one of the most pervasive environmental exposures

in industrialized countries ... Read more]]> “You cannot see it, taste it or smell it, but it is

one of the most pervasive environmental exposures

in industrialized countries today.”

(BioInitiative, 2007:3).

The last century witnessed an explosion of technologies that produce electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and there will be even more of these innovative technologies in the 21st century. Since the 1970s, a variety of laboratory and epidemiological studies worldwide came up with contradictory conclusions about health impacts of EMFs. This essay focuses on recent investigations, and shows that there is growing evidence among scientists and the public about possible health risks associated with EMFs (BioInitiative, 2007). There are also some studies, that do not show any adverse health effects of EMFs (European Comission, 2004), but they are beyond the scope of the essay.

Today, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) and radiofrequency radiation (RF) (BioInitiative, 2007). ELFs are generated by electrical and electronic appliances (microwave ovens, hairdryers, etc.), electric wiring, power lines, and electric train and tram cables (Health Canada, 2007). RF radiation arises from devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth” type technologies, and broadcast transmission towers (European Comission, 2004). Occupational exposure to ELFs may come from computers, industrial electric furnaces and motors.

Our planet has an EMF of its own, and all living creatures are tuned to this frequency, which determines all important processes in their life. “Human hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body” (BioInitiative, 2007:3). This interaction may result in adverse health effects. The existing limit for human EMF exposure set by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is 1000 milligauss (mG) (904 mG in the US) (BioInitiative, 2007).

International Agency for Cancer Research classified ELF as a Possible Human Carcinogen (in the Group 2B carcinogen list) (Kheifets et. al., 2006). It was shown that increased risk for childhood leukemia starts at levels almost one thousand times below the safety standard (Edwards and Graham-Rowe, 2002; Green, 1999; Ha et al., 2007; Svedsen et al., 2007). Lowenthal at al. (2007) showed that children, who were raised for their first five years of life within 300 meters of a high-voltage electric power line, had a life-time risk that is 500% higher for developing some kinds of cancers (cited in BioInitiative, 2007).

Prenatal exposure to EMF has been identified as possible risk factor for childhood leukemia (BioInitiative, 2007). It was found that exposure to more than 16mG of electromagnetic energy increased a woman’s risk of miscarriage by six times in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy (EHSToday, 2002). Low birth weight and perinatal depression might be associated with exposure to EMFs as well (Laurence, 2007).

There is significant evidence of relationship between occupational exposure to EMFs and leukemia in adults. Forssen et al. (2005) suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures in the workplace of 10 mG and higher. It was shown that workers in the highest 10% category for EMF exposure were twice as likely to die of prostate cancer as those exposed at lower levels (Charles et al., 2003, cited in BioInitiative, 2007).

More than one dozen studies suggest that RF radiation from cell and cordless phones exposure is a risk factor for brain tumors and acoustic neuromas (Institute of Science in Society, n.d.; Svoboda, 2004). For people, who have used a cell phone for more than 10 years, there is a 20% increased risk of a brain tumor, when the cell phone is used on both sides of the head, and a 200% increased risk, when the cell phone is used predominantly on one side of the head (Herdell et. al., 2007, cited in BioInitiative, 2007). The risk of brain tumor from cordless phone use is 220% higher when used mostly on both sides of the head, and 470% higher (one side of the head) (Herdell et. al., 2007, cited in BioInitiative, 2007). Recently, Herdell found that after one or more years of cell phone use, there was a 5.2-fold elevated risk of malignant brain tumour in children who began using mobile phones before age 20 (OR of 1.4 for other ages) (Schmidt, 2009). Some studies reported higher brain tumor rates in connection with occupational exposure (BioInitiative, 2007).

There is strong evidence that exposing humans to cell phone radiation can affect normal brainwave activity, memory and learning (BioInitiative, 2007). The effects can depend on such factors as age of the individual and state of health, head shape and size, the location, size and shape of internal brain structures, the hydration, thickness and dielectric constant of various tissues, and so on (BioInitiative, 2007). Exposure conditions, including frequency, orientation and duration of exposure, also have a great influence on the outcome. Chronic exposure to RF radiation causes such symptoms as fatigue, headache, insomnia, grogginess, dizziness, ringing in the ears, and problems with concentration, balance and orientation (BioInitiative, 2007). There is little doubt that long-term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Feychting et al., 2003; Hakansson et al.; 2003 Qio et al., 2004; WHO, 2007b).

Some studies show that EMFs can cause changes in how DNA works (Lai and Singh, 2004; BioInitiative, 2007). The European research program (REFLEX, 2004) produced information on EMFs effects from more than a dozen different researchers, and documented many changes in normal biological functioning in tests on DNA (BioInitiative, 2007). It was shown that “genotoxic effects and a modified expression of numerous genes and proteins after EMFs exposure could be demonstrated with great certainty” and “the induced DNA damage was not based on thermal effects and arouses consideration about the environmental safety limits for ELF-EMF exposure” (REFLEX, 2004). Chronic exposure to ELF and RF can change normal immune function, lead to chronic allergic responses and inflammatory diseases (BioInitiative, 2007).

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is intolerance for any level of exposure to ELF and/or RF (WHO, 2005). According to reports from many countries, about 3-5% of population have the disease, and it is a growing problem (WHO, 2005). EHS requires the affected person to make drastic changes in work and living conditions, and can be disabling (BioInitiative, 2007). In Sweden, EHS is officially recognized as fully functional impairment (BioInitiative, 2007).

Significant fact is that EMFs can be effective in medical treatments at energy levels far below current public exposure standards (BioInitiative, 2007). Some forms of EMFs exposure are used to treat depression, to heal bone fractures and wounds to the skin and underlying tissues, and to reduce pain and swelling (BioInitiative, 2007). “How can scientists dispute the harmful effects of EMF exposures while at the same time using forms of EMF treatment that are proven to heal the body? No one would recommend that drugs used in medical treatments and prevention of disease be randomly given to the public, especially to children, yet random and involuntary exposures to EMFs occur all the time in daily life” (BioInitiative, 2007:20).

The ICNIRP limiting standards for EMFs exposure are based on short-term acute exposure and immediate health effects, such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and elevated tissue temperatures, but the biological cell communications systems of people is likely to be harmfully disrupted at energy levels below that needed for tissue heating (ICNIRP, 1998; Gee, 2009). The guidelines do not do not include time weighted averaging of human exposure to EMFs, a consideration important in the determination of a health effect, and do not protect the public from long-term exposure (Manitoba Clean Environment Comission, 2001; Havas, 2004). Besides, the standards for exposure to EMFs are based on the “standard reference man”, not scaled to children or adults of smaller stature (Manitoba Clean Environment Comission, 2001). Moreover, the guidelines do not consider that children may be more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure, as they are growing, their rate of cellular activity and division is more rapid, and they may be more at risk for DNA damage (BioInitiative, 2007).

The existing public exposure limits of 1000 mG (904 mG in the US) can no longer be said to be protective of public health: exposure level that has been linked in occupational studies with increased risk of adult cancers and neurological diseases is 4 mG and above (Feychting et al., 2003; Hakansson et al.; 2003 Qio et al., 2004; BioInitiative, 2007), and increased risk for childhood leukemia starts at exposure levels over 1.4 mG (Green et. al., 1999). BioInitiative (2007) suggests that the EMF exposure limits should be set below this 1.4 mG-level and plus an additional safety factor. “What stands out is the consistency of the association of exposure and disease, – says Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health & the Environment at the University at Albany, discussing findings of 15 studies from health researchers in six countries. – The evidence is sufficiently strong that there needs to be public warnings, there needs to be establishments of exposure guidelines and that the present guidelines – in Canada, the United States or anyone else – are not protective of human health” (Schmidt, 2009).

“Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives” (Prof. Jacquie McGlade, Executive Director ,EEA, Sep. 2007, cited in Gee, 2009). Government and industry should promote research to further reduce the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the health effects caused by EMF exposure (European Comission, 2007; WHO, 2007a). However, it is very difficult to do clinical studies on EMFs, as everybody with and without diseases has multiple and overlapping exposures, and as it is almost impossible to find anyone who is not already exposed to EMFs (BioInitiative, 2007). Policy decisions and community action are required to reduce occupational exposure, ensure placement of high-voltage power lines to minimize exposure, and ensure adequate manufacturing guidelines to minimize EMFs (Toronto Public Health, 2001). It is necessary to educate decision-makers and the public about sources of exposure and ways to reduce risk. As well, coordination and consultation should be improved among industry and government at the planning process for low-EMF environments and in EMF-emitting facilities (WHO, 2007a).

In today’s world, no one can avoid exposure of EMFs. “There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.” (BioInitiative, 2007:7). It is vital to consider ways in which to evaluate risks and to reduce exposure, while there is still time to make changes.

References:

BioInitiative (August 31, 2007). A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

Edwards, R. and Graham-Rowe, D. (6 March, 2002). Electrical connection. New Scientist.

EHSToday (Jan 10, 2002). EMF Exposure Linked to Increased Risk of Miscarriage. ehstoday.com/news/ehs_imp_35076/

European Comission (2004). Health and electromagnetic fields.
ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/environment/EMF/brochure_en.pdf

European Comission (2007). Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.
ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_007.pdf

Feychting, M., Jonsson, F., Pedersen, N.L. and Ahlbom, A. (2003). Occupational magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative disease. Epidemiology 14: 413-419.

Foliart, D.E ., Pollock, B.H., Mezei, G., Iriye, R., Silva, J.M., Epi, K.L. Kheifets, L., Lind, M.P., Kavet, R. (2006). Magnetic field exposure and long-term survival among children with leukemia. British Journal of Cancer (94): 161-164.

Forssen, U.M., Rutqvist, L.E., Ahlbom, A., Feychting, M. (2005). Occupational magnetic fields and female breast cancer: a case-control study using Swedish population registers and new exposure data. American Journal of Epidemiology (161): 250-259.

Gee, D. (2009). EMF: Evaluating Evidence and Use of the Precautionary Principle.
Science, Policy, Innovation, EEA, Copenhagen.
ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20090211_co14_en.pdf

Green L.M., Miller, A.B., Villeneuve, P.J., Agnew, D.A., Greenberg, M.L., Li, J., Donnelly K.E. (1999). A case-control study of childhood leukemia in southern Ontario Canada and exposure to magnetic fields in residences. International Journal of Cancer (82): 161-170.

Ha, M., Im, H., Lee, M., Kim, H., Kim, B., Gimm, Y., Pack, J. (1 August 2007). Radio-Frequency Radiation Exposure from AM Radio Transmitters and Childhood Leukemia and Brain Cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 166(3): 270-279.

Hakansson, N., Gustavsson, P., Johansen, C. and Floderus, B. (2003). Neurodegenerative diseases in welders and other workers exposed to high levels of magnetic fields. Epidemiology 14: 420-426.

Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., Söderqvist, F. (2007). Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for > 10 years. Occup Environ Med.

Havas, M. (June 16, 2004). The Hydro One Workshop on EMFs. Markham Ontario, Canada. www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/review_of_icnirp_emf_exposure_guidelines.htm

Health Canada (2007). Environmental and Workplace Health. Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs). www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/eval/handbook-guide/vol_4/transportation-eng.php#3.2.4

ICNIRP (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposures to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300GHz). Health Physics 74: 494-522.

Institute of Science in Society (n.d.). Mobile Phones & Cancer. www.i-sis.org.uk/FOI2.php

Kheifets, L., Afifi, A.A., and Shimkhada, R. (2006). Public Health Impact of Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Environmental Health Perspecives (114):1532-1537.

Lai, H. and Singh, N.P. (2004). Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environmental Health Perspectives (112): 687-694.

Laurence, A. (April 27, 2007). What are the possible effects of EMF’s on pregnant women? cellphonesafety.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/what-are-the-possible-effects-of-emfs-on-pregnant-women/

Lowenthal, R.M., Tuck, D.M. and Bray, I.C. (2007) Residential exposure to electric power transmission lines and risk of lymphoproliferative and myeloproliferative disorders: a case control study. International Medical Journal 37 (9): 614-619.

Manitoba Clean Environment Comission (2001). Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs). Health and EMF Expert’s Consensus Statement. www.cecmanitoba.ca/Reports/PDF/CEC_EMF_Consensus_Report.pdf

Qio, C., Karp, A., Winblad, B., Bellander, T. (2004). Occupational exposure to
electromagnetic fields and risk of Alzheimer’s Disease. Epidemiology 15: 687-694.

REFLEX, 2004. Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods. ec.europa.eu/research/environment/pdf/env_health_projects/electromagnetic_fields/e-reflex.pdf

Schmidt, S. (March 17, 2009). Put warnings on cellphones, scientists urge. Reseachers find use elevates risk of brain tumours in children. The Ottawa Citizen. www.ottawacitizen.com/Health/warnings+cellphones+scientists+urge/1396470/story.html

Svendsen, A.L., Weihkopf, T., Kaatsch, P., Schuz, J. (2007). Exposure to magnetic fields and survival after diagnosis of childhood leukemia: a German cohort study. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 16 (6): 1167-1171.

Svoboda, E. (February 2004). Neuroscience: A Swedish study links mobile phones to brain damage. In rats, anyway. Popular Science Magazine. www.echolight.net/pdfs/Swedish%20Study.pdf

Toronto Public Health (2001). Electro Magnetic Fields www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/hidden_exposures_emfs.pdf

WHO (2005). Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/print.html

WHO (2007a). Electromagnetic fields and public health. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en/index.html

WHO (2007b). Extremely Low Frequency Fields Environmental Health Criteria Monograph. Neurodegenerative Disorders. www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/elf_ehc/en/index.html