ICES Database ElectroMagnetic Field Literature Search Engine |
 |
| |
| Home |
| View EMF Studies (Static,ELF) 0-300 Hz |
| View EMF Studies (Intermediate) 300 Hz-300 KHz |
| View EMF Studies (RF/mmW/THz) 300 kHz-300 GHz |
| Advanced Search |
| Citation List (Author Search) |
(Database last updated on Mar 27, 2024)
| ID Number | 1871 | |
| Study Type | Literature Review, Letter, Book Chapt., Report | |
| Model | Reports by Sage and Carpenter and their collaborators who wrote the BioInitiative Reports (2007, 2012 and 2020) on recommended ELF and RF exposure limits and other reviews. | |
| Details | Review of the literature by an independent group and summary conclusions of limits and precautionary measures. Document includes several independent chapters of literature review with summary and conclusions drafted by Cindy Sage and David Carpenter. The criteria for the limits was observed biological effects as opposed to established adverse health effects used in recognized standards activities such as ICNIPR and IEEE ICES. The recommended limits by bioinitiative are ELF: 0.1-0.2 uT [ICNIRP = 100 uT / IEEE C95.1 = 90.4 uT] and RF: 0.1 uW/cm2 / 0.614 V/m [ ~100x (field strength) or ~10,000x (incident power density) below ICNIPR / IEEE C95.1]. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Fragopoulou et al. 2010 (IEEE #5108): In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF). EMF exposures (static to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric power and from wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use in weather and transportation. The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide. AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT: Carpenter 2013 (IEEE #5389): Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) include everything from cosmic rays through visible light to the electric and magnetic fields associated with electricity. While the high frequency fields have sufficient energy to cause cancer, the question of whether there are human health hazards associated with communication radiofrequency (RF) EMFs and those associated with use of electricity remains controversial. The issue is more important than ever given the rapid increase in the use of cell phones and other wireless devices. This review summarizes the evidence stating that excessive exposure to magnetic fields from power lines and other sources of electric current increases the risk of development of some cancers and neurodegenerative diseases, and that excessive exposure to RF radiation increases risk of cancer, male infertility, and neurobehavioral abnormalities. The relative impact of various sources of exposure, the great range of standards for EMF exposure, and the costs of doing nothing are also discussed. AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT: Sage 2015 (IEEE #6153):The informational content of Earth's electromagnetic signaling is like a set of operating instructions for human life. These environmental cues are dynamic and involve exquisitely low inputs (intensities) of critical frequencies with which all life on Earth evolved. Circadian and other temporal biological rhythms depend on these fluctuating electromagnetic inputs to direct gene expression, cell communication and metabolism, neural development, brainwave activity, neural synchrony, a diversity of immune functions, sleep and wake cycles, behavior and cognition. Oscillation is also a universal phenomenon, and biological systems of the heart, brain and gut are dependent on the cooperative actions of cells that function according to principles of non-linear, coupled biological oscillations for their synchrony. They are dependent on exquisitely timed cues from the environment at vanishingly small levels. Altered informational content of environmental cues can swamp natural electromagnetic cues and result in dysregulation of normal biological rhythms that direct growth, development, metabolism and repair mechanisms. Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can have the devastating biological effects of disrupting homeostasis and desynchronizing normal biological rhythms that maintain health. Non-linear, weak field biological oscillations govern body electrophysiology, organize cell and tissue functions and maintain organ systems. Artificial bioelectrical interference can give false information (disruptive signaling) sufficient to affect critical pacemaker cells (of the heart, gut and brain) and desynchronize functions of these important cells that orchestrate function and maintain health. Chronic physiological stress undermines homeostasis whether it is chemically induced or electromagnetically induced (or both exposures are simultaneous contributors). This can eventually break down adaptive biological responses critical to health maintenance; and resilience can be compromised. Electrohypersensitivity can be caused by successive assaults on human bioelectrochemical dynamics from exogenous electromagnetic fields (EMF) and RFR or a single acute exposure. Once sensitized, further exposures are widely reported to cause reactivity to lower and lower intensities of EMF/RFR, at which point thousand-fold lower levels can cause adverse health impacts to the electrosensitive person. Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) can be a precursor to, or linked with, multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) based on reports of individuals who first develop one condition, then rapidly develop the other. Similarity of chemical biomarkers is seen in both conditions [histamines, markers of oxidative stress, auto-antibodies, heat shock protein (HSP), melatonin markers and leakage of the blood-brain barrier]. Low intensity pulsed microwave activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) is postulated as a mechanism of action for non-thermal health effects. AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Sage and Burgio 2017 (IEEE #6764)): Mobile phones and other wireless devices that produce electromagnetic fields (EMF) and pulsed radiofrequency radiation (RFR) are widely documented to cause potentially harmful health impacts that can be detrimental to young people. New epigenetic studies are profiled in this review to account for some neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral changes due to exposure to wireless technologies. Symptoms of retarded memory, learning, cognition, attention, and behavioral problems have been reported in numerous studies and are similarly manifested in autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, as a result of EMF and RFR exposures where both epigenetic drivers and genetic (DNA) damage are likely contributors. Technology benefits can be realized by adopting wired devices for education to avoid health risk and promote academic achievement. |
|
| Findings | Not Applicable to Bioeffects | |
| Status | Completed With Publication | |
| Principal Investigator | USA | |
| Funding Agency | Private/Instit. | |
| Country | UNITED STATES | |
| References |
|
|
| Comments | authors: Organizing Committee Carl F. Blackman (EPA) Martin Blank (Columbia University) Michael Kundi (Medical University of Vienna) Cindy Sage (Consultant) Participants David Carpenter (SUNY Albany) Zoreh Davanipour (Friends Research Institute) David Gee (European Environmental Agency) Lennart Hardell (University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden) Olle Johansson (Karolinska Institute) Henry Lai (University of Washington) Kjell Hansson Mild (Umea University, Sweden) Amy Sage (Cindys daughter) Eugene L. Sobel (Friends Research Institute) Zhengping Xu (Zhejiang University School of Medicine) Guangdi Chen (Zhejiang University School of Medicine) Reviewers (partial) James B. Burch (University of South Carolina) Nancy Evans (Health Science Consultant) Stanton Glanz (University of California, San Francisco) Denis Henshaw (Bristol University, UK) Samuel Milham, (Washington State Dept Health [retired]) Louis Slesin (Microwave News) comments: a) Danish National Board of Health (October 4, 2007) The BioInitiative report does not provide any reason to change the current health risk assessment on exposure to electromagnetic fields. The report does not include new data and has not taken the scientific quality of the cited reports into consideration in the way that is customary. http://www.sst.dk/upload/forebyggelse/cff/miljoemedicin/ikke_ion/bioinitiative_4okt07.pdf (in Danish) b) EMF-NET, a coordinating committee of the European Commission 6th FrameWork Programme (October 30, 2007) http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/emf-net/index.cfm The BIR is not a consensus report of a working group, but rather an assembly of chapters written by various scientists and consultants. The "Summary for the public" is written in an alarmist and emotive language and the arguments have no scientific support from well-conducted EMF research. There is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is made in fact of reports that do not concur with authors statements and conclusions. The results and conclusions are very different from those of recent national and international reviews on this topic&If this report were to be believed, EMF would be the cause of a variety of diseases and subjective effects&None of these health effects has been classified as established in any national or international reviews that assessed biological and health effects from exposures below internationally accepted EMF limits when the whole database of scientific literature is reviewed according to well-accepted international risk assessment methods and criteria. [See EMF-NET 6th Framework Program Coordination Action, Effects of the Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: From Science to Public Health and Safer Workplace, Comments on the BioInitiative Working Group Report (BioInitiative Report), October 30, 2007.] c) German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) (2008) The BioInitiative report has clear scientific weaknesses. In particular, health effects of low-frequency and high frequency fields are mixed which is scientifically not correct. The predominant majority of the studies used for the report is not new and the selection of studies is biased in several topical areas. Consequently, the BioInitiative group draws different conclusions than BfS and national and international committees. http://www.emf-forschungsprogramm.de/int_forschung/wirk_mensch_tier/Synopse_EMFStudien_2008.pdf (in German) d) The Netherlands Health Council (September 2, 2008) In its opinion as to the scientific value of the BioInitiative Report, the Health Council concluded that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields. http://www.gr.nl/pdf.php?ID=1743&p=1 e) COMAR, in agreement with the four comments above, concludes that the weight of scientific evidence in the current RF bioeffects literature does not support the safety limits recommended by the BioInitiative group. For this reason, COMAR recommends that public health officials continue to base their policies on RF safety limits recommended by established and sanctioned international organizations such as IEEE/ICES and ICNIRP which is formally related to the World Health Organization (WHO). f) ICNIRP [comment during NIR workshop, Rio de Janeiro Brazil, October 15-17, 2008]: ICNIRP is a scientific committee - reports not meeting a threshold of scientific quality [that challenge ICNIPR limits] are simply ignored . With regard to precautionary actions, such policies & may actually increase rather than decrease concern and thus constitute a real health detriment and should be prevented |