingvitamin-Ddeficiency.

UVlightalsoinducesaseriesofphysiologicalandpathologicalchangesinskin.UVexposedskinbecomesthickerratherrapidly,andinpeoplewhocantan,pigmentationincreases.TheskinisalsodamagedbylongtermUVexposure,leadingtowhatisknownas‘heliodermatosis’.Thisincludesavarietyofchangesincludingthickened,drysaggingskin,changesinskincolour,linesandwrinkles,spots,reddening,prominentbloodvessels,andothers.

FinallyUVlightdirectlydamagesDNAinskincellsleadingtovarioustypesofskincancer.

CancersThemajoradversehealtheffectofUVexposureisskincancer.Skincancersaredividedintotwomaingroups,melanoma,whichisrelativelyrare,buthasahighriskofdeath,andnon-

melanomaskincancer,whichisverycommon,thecommonestsinglecancer,butveryseldomleadstodeath.InIrelandthereareabout500casesofmelanomaayear,and60to90deaths;thereare5,200casesofnon-melanomaskincancerbutonly30to40deaths.ThenumberofdeathsandnewcasesofthesecancersisrisingrapidlyinmostcountrieswherethepopulationareofNorthernEuropeanancestry.

Skin typesOnecommonskinclassificationwasoriginatedbyFitzpatrickin1974,althoughmanyslightlydifferentversionsofitareinuse.

Type SunburnTendency

TanTendency Skin,Hair,andEyeColour

I Ialwaysgetasunburn.

Inevergetatan.

whiteskin,freckles,blondorredhair,blueorgreeneyes.

II Iusuallygetasunburn.

Isometimesgetatan.

whiteskin,blondhair,blueorgreeneyes.

III Iseldomgetasunburn.

Iusuallygetatan.

whiteskin,usuallydarkhair,andbrowneyes.

IV-VI Inevergetasunburn.

Ialwaysgetadarktan.

browntodarkskin/brownorblackhair/browneyes.

Box 4.3: Skin types after Fitzpatrick, (1974). Most Irish people are skin types I and II – the highest risk skin types.

Preventing skin cancerSkincancerispreventable.Australiahasmanagedtoimprovesurvivalfromskincancerandreducetheoccurrenceofnewcasesbyatightlyfocussedcampaignconcentratingonsunexposure,useofsunprotection,anduseofskincreams(Australian Cancer Society 2006).Thereisgoodevidencethatitisespeciallyimportanttoprovidesunprotectiontobabiesandchildren.

Tanning parlours and healthTanningbyexposuretocontrolledlevelsofUVlightisincreasinglycommon.ThephysiologicaleffectoftanningsalonsisnotthesameasthatofnaturalUVexposure.Inparticular,itdoesnotincreasemelaninsynthesis,nordoesitleadtoincreasedskinthickness.Substantialevidencefromepidemiologicalstudiessuggeststhattheuseoftanningsalonsleadstoasignificantincreaseintheriskofmelanoma(a25%increasegenerally,risingtoa160%increaseinwomenwhousedsalonundertheageofthirty).Thereislessevidencefornon-melanomaskincancer,buttheavailableevidencesuggestsasimilarriskincrease.Widespreaduseoftanningsalonswillleadtoaseriouseffectonpublichealth,andtheclosestregulationofthissectorwillbeneededtopreventthis.

��


4.9LasersLasersaredevicesthatproducebeamsofcoherentlight.Thishasuniquepropertiesthatdistinguishlaser-producedlightfromlightfrommorefamiliarsourcessuchasthesunordomesticlamps.Thelatteremitlightthatishighlydivergent,i.e.,thatspreadsoutalmostequallyinalldirections.Thesesourcesalsohavemanydifferentwavelengths(colours),whichtogethergiveacharacteristiccolourtothelight.Alaserproduceslightwithaverynarrowrangeofwavelengths,sonarrowthatlasersarereferredtoasamonochromatic(onecolour)sources.Lasersalsoproduceaverynarrowbeamthatdivergeslittle.Thismeansthatlaserlightishighlydirectional,formingapencil-likebeamandappearsasasmallspotwhenshoneontoasurface,evenatdistancesofhundredsofmetres.Asaconsequence,highpowerlaserscanbehazardoustotheeyeoverconsiderabledistances.Becauselaserlightismonochromaticandbasicallylow-divergent,thebeamisbetterfocusedbythelensoftheeyethananyotherlightsource,thusproducingimagesontheretinawithmuchgreaterintensitiesthanispossiblewithdomesticlamps.

Laser pointersLaserdevicesareincommonuseindomesticsettings,howevermostofthesearelockedawayfromtheusersindevicessuchasCDplayersandDVDplayers.Therearealsomanyoccupationalsettingsinwhichlasersareused.Theonlycommonlyusedopenlaserdevicesarelaserpointers,andlaserlevels.Thesearelowpowerdevices,Laserpointersareportable,battery-operated,hand-heldlaserdevicesusedbylecturersduringtheirpresentations,andbybuildersandDIYenthusiastsrespectivelyforalignmentpurposes.Commonlyavailablelaserpointersemitred-colouredlight,(wavelengthbetween630and670nm),althoughmoreexpensivepointersareavailablewhichemitgreen-colouredlight(532nm).

Safety standards and classificationLaserpointersareclassifiedaccordingtotheInternationalElectrotechnicalCommission(IEC)standardonlasersafety.Thisstandardspecifiesrequirementsforthelasertoensurethattheriskofaccidentalexposureisminimisedthroughtheuseofengineeringcontrolfeaturesandthatthereisproductlabellingandsafetyinformation.TheIECalsosetsoutfiveclassesoflaser:1,2,3A,3Band4.Thisclassificationgivestheuseranindicationofthedegreeoflaserhazard.

TheIEC60825-1isanIECstandardwhichregulatessafetyoflaserproductsandtheclassstandardandclassjudgmentstandardwererevisedin2001bytheIECstandardsconstitutioncommittee.Accordingtothisrevision,newclasses,namelyclass1M,class2Mandclass3Rwerenewlyestablished.Inaddition,theJISstandardrelatingtothelasersafetystandard(JIS,C6802)wasalsorevisedinJanuary2005sothatthelaserclassstandardconformstotheIECstandard.

SummaryofrequirementsaccordingtoIEC

Classification Outlineofriskassessment

Class1 Lasersthataresafeunderreasonablyforeseeableconditionsofoperation,includingtheuseofopticalinstrumentsforintrabeamviewing.

Class1M Lasersemittinginthewavelengthrangefrom302.5to4,000nmwhicharesafeunderreasonablyforeseeableconditionsofoperation,butmaybehazardousiftheuseremploysopticswithinthebeam.

Class2 Lasersthatemitvisibleradiationinthewavelengthrangefrom400to700nmwhereeyeprotectionisnormallyaffordedbyaversionresponses,includingtheblinkreflex.Thisreactionmaybeexpectedtoprovideadequateprotectionunderreasonablyforeseeableconditionsofoperationincludingtheuseofopticalinstrumentsforintrabeamviewing.

Class2M Lasersthatemitvisibleradiationinthewavelengthrangefrom400to700nmwhereeyeprotectionisnormallyaffordedbyaversionresponsesincludingtheblinkreflex.However,viewingoftheoutputmaybemorehazardousiftheuseremploysopticswithinthebeam.

Class3R Lasersthatemitinthewavelengthragefrom302.5to106nmwheredirectintrabeamviewingispotentiallyhazardousbuttheriskislowerthanforClass3Blasers.

Class3B Lasersthatarenormallyhazardouswhendirectintrabeamexposureoccurs.Viewingdiffusereflectionsisnormallysafe.

Class4 Lasersthatarealsocapableofproducinghazardousdiffusereflections.Theymaycauseskininjuriesandcouldalsoconstituteafirehazard.Theiruserequiresextremecaution.

nClass1lasershaveanoutputpowerthatisbelowthelevelatwhicheyeinjurycanoccur,evenifthebeamisviewedwithanopticaldevice,suchasabinocularortelescope.

nClass1Memitinthewavelengthrangefrom302.5to4,000nm,andhaveanoutputpowerthatisbelowthelevelatwhicheyeinjurycanoccur,butmaybehazardousiftheuseremploysopticswithinthebeam.

nClass2lasersemitvisiblelight(400to700nm)andarelimitedtoamaximumoutputpowerof1-milliwatt(mW).ApersonreceivinganeyeexposurefromaClass2laserwillbeprotectedfrominjurybytheirnaturalblinkreflex,aninvoluntaryresponsewhichcausesthepersontoblinkandturntheirhead,therebyavoidingeyeexposure.These

��


lasersaresafe,evenifusedwithanopticaldevice.Children,however,maynotlookaway,andindeedmaygazedirectlyintothebeam.Forthisreasonlasersshouldnotbemadeavailabletochildren.

nClass2MarelikeClass2,butarenotsafeifusedwithanopticalsystem.

nClass3Rlasersemitinthewavelengthragefrom302.5to106nmwheredirectintrabeamviewingispotentiallyhazardousbuttheriskislowerthanforClass3Blasers.

nClass3Blasersarenormallyhazardouswhendirectintrabeamexposureoccurs.Viewingdiffusereflectionsisnormallysafe.

nClass4lasersarealsocapableofproducinghazardousdiffusereflections.Theymaycauseskininjuriesandcouldalsoconstituteafirehazard.Theiruserequiresextremecaution.

TheIECprovidesadviceontheuseoflasersfordemonstrations,displaysandexhibitionsandstatesthatonlyClass1orClass2devicesshouldbeusedinunsupervisedareasunlessunderthecontrolofexperienced,well-trainedoperators.Laserpointersusedby,forexample,professionallecturersintheworkplaceareconsideredtofallwithinthiscategory.Trainingrequirementsarespecifiedforoperatorsusinglasersofahigherclassforthesepurposes,asthereisariskofeyeinjury.

Laser pointers currently availableItappearsthattheoutputpoweroflaserpointerscurrentlywidelyavailableisgenerallylessthan5mW.Thebody’snaturalaversionresponsesareunlikelytoprovideadequateprotectionfromeyeinjuryforClass3BlaserpointersandClass3Alaserpointersusedwithopticalaids.Althoughtheriskofpermanenteyeinjuryfromalaserpointermaybesmall,apersonreceivingevenatransienteyeexposurewillexperienceabrightflash,adazzlingeffect,whichislikelytocausedistractionandtemporarylossofvisionintheaffectedeyeandpossiblyafter-images.Thetimetakentorecoverfromtheseeffectswillvaryfordifferentpeopleandwillalsobedependentontheambientlightlevelatthetimeofexposure.Medicalattentionshouldonlybesoughtifafter-imagespersistforhours,orifadisturbanceinreadingvisionisapparent.

Higher-poweredlaserpointerdevicesarebecomingavailable,andinparticularcanbepurchasedovertheInternet.Deviceswith120mwpowerarereadilyavailable.Thesearepotentiallyverydangerous,andcouldcauseseverepermanentvisualdamageveryquickly.Someofthesedevicesphysicallyresemblelowerpowereddevices,andthereispotentialfordangerousconfusion.

WHO adviceIngeneral,laserpointersareclassifiedasClass1,Class2orClass3Bproducts.However,nationalauthoritiesmakingmeasurementsofthepoweroutputoftheselasershavenotedthatsignificantmisclassificationisoccurringbymanufacturers.Inmanycases,lasershavebeenclassifiedasClass2whentheywerereallyClass3B.Moreaccurateclassificationneedstobeenforcedbyappropriateauthorities.

On Laser Pointers.WHOconsiderstheprofessionaluseofaClass1orClass2laserpointerasatrainingaidtobejustified,andregardstheseclassesoflaserproductasbeingadequateforsuchuse.TheuseofClass3Blaserpointersupto5mWmaybejustifiedforsomeapplicationsintheworkplacewheretheuserhasreceivedadequatetraining(WHO,1998).

��


1. AFSSET,2005Ultravioletradiationandhealth.AgenceFrançaisedesécuritésanitaireenvironmental:Paris.

2. AGNIR,2003,HealthEffectsfromRadiofrequencyElectromagneticFieldsReportofanindependentAdvisoryGrouponNon-ionisingRadiation,NationalRadiologicalProtectionBoard.

3. Ahlbom.A.et al.,1987,BiologicalEffectsofPowerLinesFields,ScientificAdvisoryPanelFinalReport,NewYorkStatePowerLinesProject.

4. ACA,AustralianCommunicationAuthority,Australia,2003,Electromagneticradiationand3Gmobilephonesfactsheet

5. BBCUK,1974,BBCRadio4,“Kaleidoscope”radioprogramme

6. BioelectromagneticsSociety:ProceedingsofWHO-SponsoredSymposiumon“SensitivitytoChildrentoEMFExposure”,Bioelectromagnetics,Supplement7:S1,2005

7. Bergqvist.U.et al.,1997,PossibleHealthImplicationsofSubjectiveSymptomsandElectromagneticFields,EuropeanCommissionandArbetslivsinstitutetReport1997:19

8. CancerCouncilAustralian,2006,Preventionofskincancer.www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=960742

9. Chalk.D,Summer2002,Thesecondwirelessrevolution,LinkMagazine

10. Channel4UK,EquinoxSeries,April99,LivingDangerously:Thecomplexscienceofrisk,Equinox

11. Channel4UK,EquinoxSeries,2000,HowVictoriansWiredtheWorld,Channel4U.K.TVseries

12. ChristAandKusterN,2005,DifferencesinRFenergyabsorptionintheheadsofadultsandchildren,BioelectromagneticsSppl.7,S31-S44

13. CIE/IEC,1989,InternationalLightingVocabulary.CIEPubl.No.17.4/IECPub.50(845).

14. CognettiF.et al.,2003,StatementoftheInternationalEvaluationCommitteetoInvestigatetheHealthRisksofExposuretoElectric,MagneticandElectromagneticFields,ItalianGovernmentPublication

15. COMAR:IEEECommitteeonManandRadiation,2002,Medicalaspectsofradio-frequencyradiationoverexposure,HealthPhysics,82,387-391

16. CommissionforCommunicationsRegulation,(ComReg),(Ireland)2004,(2003-2004)400sitesurvey,http://www.comreg.ie(“NIRSiteReports”).

17. COST281,2002,Workshoponmobiletelecommunicationsandchildren,2002,COST281,www.cost281.org

18. COST281,2002,WorkshoponsubtletemperatureeffectsofRF-EMF,London,November12-13,www.cost281.org

19. COST281,May2003,COST281Newsletter,COST281,www.cost281.org

20. CSTEE,“OpinionoftheCSTEEoneffectsofelectromagneticfieldsonhealth:ReplytoquestionB–Appendixtotheopinionexpressedon24September2002,”ScientificCommitteeonToxicity,EcotoxicityandtheEnvironment.Opinionexpressedatthe35thCSTEEplenarymeeting,Brussels,17December2002,http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_determinants/environment/EMF/out173_en.pdf

21. Edison,1882,NoticepositionednextLightSwitches,EdisonElectricCompany

22. EEA,2004,DefinitionofthePrecautionaryPrinciple,EuropeanEnvironmentAgency

23. Eircom,2003,InformationbookletonDECTphones,N00534-01/03

24. EUCouncil,1999,Onthelimitationofexposureofthegeneralpublictoelectromagneticfields(0Hzto300GHz),CouncilRecommendation1999/519/EC,OJ.L.199/59

25. EUParliamentandCouncil,2004,Ontheminimumhealthandsafetyrequirementsregardingtheexposureofworkerstotherisksarisingfromphysicalagents(electromagneticfields),Directive2004/40/EC,OJ.L184/1

26. EU,2006,PhysicalAgentsDirective–opticalradiation,Directive2006/25/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilontheminimumhealthandsafetyrequirementsregardingtheexposureofworkerstorisksarisingfromphysicalagents,OJL114/38.

References

��


27. FDA,Internetsite:http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#31,USFoodandDrugAdministration,Washington,DC,July29,2003

28. FitzpatrickTB,PathakMA,HarberLC,SeijiM,&KukitaA,1974,Sunlightandman.Tokyo,UniversityofTokyoPress.

29. FosterKRandRepacholiMH,2004,Biologicaleffectsofradiofrequencyfields;doesmodulationmatter?RadiationResearch,162:219-225

30. FrenchNationalAssembly,2005,Telephoniemobileetsante,Publ.No.346,AssembleNationale.

31. GeeD.,2001,LateLessonsfromEarlyWarnings,EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency

32. HardellL.et al.,1999,Useofcellulartelephonesandtheriskforbraintumours;acase-controlstudy,Int.J.Oncology,15:113-116

33. HardellL.et al.,2001,Ionisingradiation,cellulartelephonesandtheriskforbraintumours,Eur.J.CancerPrevention,10:523-529

34. HardellL.et al.,2002,Case-controlstudyontheuseofcellularandcordlessphonesandtheriskformalignantbraintumours,Int.J.RadiationBiology78:931-936

35. HardellL.et al.,2003,Furtheraspectsoncellularandcordlesstelephonesandbraintumours,Int.J.Oncology,22:399-407

36. HCN,1997,RadiofrequencyElectromagneticFieldsCommittee.RadiofrequencyElectromagneticFields(300Hz–300GHz).Rijswijk:HealthCounciloftheNetherlands,publicationnr1997/01

37. HCN,2001,ElectromagneticFieldsAnnualUpdatewww.gr.nl

38. HCN,2002,ElectromagneticFieldsCommittee,MobileTelephones:ahealth-basedanalysis.HealthCouncilpublicationno.2002/01E



41. HealthandSafetyExecutive(UK),1997,ReducingRisks,ProtectingPeopleDiscussionDocument,HSEBooks,Suffolk

42. HeikkeninP.,et al.,2003,EffectsofmobilephoneradiationonUV-inducedskintumourogenesisinornithinedecarboxylasetransgenicandnon-transgenicmice,Int.J.RadiationBiology,79:221-233

43. HilleB.,1984,IonicChannelsofExcitableMembranes,SinauerAssociatesIncMassachusetts

44. HillertL.et al.,2002,Prevalenceofself-reportedhypersensitivitytoelectricormagneticfieldsinapopulationbasedquestionnairesurvey,Scan.J.WorkEnviron.Health,28:33-41

45. HPA(UK),2005,InvestigationandIdentificationofSourcesofResidentialMagneticFieldExposuresintheUnitedKingdomChildhoodDocumentsoftheHPA,RPD-005

46. HPA(UK),2006,PowerFrequencyElectromagneticFields,MelatoninandtheRiskofBreastCancer,DocumentsoftheHPA,RCE-1

47. HPA(UK),2005,ASummaryofRecentReportsonMobilePhonesandHealth(2000–2004),NRPB-W65

48. HongKong–OfficeoftheTelecommunicationsAuthority,“KnowmoreaboutRadiofrequencyElectromagneticRadiation”,2003,http://www.ofta.gov.hk/freq-spec/radiation.pdf

49. IARC,2002,Non-ionisingRadiation.Part1:StaticandExtremelyLow-FrequencyElectricandMagneticFields.InternationalAgencyforResearchonCancerMonograph2002:80

50. ICNIRP,1994,InternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection,Guidelinesonlimitsofexposuretostaticmagneticfields

51. ICNIRP,InternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection,1998,Guidelinesforlimitingexposuretotime-varyingelectric,magnetic,andelectromagneticfields(upto300GHz),HealthPhysics74:494-522and75:442

52. ICNIRP,2001,ReviewoftheepidemiologicalliteratureonelectromagneticfieldsandhealthEnvironmentalPerspectives,109(Supp6):911-934

53. IEEE,2004,Standardforsafetylevelswithrespecttohumanexposuretoelectromagneticfieldsinthefrequencyrange0-3kHzC95.6,InternationalCommitteeonElectromagneticSafety

54. IndependentExpertGrouponMobilePhones(Chairman:SirWilliamStewart),2000,Mobilephonesandhealth,NRPB,http://www.iegmp.org.uk

55. IrishCellularIndustriesAssociation(ICIA),12thAugust2001,Interview,IrishExaminerNewspaper

56. Irvine,N.2005,Definition,EpidemiologyandManagementofElectricalSensitivity,ReportoftheHealthProtectionAgency,HPA-RPD-010

��


57. JapaneseMinistryofPostandTelecommunications,JapaneseMinistryofPublicManagement,HomeAffairs,PostsandTelecommunications,“InterimReportbyCommitteetoPromoteResearchonthePossibleBiologicalEffectsofElectromagneticFields,”30January2001

58. KeshvariJ.,Lang,S.,2005,Comparisonofradiofrequencyenergyabsorptioninearandeyeregionofchildrenandadultsat900,1800and2450MHz.,Phys.Med.Biol.50:4355-4369

59. KheifetsL.,RepacholiM.H.,SaundersR.,vanDeventerT.E.,2005,TheSensitivityofChildrentoElectromagneticFields,PediatricsVol.116,No.2

60. KRFoster,PVecchiaandMHRepacholi.ScienceandthePrecautionaryPrinciple.Science288(12May):980-981,2000.

61. KuhnS.,et al.,15-16June2005,AssessmentofHumanExposuretoElectromagneticRadiationfromWirelessDevicesinHomeandOfficeEnvironments,WHOWorkshop:BaseStationsandWirelessNetworks

62. LeFanuJ.,1996,Doctor’sDiary,RobinsonPublishingLtd.London

63. LeeperD.G.,May2002,UWBWirelessTechnology,ScientificAmerican

64. LevalloisP.,et al.,2002,Studyofself-reportedhypersensitivitytoelectromagneticfieldsinCaliforniaEnvironmentalHealthPerspectives,110(suppl.4)610-623

65. LilienfeldAM,TonasciaJ,TonasciaS,LibauerCA,CauthenGM.;EvaluationofHealthStatusofForeignServiceandOtherEmployeesfromSelectedEasternEuropeanPosts,FinalReport,ContractNo.6025-6190973(NTISPB-288163).U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,Washington,DC,1978.

66. LINK:Chalk.D.,2002,Thesecondwirelessrevolution,LinkMagazine

67. Lonn.S.et al.,2004,Mobilephoneuseandtheriskofacousticneuroma,Epidemiology15:653-659

68. McManusT.,1992,ElectromagneticFields,GovernmentPublicationsOffice,Dublin

69. McManusT.,1988,ElectromagneticFieldsfromHighVoltageTransmissionLines,GovernmentPublicationsOffice,Dublin

70. NationalCancerRegistry,2005,CancerinIreland1994-2001,www.ncri.ie/pubs/pubfiles/report2005_2.pdf

71. NewZealandMinistryofHealthandMinistryofEnvironment,“ManagingradiofrequencyemissionsundertheResourceManagementAct:Anoverview,”NewZealandMinistryofHealth,December2000

72. NIEHS,1998,AssessmentofHealthEffectsfromExposuretoPower-LineFrequencyElectricandMagneticFields,NIEHSWorkingGroupreportELF

73. NoleG.,JohnsonW.A.,2004,Ananalysisofcumulativelifetimesolarultravioletradiationexposureandthebenefitsofdailysunprotection,Dermatol.Theor.17(suppl.1)57-62

74. NRPB,2001,ELFelectromagneticfieldsandcancer,NRPBReport12

75. NRPB,2003,HealthEffectsfromRadiofrequencyElectromagneticFields,DocumentsoftheNRPB:Vol.14No.2

76. NRPB,(UK)2004,ReviewoftheScientificEvidenceforLimitingExposuretoElectromagneticFields(0-300GHz),DocumentsoftheNRPB,Vol.15No.3

77. NRPB,2004,MobilePhonesandHealth2004:ReportbytheBoardofNRPB,DocumentsoftheNRPB:Vol.15,No.5

78. O’DonnellB.et al.,ReportoncancermortalityintheBallymunArea,EasternHealthBoard,Dublin,July1992

79. OftedalG.,et al.,Symptomsexperiencedinconnectionwithmobilephoneuse,OccupationalMedicine(London),50(4):237-245

80. Parrishet al.,1978,UVABiologicalEffectsofUltravioletRadiationwithEmphasisonHumanResponsestoLongwaveUltraviolet,PlenumPress.

81. RepacholiM.H.et al.,1997,LymphomasinEmu-Pim1transgenicmiceexposedtopulsed900MHzelectromagneticfields,Radiat.Res.147(5):631-640

82. RiordanC.et al.,1990,InfluencesofAtmosphericConditionsandAirMassontheRatioofUltraviolettoSolarRadiation.SERI/TP215:3895.

83. RoosliM,.et al.,2004,Symptomsofillhealthascribedtoelectromagneticfieldexposure–aquestionnairesurvey,Int.J.Hyg.Environ.Health,207:141-150

84. RSC,“AReviewofthePotentialHealthRisksofRadiofrequencyFieldsfromWirelessTelecommunicationDevices,”RoyalSocietyofCanadaforHealthCanada,March1999

85. Rubinet al.,2005,ElectromagneticHypersensitivity:Asystematicreviewofprovocationstudies,Psychosom Med.,Mar-Apr;67(2):224-32.

��


86. Rubinet al.,2006,Asystematicreviewoftreatmentsforelectromagnetichypersensitivity,Psychother Psychosom.75(1):12-8.

87. SavitzD.A.,1988,CaseControlStudyofChildhoodCancerandExposureto60HzMagneticFields,AmericanJournalofEpidemiology,128:21–38

88. SHSA,“QuestionsandAnswers(Dowirelessphonesposeahealthhazard?”AvailableatInternetsite(http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#22)

89. SienkiewiczZ.J.,KowalczukC.I.,2005,ASummaryofRecentReportsonMobilePhonesandHealth(2000-2004),NRPB-W65

90. SSI’sIndependentExpertGrouponElectromagneticFields;RecentResearchonMobileTelephonyandHealthRisks.Secondannualreport.;2004,SSIDnr2004/3857-52

91. Utteridgeet al.,2002,Longtermexposureofe-u-Pim1transgenicmiceto898.4MHzmicrowavesdoesnotincreaselymphomaincidence,RadiatRes.158(3):357-64

92. WeinckeJ.K.et al.,1999,EarlyagesmokinginitiationandtobaccocarcinogenDNAdamageinthelung,JournalNationalCancerInstitute,91:614-619

93. WertheimerN.,LeeperE.,1979,ElectricalWiringConfigurationsandChildhoodCancer,AmericanJournalofEpidemiology,109:273-284

94. WHO,1998,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:ElectromagneticFieldsandPublicHealth,WHOFactSheetNo.183

95. WHO,1998,Healthrisksfromtheuseoflaserpointers.FactSheetNo202.

96. WHO,1998,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:ExtremelyLowFrequencyFields,FactSheetNo.205

97. WHO,1998,PublicPerceptionofEMFRisks,InternationalEMFProject,WHOGeneva

98. WHO,2000,MobilePhonesandtheirBaseStations,WorldHealthOrganisationFactSheetNo193

99. WHO,2001,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:ExtremelyLowFrequencyFieldsandCancer,FactSheetNo.263

100.WHO,2002,Handbookon“EstablishingaDialogueonRisksfromElectromagneticFields”

101.WHO,2004,WorkshoponSensitivityofChildrentoEMF,WHOInternationalEMFProject

102.WHO,2004,Workshoponelectromagnetichypersensitivity,PragueOctober25-27,2004,www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.htmlWHO,Geneva(2004)

103.WHO,15–16June2005.,BaseStations&wirelessnetworks:Exposures&healthconsequences,Workshop,WHOGenevahttp://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/base_stations_june05/en/index.html

104.WHO,2005,ElectromagneticHypersensitivity,WorldHealthOrganisationFactSheetNo.296

105.WHO,2005,WHOInternationalEMFProject:Children’sEMFResearchAgenda,www.who.int/peh-emf/research/children/en/print.htmlDoc.Ref.673-841

106.WHO,2006,Electromagneticfieldsandpublichealth:Basestationsandwirelesstechnologies,WHOFactSheet304

107.WHO,2006,EnvironmentalHealthCriteria232:Staticfields,WHO,Geneva

108.WHO,2006,WHOInternationalEMFProject,2006ConsolidatedWHOresearchagendaforradiofrequencyfields,www.who.int.peh-emf/research/rf/en/print.html,Doc.Ref.673-853

109.Ziskin,M.C.,Sept-Oct2002,ElectromagneticHypersensitivity–aCOMARTechnicalInformationStatement,IEEEEngineeringinMedicineandBiology,173.175

110.ZmirouD.,AubineauP.,BardouA.,GoldbergM.,deSezeR.,VeyretB.,“LesTéléphonesMobiles,LeursStationsdeBaseetlaSanté,”CompleteReportinFrenchathttp://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/intro.htm;EnglishSummaryinat:http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/resum_uk.htm;conclusionsandrecommendationsinEnglishathttp://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/conclus_uk.htm,2001[IEEE-1531]

111.ZookB.C.,SimmensS.J.,2001,Theeffectsof860MHZradiofrequencyradiationontheinductiontumoursandothertumoursandotherneoplasmsinrats,RadiationResearch,155:572-583

��


Dr Michael Repacholi (Chair)MichaelRepacholiisagraduateoftheUniversityofWesternAustralia(BSc,physics),LondonUniversity(MSc,radiationbiology)andOttawaUniversity(PhD,biology).Heistheauthororco-authorofover200scientificpublications.

HewastheCoordinatoroftheRadiationandEnvironmentalHealthUnitattheWorldHealthOrganisationinGenevauntilthe30June2006,andhasparticipatedintwelveWHOnon-ionisingradiationtaskgroups.

HeisanEmeritusChairmanoftheInternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection,FellowandPastPresidentoftheAustralianRadiationProtectionSocietyandoftheAustralasianCollegeofPhysicalScientistsandEngineersinMedicine.HeisalsoaFellowoftheInstituteofPhysicsandAustralianInstituteofPhysicsandisamemberoftheHealthPhysicsSocietyandoftheBioelectromagneticsSociety.

Dr Eric van Rongen EricvanRongeniscurrentlyScientificSecretarywiththeHealthCounciloftheNetherlandswherehismainfocusisonthebiologicalandhealtheffectsofnon-ionisingradiation,primarilyelectromagneticfields.Presently,heissecretarytothesemi-permanentElectromagneticFieldsCommitteeandoftheStandingCommitteeonRadiationHygiene.

Hehasbeenpart-timesecondedtoWHOtoworkontheEnvironmentalHealthCriteriaonStaticFields.HeisVice-presidentoftheEuropeanBioelectromagneticsSociety,memberoftheInternationalAdvisoryCommitteeoftheWHOEMFProject,nationalrepresentativefortheNetherlandsinCOST281,correspondingmemberofICNIRPandmemberofsubcommittees3and4oftheInternationalCommitteeonElectromagneticSafety(ICES)oftheIEEE.

Dr Tom McManusDrMcManusBSc.,PhD.,CEng.,MIChemE.,MIEEE.,holdsqualificationsinengineeringandappliedsciencefromtheUniversitiesofStrathclyde,DurhamandCambridge.FollowingworkintheoilandchemicalindustriesinEnglandandCanadahemovedtoIrelandin1970tosetupanationalenvironmentaladvisorygroupintheIIRS.Inthe1980shebeganworkingfortheDepartmentofEnergyandwasinvolvedintheintroductionofnaturalgastoIrelandandthesubsequentdevelopmentofthenationalgastransmissiongrid.From1986heheldthepostofChiefTechnicalAdvisertotheDepartmentofTransport,EnergyandCommunicationsanditssuccessorDepartmentsuntilhisretirementin2002.From1988until2006hewastheleadingadvisertovariousIrishGovernmentDepartmentsonthesubjectofelectromagneticfields.HeiscurrentlyChairman

oftheGasSafetyCommitteesetupbytheCommissionforEnergyRegulationin2004andcontinuestoassisttheEuropeanCommissiononelectromagneticfieldsprojectsundertakenbyitsJointResearchCentreinItaly.

Dr Anthony StainesDr,AnthonyStainesgraduatedfromTrinityCollegeDublinwithadegreeinmedicine,andtrainedinepidemiologyattheLondonSchoolofHygieneandTropicalMedicineandattheUniversityofLeeds.HeworkedonelectromagneticfieldhealtheffectsintheUKChildhoodCancerCase-ControlStudy.HenowleadstheEnvironmentandHealthgroup,andisaSeniorLecturer,intheSchoolofPublicHealthandPopulationSciencesatUniversityCollegeDublin.Hehasaspecialinterestinhealthimpactassessmentandriskassessment.

ExpertReviewPanelTheExpertGroupconsultedwithfourinternationalexpertstogarnerfurtherviewsandtoengageinpeerreviewofthereport.

Dr Anders AhlbomAndersAhlbomisaProfessorofEpidemiology,HeadoftheDivisionofEpidemiologyanddeputydirectoroftheInstituteofEnvironmentalMedicineattheKarolinskaInstitute,Stockholm,Sweden.Mainresearchinterestsareenvironmentalepidemiologywithanemphasisoncancer,inparticularnon-ionisingradiationandcancer.Hehasalongstandinginterestincardiovasculardiseasesandtheirrelationtotheinteractionofenvironmentalfactorsandbiomedicalriskfactors.Hisworkspansepidemiologictheoryandmethods,includingthebasisforcausalinference.Dr.AhlbomischairmanoftheICNIRPStandingCommitteeonEpidemiologyandhasbeenanICNIRPmembersince1995.

Dr Carmela MarinoCarmelaMarinoreceivedherdegreeinBiologyin1982fromtheUniversityofRome“LaSapienza”.SheisnowworkingasaresearchscientistattheDepartmentofBiotechnology,HealthandEcosystemsprotectionofENEAwhereshecoordinatesthebioelectromagneticresearchactivity.Sheisalsoacontractprofessorof“RadiobiologyandThermobiology”and“Biologicaleffectsofelectromagneticfields”inthePost-graduateSchoolofHealthPhysics,TorVergataUniversity,Rome,Italy.

Afterpreviousexperienceinthestudiesofbiologicaleffectofionisingandnon-ionisingradiationappliedtothecancertherapy,ininvivosysteminparticular(especiallyasaScientificresearchFellowattheGrayLaboratory,CancerResearch

Annex1

ExpertGroupMembership

�0


Campaign,MountVernonHospital,Northwood,UK),shehasbeeninvolvedinexperimentalstudiesonriskassessmentofelectromagneticfields.InparticularshewasthecoordinatoroftheresearchactivitySubject3–InteractionbetweensourcesandbiosystemsonbehalfofENEA(MURST/ENEA-CNRprogram“HumanandEnvironmentalProtectionfromElectromagneticEmissions”),andwasinvolvedinPERFORMBinvitroandinvivoreplicationstudiesrelatedtomobiletelephonesandbasestations;GUARD,PotentialadverseeffectsofGSMcellularphonesonhearing,RAMP2001,RiskEvaluationofPotentialEnvironmentalHazardsfromLowEnergyEMFonNeuronalSystemsfrommodellingtotissues.Currently,sheisalsoinvolvedinEMF-NET,Effectsoftheexposuretoelectromagneticfields:fromsciencetopublichealthandsaferworkplace;andEMF-Near,ExposureatUMTSelectromagneticfields:studyonpotentialadverseeffectsonhearing”.ShehasalsobeenamemberofWorkinggroup1ofCost244bisandisnowamemberoftheEBEAandBEMS,andoftheItalianSocietyforRadiationResearch,SIRR.Sheistheauthorofabout35ReferredPapersand140NationalandInternationalConferenceContributions.

Dr Alastair McKinlayAlastairMcKinlayisHeadofthePhysicalDosimetryDepartmentattheUnitedKingdomHealthProtectionAgency’sCentreforRadiation,ChemicalandEnvironmentalHazards.HeisagraduateofStrathclydeUniversityScotlandwherehereceivedaB.Sc.(Hons.)inNaturalPhilosophy.HewasawardedaPh.D.bytheUKNationalCouncilforAcademicAwardsforstudiesinthermoluminescencedosimetry.Appointmentsheldpreviouslyincluded:MembershipoftheUnitedKingdom“ApplicationofRadioactiveSubstancesAdvisoryCommittee”(ARSAC):PresidentoftheUKNationalCommitteeoftheInternationalCommissiononIllumination(CIE):ChairmanoftheEuropeanCommissionExpertGrouponMobileTelephonyandHumanHealthand:FoundingmemberoftheEuropeanSocietyofSkinCancerPrevention(EUROSKIN).AlastairiscurrentlyPresidentofEUROSKIN:AmemberoftheProgrammeManagementCommitteeoftheUKMobileTelephoneHealthResearchProgrammeand:AmemberoftheInternationalAdvisoryCommitteeoftheWHOEMFProject.HewasaMainCommissionMemberofICNIRPfromitsinceptionin1992until2004,Vice-chairmanfrom1996to2000andChairmanfrom2000to2004.

Dr Berndt StenbergBerndtStenberg,associateprofessorattheDeptofDermatology,UniversityHospital,Umeå,Sweden.HeisaspecialistindermatologyandvenereologyandPhDinEpidemiology.HeischairmanoftheSwedishContactDermatitisResearchGroup,amemberoftheexecutivegroupfortheSwedishDermato-EpidemiologyNetworkandcountryrepresentativeintheCounciloftheEuropeanSocietyforContactDermatitis(ESCD).Mainresearchinterestsareindoorenvironment(includingindoorairqualityandEMFs)andhealthandepidemiologyofoccupationalandenvironmentaldermatoses.

SubmissionsReceivedTheExpertgroupadvertisedforsubmissionsfrominterestedpartiesinDecemberof2005inordertogarnertheviewsofthewiderpublic.Submissionswerereceivedfromrepresentativesofthoseorganisationslistedbelow.

nDublinCityCouncil

nIrishElectromagneticRadiationVictimsNetwork(IERVN)

nPrincipalEnvironmentalHealthOfficer,SthDublinCo.Co.

nCommissionforCommunicationsRegulation

nBetterEnvironmentandSaferTelecommunications(BEST)

nHuntstownMastGroup

nLimerickCountyCouncil

nDefenceforces

nGSMAssociation

nOfficeoftheChiefMedicalOfficer

nElectronic&CommunicationsEngineering,DublinInstituteofTechnology

nO2Ireland

nIrishCampaignAgainstMicrowavePollution

nVodafoneIreland

nMobileManufacturersForum

nSouthDublinCountyCouncil

nIrishCellularIndustryAssociation

nDepartmentofEnterpriseTradeandEmployment(HealthandSafetyAuthority)

nHealthServicesExecutive,FacultyofPublicHealthMedicine

nGlenbeighResidentsAssociation

��


Annex2

BaseStationsandWirelessTechnologiesFactsheetNo.304,May2006

Mobiletelephonyisnowcommonplacearoundtheworld.Thiswirelesstechnologyreliesuponanextensivenetworkoffixedantennas,orbasestations,relayinginformationwithradiofrequency(RF)signals.Over1.4millionbasestationsexistworldwideandthenumberisincreasingsignificantlywiththeintroductionofthirdgenerationtechnology.

Otherwirelessnetworksthatallowhigh-speedinternetaccessandservices,suchaswirelesslocalareanetworks(WLANs),arealsoincreasinglycommoninhomes,offices,andmanypublicareas(airports,schools,residentialandurbanareas).Asthenumberofbasestationsandlocalwirelessnetworksincreases,sodoestheRFexposureofthepopulation.RecentsurveyshaveshownthattheRFexposuresfrombasestationsrangefrom0.002%to2%ofthelevelsofinternationalexposureguidelines,dependingonavarietyoffactorssuchastheproximitytotheantennaandthesurroundingenvironment.ThisislowerorcomparabletoRFexposuresfromradioortelevisionbroadcasttransmitters.

TherehasbeenconcernaboutpossiblehealthconsequencesfromexposuretotheRFfieldsproducedbywirelesstechnologies.Thisfactsheetreviewsthescientificevidenceonthehealtheffectsfromcontinuouslow-levelhumanexposuretobasestationsandotherlocalwirelessnetworks.

Health concernsAcommonconcernaboutbasestationandlocalwirelessnetworkantennasrelatestothepossiblelong-termhealtheffectsthatwhole-bodyexposuretotheRFsignalsmayhave.Todate,theonlyhealtheffectfromRFfieldsidentifiedinscientificreviewshasbeenrelatedtoanincreaseinbodytemperature(>1°C)fromexposureatveryhighfieldintensityfoundonlyincertainindustrialfacilities,suchasRFheaters.ThelevelsofRFexposurefrombasestationsandwirelessnetworksaresolowthatthetemperatureincreasesareinsignificantanddonotaffecthumanhealth.

ThestrengthofRFfieldsisgreatestatitssource,anddiminishesquicklywithdistance.AccessnearbasestationantennasisrestrictedwhereRFsignalsmayexceedinternationalexposurelimits.RecentsurveyshaveindicatedthatRFexposuresfrombasestationsandwirelesstechnologiesinpubliclyaccessibleareas(includingschoolsandhospitals)arenormallythousandsoftimesbelowinternationalstandards.

Infact,duetotheirlowerfrequency,atsimilarRFexposurelevels,thebodyabsorbsuptofivetimesmoreofthesignalfromFMradioandtelevisionthanfrombasestations.ThisisbecausethefrequenciesusedinFMradio(around100MHz)andinTVbroadcasting(around300to400MHz)arelowerthanthoseemployedinmobiletelephony(900MHzand1800MHz)andbecauseaperson’sheightmakesthebodyanefficientreceivingantenna.Further,radioandtelevisionbroadcaststationshavebeeninoperationforthepast50ormoreyearswithoutanyadversehealthconsequencebeingestablished.

Whilemostradiotechnologieshaveusedanalogsignals,modernwirelesstelecommunicationsareusingdigitaltransmissions.DetailedreviewsconductedsofarhavenotrevealedanyhazardspecifictodifferentRFmodulations.

Cancer: Mediaoranecdotalreportsofcancerclustersaroundmobilephonebasestationshaveheightenedpublicconcern.Itshouldbenotedthatgeographically,cancersareunevenlydistributedamonganypopulation.Giventhewidespreadpresenceofbasestationsintheenvironment,itisexpectedthatpossiblecancerclusterswilloccurnearbasestationsmerelybychance.Moreover,thereportedcancersintheseclustersareoftenacollectionofdifferenttypesofcancerwithnocommoncharacteristicsandhenceunlikelytohaveacommoncause.

Scientificevidenceonthedistributionofcancerinthepopulationcanbeobtainedthroughcarefullyplannedandexecutedepidemiologicalstudies.Overthepast15years,studiesexaminingapotentialrelationshipbetweenRFtransmittersandcancerhavebeenpublished.ThesestudieshavenotprovidedevidencethatRFexposurefromthetransmittersincreasestheriskofcancer.Likewise,long-termanimalstudieshavenotestablishedanincreasedriskofcancerfromexposuretoRFfields,evenatlevelsthataremuchhigherthanproducedbybasestationsandwirelessnetworks.

Other effects: FewstudieshaveinvestigatedgeneralhealtheffectsinindividualsexposedtoRFfieldsfrombasestations.ThisisbecauseofthedifficultyindistinguishingpossiblehealtheffectsfromtheverylowsignalsemittedbybasestationsfromotherhigherstrengthRFsignalsintheenvironment.MoststudieshavefocusedontheRFexposuresofmobilephoneusers.Humanandanimalstudiesexaminingbrainwavepatterns,cognitionandbehaviourafterexposuretoRFfields,suchasthosegeneratedbymobilephones,havenotidentifiedadverseeffects.RFexposuresusedinthesestudieswereabout1000timeshigherthanthoseassociatedwithgeneralpublicexposurefrombasestationsorwirelessnetworks.Noconsistentevidenceofalteredsleeporcardiovascularfunctionhasbeenreported.

��


Someindividualshavereportedthattheyexperiencenon-specificsymptomsuponexposuretoRFfieldsemittedfrombasestationsandotherEMFdevices.AsrecognisedinarecentWHOfactsheet“ElectromagneticHypersensitivity”,EMFhasnotbeenshowntocausesuchsymptoms.Nonetheless,itisimportanttorecognisetheplightofpeoplesufferingfromthesesymptoms.

Fromallevidenceaccumulatedsofar,noadverseshort-orlong-termhealtheffectshavebeenshowntooccurfromtheRFsignalsproducedbybasestations.SincewirelessnetworksproducegenerallylowerRFsignalsthanbasestations,noadversehealtheffectsareexpectedfromexposuretothem.

Protection standardsInternationalexposureguidelineshavebeendevelopedtoprovideprotectionagainstestablishedeffectsfromRFfieldsbytheInternationalCommissiononNon-IonisingRadiationProtection(ICNIRP,1998)andtheInstituteofElectricalandElectronicEngineers(IEEE,2005).

NationalauthoritiesshouldadoptinternationalstandardstoprotecttheircitizensagainstadverselevelsofRFfields.Theyshouldrestrictaccesstoareaswhereexposurelimitsmaybeexceeded.

Public perception of risk SomepeopleperceiverisksfromRFexposureaslikelyandevenpossiblysevere.Severalreasonsforpublicfearincludemediaannouncementsofnewandunconfirmedscientificstudies,leadingtoafeelingofuncertaintyandaperceptionthattheremaybeunknownorundiscoveredhazards.Otherfactorsareaestheticconcernsandafeelingofalackofcontrolorinputtotheprocessofdeterminingthelocationofnewbasestations.ExperienceshowsthateducationprogrammesaswellaseffectivecommunicationsandinvolvementofthepublicandotherstakeholdersatappropriatestagesofthedecisionprocessbeforeinstallingRFsourcescanenhancepublicconfidenceandacceptability.

ConclusionsConsideringtheverylowexposurelevelsandresearchresultscollectedtodate,thereisnoconvincingscientificevidencethattheweakRFsignalsfrombasestationsandwirelessnetworkscauseadversehealtheffects.

WHO initiativesWHO,throughtheInternationalEMFProject,hasestablishedaprogrammetomonitortheEMFscientificliterature,toevaluatethehealtheffectsfromexposuretoEMFintherangefrom0to300GHz,toprovideadviceaboutpossibleEMFhazardsandtoidentifysuitablemitigationmeasures.Followingextensiveinternationalreviews,theInternationalEMFProjecthaspromotedresearchtofillgapsinknowledge.Inresponsenationalgovernmentsandresearchinstituteshavefundedover$250milliononEMFresearchoverthepast10years.

WhilenohealtheffectsareexpectedfromexposuretoRFfieldsfrombasestationsandwirelessnetworks,researchisstillbeingpromotedbyWHOtodeterminewhetherthereareanyhealthconsequencesfromthehigherRFexposuresfrommobilephones.

TheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer(IARC),aWHOspecialisedagency,isexpectedtoconductareviewofcancerriskfromRFfieldsin2006-2007andtheInternationalEMFProjectwillthenundertakeanoverallhealthriskassessmentforRFfieldsin2007-2008.

Further readingIEEE(2006)IEEEC95.1-2005“IEEEStandardforSafetyLevelswithRespecttoHumanExposuretoRadioFrequencyElectromagneticFields,3kHzto300GHz”

��


Associetiesindustrialiseandthetechnologicalrevolutioncontinues,therehasbeenanunprecedentedincreaseinthenumberanddiversityofelectromagneticfield(EMF)sources.Thesesourcesincludevideodisplayunits(VDUs)associatedwithcomputers,mobilephonesandtheirbasestations.Whilethesedeviceshavemadeourlifericher,saferandeasier,theyhavebeenaccompaniedbyconcernsaboutpossiblehealthrisksduetotheirEMFemissions.

ForsometimeanumberofindividualshavereportedavarietyofhealthproblemsthattheyrelatetoexposuretoEMF.Whilesomeindividualsreportmildsymptomsandreactbyavoidingthefieldsasbesttheycan,othersaresoseverelyaffectedthattheyceaseworkandchangetheirentirelifestyle.ThisreputedsensitivitytoEMFhasbeengenerallytermed“electromagnetichypersensitivity”orEHS.

Thisfactsheetdescribeswhatisknownabouttheconditionandprovidesinformationforhelpingpeoplewithsuchsymptoms.InformationprovidedisbasedonaWHOWorkshoponElectricalHypersensitivity(Prague,CzechRepublic,2004),aninternationalconferenceonEMFandnon-specifichealthsymptoms(COST244bis,1998),aEuropeanCommissionreport(BergqvistandVogel,1997)andrecentreviewsoftheliterature.

What is EHS?EHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptoms,whichafflictedindividualsattributetoexposuretoEMF.Thesymptomsmostcommonlyexperiencedincludedermatologicalsymptoms(redness,tingling,andburningsensations)aswellasneurasthenicandvegetativesymptoms(fatigue,tiredness,concentrationdifficulties,dizziness,nausea,heartpalpitation,anddigestivedisturbances).Thecollectionofsymptomsisnotpartofanyrecognisedsyndrome.

EHSresemblesmultiplechemicalsensitivities(MCS),anotherdisorderassociatedwithlow-levelenvironmentalexposurestochemicals.BothEHSandMCSarecharacterisedbyarangeofnon-specificsymptomsthatlackapparenttoxicologicalorphysiologicalbasisorindependentverification.AmoregeneraltermforsensitivitytoenvironmentalfactorsisIdiopathicEnvironmentalIntolerance(IEI),whichoriginatedfromaworkshopconvenedbytheInternationalProgramonChemicalSafety(IPCS)oftheWHOin1996inBerlin.IEIisadescriptorwithoutanyimplicationofchemicaletiology,immunologicalsensitivityorEMFsusceptibility.IEIincorporatesanumberofdisorderssharingsimilarnon-specificmedicallyunexplainedsymptomsthatadverselyaffectpeople.HoweversincethetermEHSisincommonusageitwillcontinuetobeusedhere.

Prevalence

ThereisaverywiderangeofestimatesoftheprevalenceofEHSinthegeneralpopulation.AsurveyofoccupationalmedicalcentresestimatedtheprevalenceofEHStobeafewindividualspermillioninthepopulation.However,asurveyofself-helpgroupsyieldedmuchhigherestimates.Approximately10%ofreportedcasesofEHSwereconsideredsevere.

ThereisalsoconsiderablegeographicalvariabilityinprevalenceofEHSandinthereportedsymptoms.ThereportedincidenceofEHShasbeenhigherinSweden,Germany,andDenmark,thanintheUnitedKingdom,Austria,andFrance.VDU-relatedsymptomsweremoreprevalentinScandinaviancountries,andtheyweremorecommonlyrelatedtoskindisordersthanelsewhereinEurope.SymptomssimilartothosereportedbyEHSindividualsarecommoninthegeneralpopulation.

Studies on EHS individualsAnumberofstudieshavebeenconductedwhereEHSindividualswereexposedtoEMFsimilartothosethattheyattributedtothecauseoftheirsymptoms.Theaimwastoelicitsymptomsundercontrolledlaboratoryconditions.

ThemajorityofstudiesindicatethatEHSindividualscannotdetectEMFexposureanymoreaccuratelythannon-EHSindividuals.Wellcontrolledandconducteddouble-blindstudieshaveshownthatsymptomswerenotcorrelatedwithEMFexposure.

IthasbeensuggestedthatsymptomsexperiencedbysomeEHSindividualsmightarisefromenvironmentalfactorsunrelatedtoEMF.Examplesmayinclude“flicker”fromfluorescentlights,glareandothervisualproblemswithVDUs,andpoorergonomicdesignofcomputerworkstations.Otherfactorsthatmayplayaroleincludepoorindoorairqualityorstressintheworkplaceorlivingenvironment.

Therearealsosomeindicationsthatthesesymptomsmaybeduetopre-existingpsychiatricconditionsaswellasstressreactionsasaresultofworryingaboutEMFhealtheffects,ratherthantheEMFexposureitself.

ConclusionsEHSischaracterisedbyavarietyofnon-specificsymptomsthatdifferfromindividualtoindividual.Thesymptomsarecertainlyrealandcanvarywidelyintheirseverity.Whateveritscause,EHScanbeadisablingproblemfortheaffectedindividual.EHShasnocleardiagnosticcriteriaandthereisnoscientificbasistolinkEHSsymptomstoEMFexposure.Further,EHSisnotamedicaldiagnosis,norisitclearthatitrepresentsasinglemedicalproblem.

Annex3

ElectromagneticHypersensitivityFactsheetNo.296,December2005

��


Physicians:Treatmentofaffectedindividualsshouldfocusonthehealthsymptomsandtheclinicalpicture,andnotontheperson’sperceivedneedforreducingoreliminatingEMFintheworkplaceorhome.Thisrequires:

namedicalevaluationtoidentifyandtreatanyspecificconditionsthatmayberesponsibleforthesymptoms,

napsychologicalevaluationtoidentifyalternativepsychiatric/psychologicalconditionsthatmayberesponsibleforthesymptoms,

nanassessmentoftheworkplaceandhomeforfactorsthatmightcontributetothepresentedsymptoms.Thesecouldincludeindoorairpollution,excessivenoise,poorlighting(flickeringlight)orergonomicfactors.Areductionofstressandotherimprovementsintheworksituationmightbeappropriate.

ForEHSindividualswithlonglastingsymptomsandseverehandicaps,therapyshouldbedirectedprincipallyatreducingsymptomsandfunctionalhandicaps.Thisshouldbedoneincloseco-operationwithaqualifiedmedicalspecialist(toaddressthemedicalandpsychologicalaspectsofthesymptoms)andahygienist(toidentifyand,ifnecessary,controlfactorsintheenvironmentthatareknowntohaveadversehealtheffectsofrelevancetothepatient).

Treatmentshouldaimtoestablishaneffectivephysician-patientrelationship,helpdevelopstrategiesforcopingwiththesituationandencouragepatientstoreturntoworkandleadanormalsociallife.

EHSindividuals:Apartfromtreatmentbyprofessionals,selfhelpgroupscanbeavaluableresourcefortheEHSindividual.

Governments:GovernmentsshouldprovideappropriatelytargetedandbalancedinformationaboutpotentialhealthhazardsofEMFtoEHSindividuals,health-careprofessionalsandemployers.TheinformationshouldincludeaclearstatementthatnoscientificbasiscurrentlyexistsforaconnectionbetweenEHSandexposuretoEMF.

Researchers:SomestudiessuggestthatcertainphysiologicalresponsesofEHSindividualstendtobeoutsidethenormalrange.Inparticular,hyperreactivityinthecentralnervoussystemandimbalanceintheautonomicnervoussystemneedtobefollowedupinclinicalinvestigationsandtheresultsfortheindividualstakenasinputforpossibletreatment.

What WHO is doing WHO,throughitsInternationalEMFProject,isidentifyingresearchneedsandco-ordinatingaworld-wideprogramofEMFstudiestoallowabetterunderstandingofanyhealthriskassociatedwithEMFexposure.Particularemphasisisplacedonpossiblehealthconsequencesoflow-levelEMF.InformationabouttheEMFProjectandEMFeffectsisprovidedinaseriesoffactsheetsinseverallanguageswww.who.int/emf/.

Further ReadingWHOworkshoponelectromagnetichypersensitivity(2004),October25-27,Prague,CzechRepublic,www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.html

COST244bis(1998)ProceedingsfromCost244bisInternationalWorkshoponElectromagneticFieldsandNon-SpecificHealthSymptoms.Sept19-20,1998,Graz,Austria

BergqvistUandVogelE(1997)Possiblehealthimplicationsofsubjectivesymptomsandelectromagneticfield.AreportpreparedbyaEuropeangroupofexpertsfortheEuropeanCommission,DGV.ArbeteochHälsa,1997:19.SwedishNationalInstituteforWorkingLife,Stockholm,Sweden.ISBN91-7045-438-8.

RubinGJ,DasMunshiJ,WesselyS.(2005)Electromagnetichypersensitivity:asystematicreviewofprovocationstudies.PsychosomMed.2005Mar-Apr;67(2):224-32

SeitzH,StinnerD,EikmannTh,HerrC,RoosliM.(2005)Electromagnetichypersensitivity(EHS)andsubjectivehealthcomplaintsassociatedwithelectromagneticfieldsofmobilephonecommunication–aliteraturereviewpublishedbetween2000and2004.ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment,June20(Epubaheadofprint).

StaudenmayerH.(1999)EnvironmentalIllness,LewisPublishers,WashingtonD.C.1999,ISBN1-56670-305-0.

Formoreinformationcontact:WHOMediacentreTelephone:+41227912222Email:[email protected]

��


IfspecificdiseasecannotbedetectedInmanycases,theinvestigationdoesnotresultinaspecificmedicaldiagnosis.Besidesskinchanges,itisraretofindanypathologicalabnormalitiesintheclinicalinvestigationorinthelaboratorytests.Thepatient’sconceptionthatthesymptomsarecausedbyelectricity(electromagneticfields)maypersistandthepatientmayinsistthatreducingtheexposuretoelectromagneticfieldsisimportant.Thedoctor’sjobisthentoprovideinformationoncurrentknowledgebasedonscienceandmedicalexperience.

Reducingexposuretoelectromagneticfields

It is not the job of the attending physicians to recommend whether actions to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields should be carried out. There is no firm scientific support that such treatment is effective. Instead, these questions may be dealt by the employers or local authorities, who in some cases have decided to grant home adaptation grants (for such actions).

Replacement of electric equipment e.g. fluorescent tubes with light bulbs, replacement of cathode ray tubes with displays of liquid crystals, so-called LCD, may be tested as a part in a rehabilitation plan. Some measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields is sometimes also part of such actions. Advantages and potential drawback of such actions should carefully be considered in each individual case, before implementation, e.g. how to handle the situation if there is no improvement in health.”

InSwedenthefocusisonthesymptomspresentedbytheafflictedperson(symptomdiagnosis)andtherighttosickleave,sicknessbenefits,disabilitypensionetcisbasedonthedegreeofillhealthandfunctionalhandicapofthepersonregardlessofknownorunknowncauseforthecondition.Thereisnospecifictreatmentandsincetheclinicalpicturevariesfromcasetocaseanyrecommendationforinterventionsortreatmentstobetriedhastobebasedonabroadevaluationofeachindividual’sspecificsituation(includingmedicalinvestigation,psychosocialsituationandpossiblecontributingenvironmentalfactors).Treatmentsknowntoreducethetypeofsymptomspresentedbythepatientmightbetried.Itisimportantthatatrustfulpatient-doctorrelationshipisestablishedandthatamedicalphysicianwillofferfollow-upvisitstoensure(aftertheinitialmedicalworkupaimedatexcludingknownmedical

conditionsthatrequireinterventionsandtreatments)thatnewmedicalevaluationsaremadewhenmotivatede.g.bychangeinsymptoms.

Electromagnetichypersensitivityhasnotbeenacceptedasaworkinjury.

FiveSwedishauthorities(responsibleforactivitiesrelatedtoelectromagneticfields:TheSwedishNationalBoardofOccupationalSafetyandHealth,NationalBoardofHousing,BuildingandPlanning,NationalElectricalSafetyBoard,NationalBoardofHealthandWelfare,RadiationProtectionInstitute)haverecommendedaprecautionaryprincipleprimarilyaimedatlowfrequencymagneticfieldsbasedonsuspectedcancerrisks(issued1996).Thedocumentdeclaresthattherecommendationdoesnotrefertoelectromagnetichypersensitivity(theauthorities“refrainfromissuinganyjoint,generalrecommendationonthissubject.Itisveryimportant,however,thatelectricallyhypersensitivepersonsshouldbeunconditionallyexaminedbyhealthandmedicalservices,onthebasisoftheirsymptoms.”)

TheSwedishBoardofHealthandWelfareistheSwedishauthoritytograntfinancialsupportthroughthenationalbudgettodisabilityorganisations.Adisabilityorganisationisaccordingtotheauthoritiesunderstoodtobeanorganisationwhichmembers(atleastamajorityof)meetsubstantialdifficultiesineverydaylifeduetosomekindofdisability.TheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfarethusmaketheirdecisionsbasedontheconsequencesfortheafflictedindividualsandnotbasedonanyknownunderlyingcauseofthedisability/problems.TheSwedishAssociationfortheElectrosensitivewasgrantedfinancialsupportasadisabilityorganisation.MostdisabilityorganisationsthathavereceivedthistypeoffinancialsupportjointheSwedishDisabilityFederation,ashasTheSwedishAssociationfortheElectrosensitive.ThisfacthassometimesbeenmisinterpretedasifelectromagnetichypersensitivityisarecognisedmedicaldiagnosisinSweden.

Annex4

GuidelinesfromtheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfareConcerningtheTreatmentofPatientswhoAttributetheirDiscomforttoAmalgamandElectricity

��


A n R o i n n C u m a r s á i d e , M a r a a g u s A c m h a i n n í N á d ú r t h aD e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , M a r i n e a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u rc e s2 9 - 3 1 A d e l a i d e R o a d , D u b l i n 2 , I r e l a n dH e a d o f f i c e : Te l : + 3 5 3 - 1 - 6 7 8 2 0 0 0L o C a l l : 1 8 9 0 - 4 4 - 9 9 - 0 0 w w w. d c m n r. g o v. i e

Health Ef Fects of Electroma Gnet Ic F Ields

Documents

Transcript of Health Ef Fects of Electroma Gnet Ic F Ields