Why should you be concerned about Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) health effects?
What are they?
If you quickly glance through the red lettered words in the Section titles from the Bioinitiative Report ,2012 Table of Contents, you will begin to get an understanding of the many associations that are beginning to develop between EMF radiation and diseases or disease mechanisms.
Please visit here (www.bioinitiative.org) to view the actual chapters or the handy chapter summary near the top of the document.
The BioInitiative 2012 Table of Contents (www.bioinitiative.org)
SECTION 6 EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS – RF AND ELF DNA DAMAGE
CONCLUSIONS: Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits.
ELF = Extremely Low Frequencies (1Hz to 2,000 Hz)
RF = Radio Frequency (300,000 Hz to 300 Billion Hz, 300 GHz)
SECTION 7 EVIDENCE FOR STRESS RESPONSE (STRESS PROTEINS)
CONCLUSIONS: Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful. This is another important way in which scientists have documented the ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it happens at levels far below the existing public safety standards.
SECTION 8 EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON IMMUNE FUNCTION
CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards.
SECTION 9 EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON NEUROLOGY AND BEHAVIOR
CONCLUSIONS: There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use affect electrical activity of the brain.
The consequences of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgement, memory, learning, and control over behavior.
SECTION 10* EFFECTS OF EMF FROM WIRELESS COMMUNICATION UPON THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER (BBB)
CONCLUSIONS: The BBB is a protective barrier that prevents the flow of toxins into the sensitive brain tissue. Increased permeability of the BBB caused by cell phone RFR may result in neuronal damage. . . BBB effects occur at about 1000 times lower RFR exposure levels than the US and ICNIRP limits allow.
ICNIRP = International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection
SECTION 11 EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN TUMORS AND ACOUSTIC NEUROMAS
CONCLUSIONS: People who have used a cell phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumors and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.
The current standards for exposure to the emissions of cellphones and cordless phones is not safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks,
SECTION 12 EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA)
CONCLUSIONS: There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia.
There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF exposure but not enough studies have been done.
SECTION 13 EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON MELATONIN, ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND BREAST CANCER
CONCLUSIONS: Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of the nervous system. There is strong evidence that long-term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.
SECTION 14 EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCER PROMOTION
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher.
mG = milli-Gauss = one thousandth of a Gauss
Gauss = Unit of measurement for magnetic fields
SECTION 15 EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION BY THE MODULATING SIGNAL
Human stem cells do not adapt to chronic exposures to non-thermal microwave (cannot repair damaged DNA), and damage to DNA in genes in other cells generally do not repair as efficiently.
SECTION 16 * PLAUSIBLE GENETIC AND METABOLIC MECHANISMS FOR BIOEFFECTS OF VERY WEAK ELF MAGNETIC FIELDS ON LIVING TISSUES
CONCLUSIONS: Oxidative stress through the action of free radical damage to DNA is a plausible biological mechanism for cancer and diseases that involve damage from ELF to the central nervous system.
SECTION 17 EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF MEDICAL THERAPEUTICS
CONCLUSIONS: Medical conditions are successfully treated using EMFs at levels below current public safety standards, proving another way, that the body recognizes and responds to low-intensity EMF signals. Otherwise, these medical treatments could not work. The FDA has approved EMF medical treatment devices, so is clearly aware of this paradox.
FDA = Food and Drug Administration
SECTION 18 * FERTILITY AND REPRODUCTION EFFECTS OF EMF
CONCLUSIONS: Human sperm are damaged by cell phone radiation at very low intensities in the low microwatt and nanowatt/cm2 range (0.00034 – 0.07 uW/cm2). There is a veritable flood of new studies reporting sperm damage in human and animals, leading to substantial concerns for fertility, reproduction and health of offspring (unrepaired do novo mutations in sperm). Exposure levels are similar to those resulting from wearing a cell phone on the belt, or in the pants pocket, or using a wireless laptop on the lap. Sperm lack the ability to repair DNS damage.
Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is measured in uW/cm2 = micro watts per centimeter squared. For example, the amount allowable near a cell tower is 1000 uW/cm2 for some frequencies.
SECTION 19 * FETAL AND NEONATAL EFFECTS OF EMF
CONCLUSIONS: Fetal (in-utero) and early childhood exposures to cell phone radiation and wireless technologies in general may be a risk factor for hyperactivity, learning disorders and behavioral problems in school. . . .
“Children whose mothers used cell phones during pregnancy had a 25% more emotional problems, 35% more hyperactivity, 49% more conduct problems and 34% more peer problems.” (Divan et. al. 2008)