CANARINA:

Home

Testimonials

Contact us

DEMOS

About us

Press

World

Clients

FAQ

Brochure

Price

 

RADIA:

RADIA

Topographic

Google maps

Import

GIS maps

 

Wikipedia:

Electrosmog I

Electrosmog II

Electrosmog III

Electrosmog IV

Electrosmog V

 

  

Electrosmog II · RADIA software · cell phone hazard

                                 

Applications: electromagnetic pollution · electromagnetic radiation pollution · cell phone radiation · cell phone radiation protection · cell phone towers · mobile phone towers · cell tower radiation · cell phone hazard · health pollution · emf electromagnetic

 

The NCI study was corroborated by a 1999 Canadian epidemiological study of leukemia in children. As a result of the NCI's findings, the US Department of Energy disbanded the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) Program citing that its services were no longer needed.

In 2001, Ahlbom et al conducted a review into EMFs and Health, and found that there was a doubling in childhood leukemia for magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT, though importantly summarised that "This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support".[24] In 2007, the UK Health Protection Agency produced a paper showing that 43% of homes with magnetic fields of over 0.4 µT are associated with overground or underground circuits of 132 kV and above.[25]

Ahlbom's findings were echoed by Draper et al in 2005 when a 70% increase was found in childhood leukaemia for those living within 200 metres (656 ft) of an overhead transmission line, and a 23% increase for those living between 200 metres (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft). Both of these results were statistically significant.[26] The authors considered it unlikely that the increase between 200 metres (656 ft) and 600 m (1,969 ft) is related to magnetic fields as they are well below 0.4 µT at this distance. Bristol University (UK) has published work on a theory that could account for this increase, and would also provide a potential mechanism, being that the electric fields around power lines attract aerosol pollutants.[27] [28]

The World Health Organisation issued Factsheet N°263 in October, 2001 on ELF (Extremely low frequency) EMFs and cancer. It said that they were “possibly carcinogenic”, based primarily on IARC's similar evaluation with respect to childhood leukemia. It also said that there was “insufficient” data to draw any conclusions on other cancers.[29] The WHO issued a new factsheet, N°322, in June, 2007 based on the findings of a WHO workgroup (2007), the IARC (2002) and the ICNIRP (2003), which reviewed research conducted since the earlier publication. The factsheet says “that there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public.” For ELF magnetic fields, the factsheet says “the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal”, and “[as regards] other childhood cancers, cancers in adults, ... The WHO Task Group concluded that scientific evidence supporting an association between ELF magnetic field exposure and all of these health effects is much weaker than for childhood leukaemia. In some instances (i.e. for ... breast cancer) the evidence suggests that these fields do not cause them.”[10]

Although a doubled risk may sound dramatic, childhood leukemia is a rather rare disease, and even at a doubled risk it would still be rare. In the US, the chance that a person develops leukemia during childhood is about one in 1,300 (based on 3,000 cases per year).

Other health concerns

The California Department of Health produced a report in 2002 from their California EMF program, set up to review the health effects from electric and magnetic fields from powerlines, wiring, and appliances. They concluded that EMFs were responsible for an increase in childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, and miscarriage.[30] This differs to a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2001, and the National Radiological Protection Board (now part of the UK Health Protection Agency) review in the same year. The reasoning for the differing opinion of the California Department of Health panel was that "there were reasons why animal and test tube experiments might have failed to pick up a mechanism or a health problem; hence, the absence of much support from such animal and test tube studies did not reduce their confidence much or lead them to strongly distrust epidemiological evidence from statistical studies in human populations. They therefore had more faith in the quality of the epidemiological studies in human populations and hence gave more credence to them."

However, the California report concluded that they did not find there was a strong enough association between EMFs and birth defects and low birth weight, and were divided on the evidence for suicide and adult leukemia.

WHO Factsheet N°322 says that the scientific evidence for an association between ELF and “depression, suicide, cardiovascular disorders, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological modifications, neurobehavioural effects and neurodegenerative disease”, is weaker than for childhood leukemia, where no causal relationship was found, or even negative.[10]

UK SAGE report

The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) has been set up by the UK Department of Health to explore the implications and to make practical recommendations for a precautionary approach to power frequency electric and magnetic fields as a result of the HPA recommendations in March 2004.

The first interim assessment of this group was released in April 2007, and found that the link between proximity to power lines and Childhood Leukemia was sufficient to involve a precautionary recommendation, including an option to lay new power lines underground where possible and to prevent the building of new residential buildings within 60 m (197 ft) of existing power lines.

The latter of these options was not an official recommendation to government as the cost-benefit analysis based on the increased risk for childhood leukemia alone was considered insufficient to warrant it. The option was considered necessary for inclusion as, if found to be real, the weaker association with other health effects would make it worth implementing.[31]

Mobile telephones

Main article: Mobile phone radiation and health

Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world (as of August 2005[update], there were more than 2 billion users worldwide). Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range, and some[32] believe this may be harmful to human health. These concerns have induced a large body of research (both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals as well as in humans). Concerns about effects on health have also been raised regarding other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks.

The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, states that health effects (e.g. headaches) are very unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations,[33][34] and expects to make recommendations about mobile phones in October 2009.[35]

U.S. military definition

In Federal Standard 1037C, the United States government adopts the following definition:

Electromagnetic radiation hazards (RADHAZ or EMR hazards): Hazards caused by a transmitter/antenna installation that generates electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity of ordnance, personnel, or fueling operations in excess of established safe levels or increases the existing levels to a hazardous level; or a personnel, fueling, or ordnance installation located in an area that is illuminated by electromagnetic radiation at a level that is hazardous to the planned operations or occupancy. These hazards will exist when an electromagnetic field of sufficient intensity is generated to: (a) induce or otherwise couple currents and/or voltages of magnitudes large enough to initiate electroexplosive devices or other sensitive explosive components of weapon systems, ordnance, or explosive devices; (b) cause harmful or injurious effects to humans and wildlife; (c) create sparks having sufficient magnitude to ignite flammable mixtures of materials that must be

 

 

 

 

        (air)           (noise)            (water)         

 

 

 

cell phone hazard

 

                                                                               

Canarina Environmental Software

Software for environmental consulting firms

Canary Islands, Spain 

e-mail: contact

 

 

  

European Union · network on Pollution

Member of MAPO: European network on Marine Pollution.

 

       Flag of Portugal 

 

    english:           

 

 castellano:        italiano:       

 

 français:      português:  

 

deutsch:

 

 

 castellano: DIS CUS DES  RAD   english: DIS CUS DES

 

deutsch: DIS CUS  DES  RAD   português: DIS CUS DES RAD  

 

italiano:   DIS CUS  DES RAD français:  DIS CUS DES RAD

 

 

 

  castellano: DIS CUS DES RAD  english: DIS CUS DES  

 

 deutsch: DIS CUS DES RAD português: DIS CUS DES RAD

 

italiano:  RAD DES DIS CUS français:  CUS DIS DES RAD