EMF, Our Health and the Law

Outwardly, to all intents and purposes, the current state of research into the effects of electromagnetic radiation, be it low, middle or high frequency, hangs in the balance.

One man’s word against another’s……outwardly, at least.

A common response when I voice my concerns over EMF and the possible health effects (… and I always say “possible”) is “Well, if it were dangerous, the government or someone else would have told us, wouldn’t they”. Well, the news is that governments around the world are beginning to say something on the matter but quietly. Those not actively looking for this information are unlikely to have noticed as it doesn’t get much media attention. The fact that France and Belgium banned Wi-Fi in kindergartens in 2014 and 2016 respectively, wasn’t largely reported in the media nor the fact that France went on to ban mobile phones in schools for children up to the age of 15 in 2017. Other governments, including those of Russia, Israel, India, Canada, Turkey, Cyprus, Austria and the UK, have taken or are considering similar actions.

So how else can we, the general public, assess the possible danger?

The Communications Industry’s Self-Defence

Well, one obvious source of information is the legal system in all its possible guises.

For instance, starting with the mobile phone providers/manufacturers themselves: the User Agreement for a modern mobile phone will include a clause specifying that by using their equipment you agree not to be involved in any Class Action Lawsuit against the service provider/manufacturer for any reason associated with the use of the phone and, in fact, agree to restrict yourself to “arbitration” in a small claims court should the need arise (details in “Arbitration Agreement” section). You have the option to opt-out of this agreement but you must exercise that right within 30 days. Hmmmmm. Class Actions are useful and cost-effective way for groups of people to act against large corporations capable of buying the best legal and scientific advice available. Additionally, a Class Action may help to bolster legal precedent against the behaviour of a class of which the defendant is a member, ie the communication industry in this case. The option left open for the user, should it prove necessary, is to “go it alone” at their own risk, a big disincentive if ever there was one.

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-you-cant-sue-your-wireless-carrier-in-a-class-action/

https://www.samsung.com/us/Legal/Phone-HSGuide/#Section%201%20:%20Arbitration%20Agreement

Also to be found in the User Agreement is the minimum distance from the “body” at which the phone should be held. This varies between 15 and 25mm. Although some people now hold their Smartphone away from themselves, using the phone on loudspeaker, so to say, this is not generally the rule. More commonly, people just hold it against their ear, right? In a court of law, perhaps a lawyer would argue that merely by holding the phone in the hand, the user has invalidated any claim of damages because he/she hasn’t observed the minimum distance to the hand, as the User Agreement specifies “body” not “ear” or “head”. Of course, its obvious that they mean “head” when they say “body”, isn’t it, but if push came to shove and it ended up in court……….would a self-respecting legal eagle use that fact in his defence for a corporate client?

The People vs. Communications Industry

In America, some courageous people, several of whom were former telecommunications employees, have taken the phone companies to court with a largely, but perhaps unsurprising lack of success…….

Reynard v. NEC Corp. 1992 – Sued for personal injury: RF-induced cancer (Case dismissed on lack of “admissible” scientific evidence)

Kane v. Motorola 1994 – Sued for personal injury: RF-induced cancer (Case dismissed on lack of scientific evidence; settled out of court)

Verb v. Motorola 1996 – Sued for product liability & personal injury (Case dismissed on lack of scientific evidence)

Newman v. Motorola 2000 – Sued for product liability following RF-induced cancer (Case dismissed on lack of scientific evidence)

Murray v. Motorola 2001 – Sued for personal injury: RF-induced cancer (Partially dismissed, consolidated and still in process after eighteen years)

Pinney v. Nokia 2005 – Sued for product liability: insufficient warning/safety (Case was dismissed but ruled that similar suites could be allowed)

Farina v. Nokia 2008 – Sued for product liability: breach of warranty/insufficient safety (Case dismissed under pre-emption of Federal law against Pinney v. Nokia)

In the case of Murray v. Motorola, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that a different evidentiary standard be applied, resulting in the majority of the plaintiffs’ existing scientific testimony becoming inadmissible. Theoretically, however, other expert witnesses may now be permitted. The case continues, even though Murray himself and several other co-plaintiffs are already dead.

In 1996 the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) was enacted to protect the development of the national telecommunications infrastructure and services and in the same timeframe the FCC introduced their RF Standard for equipment compliance. Since that date it is no longer possible to sue a phone company using State Law. Any such legal action must be heard by a Federal Court (Pre-emption) unless the user is suing in relation to pre-1996 mobile phone use, or that a cell phone is not compliant or in connection with marketing and advertising of cell phones with regard to safety. This introduces extra costs, delay and uncertainty resulting from processes in a higher court adhering to federal law, which can act as major disincentive for individuals.

In 2018 Britain saw its first lawsuit to be brought against a mobile phone manufacturer. A former UK salesman is suing Nokia for damages, alleging that his cancer is the result of heavy mobile phone use during the 1990s.

The Workers vs. Mobile Phones

Elsewhere in the world, others have successfully sued for industrial injury through the heavy use of a mobile phone but with legal action targeted at national occupational insurance authorities, most notably in Italy, where three workers have been awarded disability pensions by the National Institute for Insurance against Workplace Accidents and Occupational Disease (INAIL) on those grounds since 2012.

Equally significant, two French employees in 2015 and 2018 won similar awards from Social Security Affairs Courts TASS (tribunal des affaires de la sécurité sociale) on the grounds that their electro-hypersensitivity (EHS) was not accommodated by their employers causing them to be unfit for work.

And also in Spain in 2016, where the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ruled that Miguel Cabellero, a telecoms engineer, was no longer able to act in his normal profession owing to his electro-hypersensitivity (EHS). However, they stopped short of declaring a permanent disability as he was capable of working in “white zones”, however, unfeasible that might be in today‘s society.

The State vs. Communications Industry

Elsewhere, local government institutes have found themselves inadvertently fighting the communications industry in court. Both the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley in California were sued by the CTIA (formerly the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, now The Wireless Association) in America after they attempted to implement laws calling for mandatory health warnings to be shown at the point of sale for mobile phones. San Francisco settled out of court in 2013 when the courts ruled in favour of the CTIA but not before the CTIA allegedly threatened to take a multi-million dollar exhibition away from the city. Berkeley, on the other hand, after careful observation of the courts recommendations and the word of law, won their case in 2017. Of particular note here, sadly, is that in order to get the general principle of the warning through the courts they had to remove a sentence highlighting the increased risk to children in particular. The CTIA have appealed, of course.

In January 2019, a court in Rome announced a ruling that the Italian government should implement a campaign to inform the public of the potential health risks arising from the use of mobile and cordless phones. The court ordered that the campaign should start by July 16th 2019; the government are not appealing the decision. 

The Insurance Industry vs. EMF

As early as 1999, nervousness about the possible risks of mobile phone radiation were starting to appear, with one underwriter  for Lloyds of London (John Fenn, from the underwriting group Sterling) refusing to insure mobile phone manufacturers against the possible health impact of their products.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/apr/11/sarahryle.theobserver

Early warnings of an impact to the insurance world were to be found in Elliot Whittier’s November 2008 newsletter which highlighted the increase in employer liability due to various factors involving mobile phone use by employees. In the case of an industrial accident, the employer is responsible for the harm caused to an employee if he/she was acting within the scope of his/her employment at the time of the accident. Thus a company becomes liable if the employee was using his company mobile phone at the time of the accident. Furthermore, a company can be liable for incidents arising from personal calls made from a company mobile phone. If employees haven’t been properly trained in the use of the company phone for business purposes and an accident arises, the company can be found negligent.

Health claims, it reported, are on the increase and although scientific evidence appears inconsistent, it acknowledged one Swedish study that found a 3.7 times higher the risk of certain forms of brain cancer for a particular group of mobile phone users in comparison to non-users.

In 2010 Lloyds were actively considering the impact of EMF to their business. Their report “Electro-magnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Recent Developments” that year was largely dismissive of the scientific evidence at the time but did point out that there was some evidence of an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma for mobile phone use greater than ten years. From the perspective of potential risk, they likened radio frequency radiation to asbestos, the cost of which, to UK insurers in the period 2009-2040, was likely to be 8 billion GBP:

“The comparison here with EMF is obvious – if it is proven to cause cancer, then the injuries may not become clear until many years after the exposure due to similarly long latency periods. The danger with EMF is that, like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years.”

In February, 2015, an underwriter for Lloyds of London (CFC Underwriting Ltd) went on to introduce Exclusion 32, which excludes any liability coverage for claims, “…..directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” However, this exclusion was only applied to insurance for architects and engineers in specific circumstances in Canada at the time.

The UK agent for Lloyd’s stated, “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

Two years after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared radio frequency (RF) radiation to be “possibly carcinogenic” Swiss Re’s SONAR Report 2013 warned of the “Unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields “as an emerging risk with potentially high impact over the coming 10 years. The report highlighted…

“Furthermore, a recent ruling by an Italian court suggested a link between mobile phone radiation and human health impairment.”

And went onto say:

“If a direct link between EMF and human health problems were established, it would open doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to large losses under product liability covers.”

Reading Between the Lines

So what can we deduce from all of this?

The courts in three European countries have acknowledged the existence of electro- hypersensitivity (EHS) as a source of industrial injury and a link between heavy mobile phone use and cancer (acoustic neuroma) and have awarded disability pensions for both as a result.

Insurance companies seem to be nervous about the possible health effects of EMF.

Some government authorities believe that a more precautionary approach is required and are prepared to go to court against the telecommunications industry to enforce it.

The telecommunications industry appears to have implemented damage limitation measures to prevent consumers from taking more effective legal action against them where possible health effects from mobile phone use are concerned.

We must keep reading between the electromagnetic field lines.

Copyright – Mark Binet (BSc. Hons. MIEEE), Isar Energetics 2019

A Precautionary Tale on EMF Research

Are we being properly advised over the potential dangers of EMF in our increasingly wireless world?

Popularly reported science appears to be split on the judgement of whether mobile phones, Wi-Fi and the underlying communications infrastructure present a health hazard. Many health and government authorities maintain that, based on current scientific research, there is no risk and the telecommunications industry, of course, agrees.

However, the world’s scientific community has sometimes been misused and society has been let down as a result. It’s a fact, however unpalatable, and seems to happen quite often when commercial interests lead to pressure being applied (or perhaps only perceived) in the name of “time to market” and/or pure commercial success.

Pharmaceutical Industry Naivety

For example, in 1957 Contergan (Thalidomid) came out to huge scientific acclaim. A “wonder drug” which went on to show how insufficient and inappropriate testing could lead to a major danger for the public who have to rely on trust in their assessment of such risks. And that’s the crux of the matter. Until recently, with the wave of whistleblowers in various industries, we, the largely uninformed public, have had to believe what we were told by whoever were considered to be our nearest, most trustable sources, be that scientists, doctors or government organisations. That there were people in the world who were, and still are, willing to somehow misinform those trusted sources or distort the facts on which they based their opinions, went largely unnoticed.

Petro-chemical Industry Slight of Hand

Although benzene as a fuel-additive has been known since the beginnings of the automotive industry, it was lead that came into common use in 1921 as it was a cheaper alternative. It remained an integral part of petrol up to the 1970s, when health concerns caused its use to be phased out. As we were told that lead is toxic and we need to get rid of it out of petrol, a natural assumption would be that whatever was replacing it would not be. Wrong! Now benzene (a known carcinogen) is in use again or perhaps toluene (which is slightly less toxic than benzene) or xylene or a mix of all three (BTEX). That benzene is toxic has been known since at least 1928 but both the IARC and EPA have asserted that neither toluene nor xylene are classifiable as to their carcinogenicity in humans, due to inadequate evidence in humans and animals. Fortunately, we now have ethanol as an additive, with such fuels as E10 and E25 having a significantly lower effect on health and the environment. Since about 2008, in fact, ethanol-based fuels have out sold the benzene equivalents, with the former reportedly holding over 90% of the market in recent years.

Tobacco Industry Side-Step

In the 1950s, smoking was increasingly recognised as for human health. As a result, the tobacco industry began to look for ways to protect its profits. One way in which it attempted this was to fund research into the newly developing area of genetics, with the goal of showing a genetic disposition to lung cancer and thus propagating uncertainty as to the true cause. This approach ran on into the late 1980s and it is estimated that the tobacco industry had funded research in excess of $350 million by the 1990s in this way. The ultimate aim of this endeavour was to show that a particular type of person contracted lung cancer, shifting the attention from the product, even though cigarette smoke contains more than 19 known carcinogens.

Sugar Industry Points the Finger

In the 1960s the sugar industry, in the guise of the Sugar Research Foundation, funded research into sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies at Harvard University were seemingly hand-picked by the Foundation and in such a way as to minimise any link between sugar and heart disease. They succeeded in deflecting attention from sugar for nearly five decades. Sadly, this practise continues to this day with other major sugar-related industries, like the soft-drink manufacturers, allegedly funding similar research to obscure any link between their products and obesity, for example.

Agra-Chemical Industry Denial

In 1974, Monsanto bought glyphosate onto the agricultural market under the name Roundup and by 2007, according to statistics, had become the world’s most used agricultural herbicide and the second most used herbicide for home, garden and other applications. In 2015, thirty-five years after its release, the IARC declared glyphosate to be a Class 2A carcinogen, “probably carcinogenic in humans”. Following that announcement, the State of California defined glyphosate to be „known to the State of California to cause cancer“ and would have enforced labelling of such products had Monsanto not appealed the ruling. So why did it take thirty-five years for scientific research to convince the authorities that there could be problems? One aspect would be the long latency of developing cancer: often tens of years elapse before the condition is recognisable. A second and tragic reason is that protecting corporate profit has seemingly become more important than protecting the health of the people. At the time the IARC released its assessment of glyphosate in 2015, Monsanto allegedly ran a public relations campaign to discredit the IARC’s findings. Reports of industry-funded research “muddying the waters” of scientific opinion are common and, in light of such activities with regard to lobbying for the tobacco and sugar industries, why would it be surprising.

Whether glyphosate is sufficiently proven to be carcinogenic remains to be seen but in parallel, concerns of a link between glyphosate residues in food and the world-wide increase in the incidence of autism abound.

Cosmetic Industry Denial

A contemporary case is that of the asbestos content in cosmetic talcum powders and whether company executives and scientists involved in the testing of these products were complicit to a cover-up. Tremolite and other asbestiform minerals occur quite naturally alongside talc and are, therefore, mined in small quantities at the same time. Since the 1970s, debate has raged as to what constitutes a “safe level” of asbestos in cosmetic products and by default 0.5% has become the de facto standard, although the industry pushed for 1%. Once again, possible selective reporting and allegedly  inappropriate study/testing methodologies appear to have “muddied the waters” sufficiently until last year’s milestone verdict ruling that Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder had caused ovarian cancer in one or more plaintiffs.

And what of the telecommunications revolution?

By the time the first analogue mobile phones came onto the market in the 1980s, largely untested from a human health perspective, the health effects of high power microwave radiation were well known. The thermal effects, which were made most noticeable by the emergence of the microwave oven in the 1960s, had been documented and regulated. It was those heating effects which were identified as the only possible source of danger to humans and which, even today in the eyes of many engineers and scientists, are considered to be the only risk involved with the use of radio frequency technologies.

In the 90s, some concerns about the safety of these new “mobile” phones were beginning to emerge. This was later highlighted by a lawsuit in 1993 alleging that mobile phone radiation was responsible for a woman, Susan Reynard, developing brain cancer, which sent the telecommunications industry into a spin.

In 1990, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a draft report on the evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of EMF. Amongst the comments on power frequency EMF, the authors strongly suggested that, having reviewed 15 years of data, there was evidence of a connection between magnetic fields and some forms of cancer. Furthermore, they suggested that that modulated radio frequency EMF may have the same capability and that EM fields in general probably contribute to the formation of cancer although the mechanism could not be indentified but likely involved other co-promoting factors. It also called for more research to be performed to enable the risk to human health from EMF to be fully assessed.

The report was reviewed by an EPA Scientific Advisory Board, with the recommendation in 1992 that the report be rewritten to accommodate certain structural, style and content changes before being published. A leading conclusion arising from this review was that, although there was data suggesting a link, there was insufficient data to make a firm judgement on the carcinogenicity of EMF, not that there was no carcinogenic effect. The review also acknowledged the existence of biological effects at non-thermal intensities and called for a distinction to be made between them and “health effects”. From the recommendations made, it is might be deduced that part of the motivation for changing the report came from a wish to avoid public unrest in the light of the “skewed and somewhat sensationalized picture” proffered in the media at the time.

The revised report was never published.

The original draft report (EPA Document no. 6006900005B) is openly available on the EPA’s website at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=31421

and the SAB review (EPA Document no. SABRAC92013) at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1002U89.PDF?Dockey=P1002U89.PDF .

In 1993, the telecommunications industry initiated a study headed by Dr George Carlo, whose background suggests a man who was working in defence of the chemical and tobacco industries. The intention of the six year study was probably to illustrate that mobile phone technology was safe. However, the end result was that in 1999, Dr. Carlo wrote an open letter to key telecommunication CEOs warning them of potential health issues with their products. He found himself ostracised by the industry, which has subsequently been accused of down-playing the results from that and other studies. A lot has been said regarding Dr. Carlo’s ethics and activities and had it been an isolated incident, the criticism might have led us to dismiss his work. But it wasn’t. In 2001 Dr. Roger Santini published a study into health effects for residents living near to a mobile phone tower (Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex). It concluded that the minimum safe distance was 300m. He and other colleagues subsequently found themselves subject to pressure to desist with their work and expounding their findings publicly. Elsewhere, for some academics, funding for research into the health effects of mobile phone radiation simply dried up and research posts disappeared, for instance, in the case of Professor Dariusz Leszczynski at the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK).

In America in 1996, the FCC did adopt maximum exposure levels for EMF, based on NCRP recommendations. Similar standards were issued by ICNIRP in 1998. Both guidelines, largely unaltered, are still in use today……..twenty years and multiple generations of wireless technologies later!

Whether the communications industry is actively trying to protect its own interests in deference to public safety and/or governments are succumbing to industry lobbying, is open to discussion and we, the public, will probably never really know the answer. We can, however, draw parallels with what has happened in other industries over the last half century and make some qualitative assessment of the balance of current research results. In 2003 and 2007, Dr. Henry Lai and Martin Röösli, respectively, made public reviews showing that industry-funded studies into biological/health effects of mobile phone radiation were more likely to show no effect than those studies funded by other institutions. Lai stated that although the ratio of studies showing “effect” to “no effect” was approximately 50/50, 30% of industry funded studies found an effect compared to 70% of independently funded studies. There seemed to be clear bias. It is likely that this is still the case today.

In 2002, the IARC, declared ELF EMF as “possibly carcinogenic” and made the same statement against RF EMF in 2011. In the light of the recent National Toxicological Project showing an increase in particular cancer forms in rats exposed to mobile phone radiation (partly replicated by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy), the latter definition could soon change to a more severe classification.

The question “Does EMF, either low or radio frequency, cause health problems in humans?” is far from being comprehensively answered. What’s more, finding conclusive proof one way or the other is difficult, particularly for the lay-person. Outwardly, the scientific community is split. Digging a little deeper suggests that this outward appearance may be deceptive.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Science has a moral duty to protect mankind, be it as individual scientists or as scientific institutions. Man, however understandably, generally prioritises self-preservation over martyrdom and so we have a conflict of interests. Nowadays, when a scientific paper is published, the authors are compelled to declare any conflicts of interest they may have with regard to their research. We call this transparency. But what happens when the funding for research into the negative effects from a particular industry is indirectly choked by corporations from the very same branch? Imagine the telecommunications industry want to fund research into new technology to improve their mobile phones. It seems unlikely that they will also promote research into the possible negative health effects of mobile phones in the same scientific establishment. The result could be that valuable research is indirectly suppressed because that institute will benefit more by not rocking the corporate boat. It sounds a little cynical but in the cases of Santini and Leszczynski , above, eminently plausible: self-preservation.

The authors of The Bio-Initiative Report, a document summarising evidence of the biological and health effects of EMF compiled by 29 scientist from 10 countries (https://www.bioinitiative.org/),  have been accused of “cherry-picking” scientific studies to support a theory. Perhaps it would be better to accuse them of performing their moral duty by pursuing the use of the Precautionary Principle.

Outside of the realms of science and engineering, people are making their own judgements and I’ll talk more about that and how that might help us to read between the lines in my next posting.

Introducing………The Author

An Author’s Credentials

Any blog needs credibility and that comes from knowing who the author is and his/her credentials, so let me tell you a little about myself. That’s an artist’s impression of me, below: a humble electronics engineer.

Isar Energetics Blog Author
The Author

My entry into the world of electronics was more chance than planning and started when I became a Medical Physics Technician in a large London teaching hospital in the early 1980’s. Although morally satisfying, the lack of challenge in that position and my desire to expand my own knowledge of electronics led to my decision to return to full-time education and I secured a place at one of the UK’s well-respected technical universities to study the physics of electronics. Successfully graduated, I moved on through various sectors of the electronic development business, starting with TV and video, through jet-engine controllers, telecommunications and avionics and ending twenty years later with the design and development of microprocessors and ICs.

Microwave Energy

My first encounter with microwaves came as I had the privilege of working on fighter plane avionics along side some former RAF engineers. As young men, these guys had worked on the early radar systems at the end of World War II and in the post-war years. One such engineer took great pride in telling how they had fried their eggs for breakfast in front of those prototype antennae. Seemingly, they were also frying parts of their bodies. Reports of temporary infertility and hair-loss were not uncommon in radar personnel and there were other complaints, referred to more generally as “microwave syndrome”.

Around this time I directly experienced microwave energy in my kitchen in the form of my first (and only) microwave oven. It’s important to note that although the principle of the Faraday cage is sound, its practical implementation in household microwave ovens is not so convincing. I was surprised to find out that, in line with American guidelines, older models are “allowed” to leak up to 50W/m2 of microwave radiation at a distance of 5cm from the oven. Using a simple calculation, that’s about equal to a 25W light bulb. Doesn’t seem like much, so why be concerned?

One reason might be that Russian RF power safety limits (including microwave ovens and mobile phones) are approximately 100 times lower than ours (ICNIRP 2009, Public = 10 W/ m2; SanPin 2003, Public = 0.1 W/ m2). And what’s more, starting in 1976, workers there were required to wear protective goggles for a twenty minute exposure at levels equal to the new American limit for microwave ovens of 10W/m2 and that’s a 5W bulb! The Russian regulations were fully reworked in 1996 and again in 2003, but the figure of 0.1 W/ m2 for public exposure has been largely unchanged in that time. To this day, the Russians continue to take a more cautious approach, as do the Swiss, and perhaps we should too.

Phones – Mobile or Otherwise

Less energetic microwaves followed with the mobile phone. I bought my first one twenty years ago and subsequently had several more as a requirement of my job. My own good sense or engineering intuition suggested back then that it was possibly not the best thing to have a microwave transmitter (however small) jammed against the side of my head and I chose to use my phone with a hands-free headset as much as possible.

Some years later, when I started using a DECT phone at home without a headset, I noticed a light headache and warming to the side of my head following long telephone conversations. That set me questioning whether our RF wireless technologies might not be as harmless as the manufacturers and authorities might have us believe. In about 2010, I started reading around the subject and it took me six years of deliberation before concluding that the hypothesised link between RF microwave radiation and a wide range of possible effects on human health could actually be genuine, however limited the extent may be.

Radio Frequency Risk?

During that time, the IARC (the World Health Organisation’s cancer research group) decided to classify RF radiation as “possibly” carcinogenic, as they already had done with power lines in 2002. Some of the panel responsible for that decision now believe there is sufficient evidence for a reclassification to “probably carcinogenic”, or even “carcinogenic”.

However, this isn’t just about the possible risks of cancer associated with radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Even if it turns out that EMF doesn’t directly cause cancer, there seems to be evidence enough to suggest that it might promote mechanisms that do, making it co-carcinogenic or a promoter. Just as important is the fact that a lot of scientific studies have shown a wide range of biological effects which may well be linked to other health effects (you can read more here http://www.isar-energetics.de/Biological_effects.html in English and German).

Regarding mobile phones, the latest guidelines from the Russian radiation protection authorities (RNCNIRP) require that the manufacturers issue a statement in the “User Guide” saying that their product is a “source of harmful RF EMF” and that the use of a mobile phone by children under the age of 18 and pregnant women is not recommended. Furthermore, in the long term, they reportedly expect to see an increase in “brain tumors, tumors of acoustical and vestibular nerves (in the age of 25-30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome, and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60). “, as a result of children now using mobile phones.

And Finally…..

To wrap up this post I’d just like to say, I’ve never been a „technophobe“ nor a „techno-geek“. I see the benefits of technology, and helped to create some of it, but I see the pitfalls too. Additionally, I’ve become more aware of a possible disconnect between corporate business ethic and man’s well-being. The subject of how EMF affects mankind is multi-disciplinary, spanning physics, biology and chemistry equally, and presents us with the most complex of equations. So far they remain unsolved. But were a mobile phone manufacturer to tell us that there is no risk from “non-thermal” effects from radio frequency radiation, we could perhaps liken that to how the tobacco industry informed us about the risks of smoking back in the 1960s, or the lead industry about its products in the decades before.

My microwave oven was consigned to the scrap heap long ago but I still own two mobile phones………one lives in the glove compartment of my car, for emergencies, and my very first one now sits by the front door to our house as a monument to the past. We now run our businesses, quite happily, from desktop computers with email and landline telephones with cables and an answer-phone and I’ve no intention of changing that for the foreseeable future.

Let’s talk Electromagnetism & Electrosmog!

Welcome!

Electrosmog?

We live in a wireless world. More accurately, we live in an electromagnetic world. We wade through a sea of electromagnetism, or „electrosmog“ as some might say, on a daily basis and most of us think nothing of it. We just accept it as the „norm“ as our lives are largely reliant on it to one degree or another.

Welcome to the Isar Energetics blog.

Two hundred years ago that was not the case. At that point in time the book of electromagnetism was still closed. Its preface was written in 1820 by Danish scientist, Hans Christian Oersted. He noticed during a lecture that a compass needle moved when an electric current was flowing nearby. A clear relationship between electric current and magnetism had been demonstrated and the opening chapters of the book were then written by such icons of physics as Michael Faraday and James Maxwell.

Since then, man has progressively added more and more varied sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on a global basis. We have successfully made our lives easier and more entertaining (through household electricity, labour-saving appliances, radio, television for example) and our world smaller (through various sorts of telecommunications). Although some people had misgivings along the way, generally we have accepted the changes gratefully without the thought that, at some stage, there may be a price to pay for our own ingenuity.

The Electromagnetic Invoice

Irrespective of the possibility of any direct health effects of EMF (often referred to as „electrosmog“), the electromagnetic-invoice recently arrived in everyone’s letterbox. We are now so dependant on all the aspects of our technological progress, to the point of addiction in some cases, that to consider living without them is unthinkable. And given that fact, we have accepted the consequences, unconditionally, and have to live with more stress physically, emotionally and electromagnetically.

At this point we have to ask the question: what if radio frequency (RF, such as Wi-Fi and mobile phones) and extra low frequency (ELF, e.g. domestic electricity supply) electromagnetism have more effect on human biology than just the browning of our skin when we sit in the electromagnetism (in this case light) of the sun? It’s a question which has occupied many scientists for years, with both positive and negative results, but which has still not been answered conclusively.

Its the consideration of this question which this blog intends to address.

Isar Energetics

Visit our website (in English/German) at www.Isar-Energetics.de.

And more specifically, you can read more about the history of electromagnetism at www.Isar-Energetics.de/EMF_timeline.html.