One hundred and ninety scientists from 39 nations today called on the United Nations, its member states, and the World Health Organization to adopt stricter protective guidelines for RF emissions from wireless technologies and for other types of electromagnetic fields (EMF), citing what they say is increasing evidence of adverse health risks.
“Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices,” said the appeal to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, and UN member states.
“These include-but are not limited to-radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).”
The appeal added, “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists said that the UN and the WHO should advocate that consumers take precautionary measures to guard against exposure to RF emissions and conduct education about the health risks, especially to children and pregnant women. “The Appeal highlights WHO’s conflicting positions about EMF risk,” said a news release. “WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’ in 2011, and Extremely Low Frequency fields in 2001. Nonetheless, WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
These guidelines, developed by a self-selected group of industry insiders, have long been criticized as non-protective.” “Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields,” the scientists said.
“The deliberations of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guide precautionary action.”
The scientists also said that technology manufacturers should be encouraged to develop safer products and governments should “fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers.” The scientists say they have collectively published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed papers that have focused on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing radiation, which includes RF radiation used for wireless communications.
“International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA,” said Martin Blank, a special lecturer at Columbia University. “The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.” “ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds. These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today,” said Joel Moskowitz, director of the School of Public Health at the University of California-Berkeley. CTIA declined to comment on the scientists’ appeal. PCIA did not respond to a request for comment. – Paul Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com