Electromagnetic pollution: a new public health issue.
The question of what constitutes safe levels of electromagnetic emissions continues to generate debate within the scientific community. It is clear, however, that an increased amount of research bears evidence of EM pollution contributing to a heightened level of stress-related conditions and environmentally triggered diseases such as cancer, diabetes and multiple sclerosis.Our health and economies are at risk from these forms of pollution:
- Wireless emissions (WLAN, cell/wireless phones, cell and radio towers);
- Electromagnetic fields (computers, engines, inferior wiring, power lines);
- Ground current and 'dirty electricity'.
CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES
Article 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
In order to protect the environment the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
by: The Bioinitiative Working Group
August 2007
[Since the release of this ground breaking report, world governments are warning their citizens about the use of wireless technology and will no doubt refer to it when establishing future wireless, electric, and electromagnetic technology policies.]
Read more...
ATTITUDES TO HEALTH DANGERS OF NON-THERMAL EMFs
A review of the polarisation in attitudes towards research into the health dangers of non-thermal electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
by: Michael Bevington
January 2008
Read more...
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES
by: Andrew Michrowski, Ph.D.
November 2007
Life on earth has evolved amidst a broad band of electromagnetic frequencies, which originate from throughout the universe. By 1980, environmental exposure to artificial, repetitive or random signals in the radiofrequency / microwave band has risen dramatically – by more than a trillion times, mostly for military technology.
Since 1980, mostly for newly-introduced commercial applications, the average “second-hand” exposure in Southern Canada has risen from about 0.005 microWatt/cm2 to the current background environmental range of 0.4 to 100.0 µWatt/cm2. We note an 8 to 20,000-fold increase with peaks in downtown Toronto and some centres, including Brantford and Mississauga. About 100 square kilometres in Southern Ontario have environmental broadband radiofrequency and microwave power emission exposures during timeframes that can exceed the Health Canada Safety Code 6 exposure limit of approximately 0.6 to 1 milliWatt/cm2 (600 - 1,000microWatt/cm2). Such illegal irradiation coverage can be expected to rise exponentially to several hundred square kilometres in both Ontario and Quebec by the end of this decade, on a more persistent basis, as more and more wireless technologies are approved by governments and marketed. Note that individuals within such exposed zones may experience a continual body temperature rise, with time, (but actually “feel” colder, and may seek greater warmth).
Read more...THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES
Medical Perspective by: Margaret E. Sears (M.Eng., Ph.D.)
Legal Perspective by: Cara Wilkie and David Baker
June 2007
Approximately 3% of Canadians have been diagnosed with environmental sensitivities. They usually experience neurological impairments, and often experience other symptoms including runny eyes and nose, headaches, fatigue, pain and breathing and digestive problems. Environmental sensitivities may develop gradually after chronic exposure to relatively low levels of chemicals as seen in "sick buildings," or suddenly after a major exposure to an environmental disaster or a chemical spill. This condition may be initiated by one or a combination of environmental factors such as mould, pesticides, solvents, chemicals off-gassing from carpets or furnishings, or electromagnetic phenomena.
Read more...
CONFILICT OF INTEREST IN HEALTH CANADA: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL
by: Sharon Noble
In June, 2008, I and my husband submitted a petition (#255) to your Office alleging conflict of interest in Health Canada. It included many examples of scientists either having received funding from or being affiliated with telecommunications industries. Some of these scientists are responsible for determining the safety of devices sold by these industries or the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by these devices. Others are "experts" whose research is used by Health Canada’s scientists as bases for decisions. I provided many examples of Health Canada scientists refusing to consider independent studies by credible scientists which demonstrate that EMR can and does contribute to major health problems.
One, Dr. James McNamee, research scientist, Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, is the new EMR specialist on the editorial board of Radiation Research. He has published three negative papers on microwave genotoxicity in Radiation Research. McNamee also has written a review paper with Moulder on cell phones and cancer. Vijayalaxmi, McNamee and Maria Scarfi, an Italian researcher, are authors on 14 of the 42 negative genotox papers. Ten of their 14 negative papers were published in Radiation Research. (Microwave News, July 31, 2006)
Dr. McNamee is on the Board of Directors for the Bioelectromagnetics Society, with his term ending 2008. (www.bioelectromagnetics.org) This Society’s newsletter is funded by Motorola, and its editor is Dr. Mays Swicord, director of EMR research for Motorola. (Microwave News, July 2004)
Read more...
