Summary to the Summary of the BioInitiative Report 2012

bioinitiative logo

“Several thousand scientific studies over four decades point to serious biological effects and health harm from EMF and RFR.” BioInitiative Report 2012

“Safety standards based on heating (this is Health Canada’s standard to date (my words)) are irrelevant to protect against EMF-levels of exposure. There is an urgent need to revise EMF exposure standards. Research has shown thresholds are very low (safety standards must be reduced to limit biological responses). Biologically-based EMF safety standards could be developed from the research on the stress response.”
BioInitiative Report 2012

As parents, my wife and i have a growing concern for the steady flow of scientific research from around the world warning about serious health hazards of RFR and ELF-EMF (radio frequency radiation and extremely low frequency – electro magnetic radiation).

Like we have nothing to do with ourselves i told my wife that i should download this latest report from a group of scientists from around the world that peer reviewed over 1000 new studies on this subject. When i noticed the report was 1500 pages i had to rethink my dedication to this. I found within the report a summary of 26 pages that was where i set my focus. This summary below is a summary of the summary.

You can scan the summary of the summary where i’ve highlighted what i find to be important and alarming information. Bold highlighting is important. Red highlighting is alarming.

Alternatively, i have provide a link to the pdf document summary in full where you can see the highlights of important and alarming information (according to me). This will allow you to see the full summary and my highlighting.

BioInitiative Report 2012 summary highlights

Also, here is the link to the reports website

http://www.bioinitiative.org/

If you don’t have time to read the summary report, read my summary of the summary, or read the highlights below of  the summary of the summary my strong recommendation, if you have children or are looking after your elders at home, is to go back to wired technologies in your house, schools and possibly your work environment. Turn off cell phones in the house, get a corded phone, become active in your children’s school PAC committee to return to a wi-fi free and cell phone tower free learning environment. As for smart-meters and smart appliances: they should all be wired, not wireless.

Failing this, there should be a gaussmeter (two for accuracy) in each school to allow parents to take readings of their children’s learning environment. Each parent can then make an educated and science-based decision comparing the levels of radiation with the worlds varying standards of safety (the numbers keep getting lowered as to what is considered safe) as to whether or not they feel their child is safe in that environment. Read the report if you have any doubts.

Summary to the Summary of the BioInitiative Report 2012:

Summary for the Public

The BioInitiative Working Group concluded in 2007 that existing public safety limits were inadequate to protect public health, and agreed that new, biologically-based public safety limits were needed five years ago.

What has changed in 2012? In twenty-four technical chapters, the contributing authors discuss the content and implications of about 1800 new studies. Overall, these new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9); carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section 18); effects on the fetus, neonate and offspring (Section 18 and 19); effects on brain and cranial bone development in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5 and 18); and findings in autism spectrum disorders consistentwithEMF/RFR exposure. This is only a snapshot of the evidence presented in the BioInitiative 2012 updated report.

In other new studies of the fetus, infant and young child, and child-in-school – there are a dozen or more new studies of importance.

There is more evidence that such exposures damage DNA, interfere with DNA repair, evidence of toxicity to the human genome (genes), more worrisome effects on the nervous system (neurology) and more and better studies on the effects of mobile phone base stations (wireless antenna facilities or cell towers) that report lower RFR levels over time can result in adverse health impacts.

Gliomas are aggressive, malignant tumors where the average life-span following diagnosis is about 400 days. That brain tumors should be revealed in epidemiological studies at ONLY 10 or more years is significant; x-ray and other ionizing radiation exposures that can also cause brain tumors take nearly 15-20 years to appear making radiofrequency/microwave radiation from cell phones a very effective cancer-causing agent. Studies by Lennart Hardell and his research team at Orebro University in Sweden later showed that children who start using a mobile phone in early years have more than a 5-fold (more than a 500%) risk for developing a glioma by the time they are in the 20-29 year age group. This has significant ramifications for public health intervention.

In short order, in 2011 the World Health Organization International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen, joining the IARC classification of ELF-EMF that occurred in 2001. The evidence for carcinogenicity for RFR was primarily from cell phone/brain tumor studies but by IARC rules, applies to all RFR exposures (it applies to the exposure, not just to devices like cell phones or cordless phones that emit RFR).

The most serious health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with extremely low frequency (ELF) and/or radiofrequency radiation (RFR) include childhood and adult leukemia, childhood and adult brain tumors, and increased risk of the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). In addition, there are reports of increased risk of breast cancer in both men and women, genotoxic effects (DNA damage, chromatin condensation, micronucleation, impaired repair of DNA damage in human stem cells), pathological leakage of the blood–brain barrier, altered immune function including increased allergic and inflammatory responses, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects. Insomnia (sleep disruption) is reported in studies of people living in very low- intensity RF environments with WI-FI and cell tower-level exposures [85–93]. Short- term effects on cognition, memory and learning, behavior, reaction time, attention and concentration, and altered brainwave activity (altered EEG) are also reported in the scientific literature.

The use of common wireless devices like wireless laptops and mobile phones requires urgent action simply because the exposures are everywhere in daily life; we need to define whether and when these exposures can damage health, or the children of the future who will be born to parents now immersed in wireless exposures.

Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in humans.

pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier (allowing toxins into the brain tissues)

altering fetal brain development that may be fundamentally tied to epidemic rates of autism and problems in school children with memory, attention, concentration, and behavior; and leading to sleep disruptions that undercut health and healing in numerous ways.

In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers. In this report we will use the term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF or RFR when referring to the specific type of exposure. They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing radiation.

Magras and Xenos (1997) reported irreversible infertility in mice after five (5) generations of exposure to RFR at cell phone tower exposure levels of less than one microwatt per centimeter squared (μW/cm2). See Section 18 for references.

There is a veritable flood of new studies reporting sperm damage in humans and animals, leading to substantial concerns for fertility, reproduction and health of the offspring (unrepaired de novo mutations in sperm). Exposure levels are similar to those resulting from wearing a cell phone on the belt, or in the pants pocket, or using a wireless laptop computer on the lap. Sperm lack the ability to repair DNA damage.

The Presidential Cancer Panel (2010) found that children ‘are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known carcinogens, including radiation.’

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a letter to Congressman Dennis Kucinich dated 12 December 2012 states “Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child’s brain compared to an adult’s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper into their brains than adults. It is essential that any new standards for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure thay are safeguarded through their lifetimes.”

The issues around exposure of children to RFR is of critical importance. There is overwhelming evidence that children are more vulnerable than adults to many different exposures (Sly and Carpenter, 2012), including RFR, and that the diseases of greatest concern are cancer and effects on neurodevelopment. Yet parents place RFR baby monitors in cribs, provide very young children with wireless toys, and give cell phones to young children, usually without any knowledge of the potential dangers. A growing concern is the movement to make all student computer laboratories in schools wireless. A wired computer laboratory will not increase RFR exposure, and will provide safe access to the internet (Section 24, Sage and Carpenter).

Divan et al (2008) found that children born of mothers who used cell phones during pregnancy develop more behavioral problems by the time they have reached school age than children whose mothers did not use cell phones during pregnancy. Children whose mothers used cell phones during pregnancy had 25% more emotional problems, 35% more hyperactivity, 49% more conduct problems and 34% more peer problems (Divan et al., 2008). Aldad et al (2012) showed that cell phone radiation significantly altered fetal brain development and produced ADHD-like behavior in the offspring of pregnant mice. Exposed mice had a dose-dependent impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission onto Layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal cortex. The authors conclude the behavioral changes were the result of altered neuronal developmental programming in utero. Offspring mice were hyperactive and had impaired memory function and behavior problems, much like the human children in Divan et al (2008). See Sections 19 and 20 for references.

A new study from Greece reports altered development of the cranial bones of the fetus from low intensity (0.6 to 0.9 W/kg) in-utero 900 MHz cell phone radiation (Fragopoulou et al, 2009). They report “our results clearly show that even modest exposure (e.g., 6-min daily for 21 days) is sufficient to interfere with the normal mouse developmental process.” Another new study by Fragopoulou et al (2012) reports that brain astrocyte development followed by proteomic studies is adversely affected by DECT (cordless phone radiation) and mobile phone radiation.

Several thousand scientific studies over four decades point to serious biological effects and health harm from EMF and RFR.

Sleep disruption and high levels of stress are close to universal. All of these phenomena have also been documented to result from or be modulated by EMF/RFR exposure.

  • Children with existing neurological problems that include cognitive, learning, attention, memory, or behavioral problems should as much as possible be provided with wired (not wireless) learning, living and sleeping environments,
  • Special education classrooms should observe ‘no wireless’ conditions to reduce avoidable stressors that may impede social, academic and behavioral progress.
  • All children should reasonably be protected from the physiological stressor of significantly elevated EMF/RFR (wireless in classrooms, or home environments).
  • School districts that are now considering all-wireless learning environments should be strongly cautioned that wired environments are likely to provide better learning and teaching environments, and prevent possible adverse health consequences for both students and faculty in the long-term.
  • Monitoring of the impacts of wireless technology in learning and care environments should be performed with sophisticated measurement and data analysis techniques that are cognizant of the non-linear impacts of EMF/RFR and of data techniques most appropriate for discerning these impacts.
  • There is sufficient scientific evidence to warrant the selection of wired internet, wired classrooms and wired learning devices, rather than making an expensive and potentially health-harming commitment to wireless devices that may have to be substituted out later, and
  • Wired classrooms should reasonably be provided to all students who opt-out of wireless environments. (Herbert and Sage, 2012 – Section 20)
    The public needs to know that these risks exist, that transition to wireless should not be presumed safe, and that it is very much worth the effort to minimize exposures that still provide the benefits of technology in learning, but without the threat of health risk and development impairments to learning and behavior in the classroom. 

    What is evident is that a growing number of people world-wide have serious and debilitating symptoms that key to various types of EMF and RFR exposure. Of this there is little doubt. The continued massive rollout of wireless technologies, in particular the wireless ‘smart’ utility meter, has triggered thousands of complaints of ill- health and disabling symptoms when the installation of these meters is in close proximity to family home living spaces.

    Symptoms from continuous fields were less severe than with pulsed fields.

    Public safety standards are 1,000 – 10,000 or more times higher than levels now commonly reported in mobile phone base station studies to cause bioeffects.

    Summing up the research, it is more probable than unlikely that non-thermal EMF from cell phones and base stations do have effects upon biology. A single 2-hr exposure to cell phone radiation can result in increased leakage of the BBB, and 50 days after exposure, neuronal damage can be seen, and at the later time point also albumin leakage is demonstrated. The levels of RFR needed to affect the BBB have been shown to be as low as 0.001 W/kg, or less than holding a mobile phone at arm’s length. The US FCC standard is 1.6 W/kg; the ICNIRP standard is 2 W/kg of energy (SAR) into brain tissue from cell/cordless phone use. Thus, BBB effects occur at about 1000 times lower RFR exposure levels than the US and ICNIRP limits allow. (Salford, 2012 – Section 10)

    Epidemiological evidence gives that RF-EMF should be classified as a human carcinogen.

    Based on our own research and review of other evidence the existing FCC/IEE and ICNIRP public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health. New public health standards and limits are needed.

    Genetic Damage (Genotoxicity Studies): There are at least several hundred published papers that report EMF affects cellular oxidative processes (oxidative damage). Increased free radical activity and changes in enzymes involved in cellular oxidative processes are the most consistent effects observed in cells and animals after EMF exposure. Aging may make an individual more susceptible to the detrimental effects of ELF EMF from oxidative damage, since anti-oxidants may decline with age. Clearly, the preponderance of genetic studies report DNA damage and failure to repair DNA damage.

    Eighty six (86) new papers on genotoxic effects of RFR published between 2007 and mid-2012 are profiled. Of these, 54 (63%) showed effects and 32 (37%) showed no effects (Lai, 2012)

    Forty three (43) new ELF-EMF papers and two static magnetic field papers that report on genotoxic effects of ELF-EMF published between 2007 and mid-2012 are profiled. Of these, 35 (81%) show effects and 8 (19%) show no effect.

    (Lai, 2012 – Section 6).

    One hundred fifty five (155) new papers that report on neurological effects of RFR published between 2007 and mid-2012 are profiled. Of these, 98 (63%) showed effects and 57 (37%) showed no effects.

    Sixty nine (69) new ELF-EMF papers (including two static field papers) that report on genotoxic effects of ELF-EMF published between 2007 and mid-2012 are profiled. Of these, 64 (93%) show effects and 5 (7%) show no effect.

    (Lai, 2012 – Section 9)

    Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies of an increased risk from exposure to EMF (power frequency magnetic fields) that cannot be attributed to chance, bias or confounding. Therefore, according to the rules of IARC such exposures can be classified as a Group 1 carcinogen (Known Carcinogen). (Kundi, 2012 – Section 12)

    There is no other risk factor identified so far for which such unlikely conditions have been put forward to postpone or deny the necessity to take steps towards exposure reduction. As one step in the direction of precaution, measures should be implemented to guarantee that exposure due to transmission and distribution lines is below an average of about 1 mG. This value is arbitrary at present and only supported by the fact that in many studies this level has been chosen as a reference. (Kundi, 2012 – Section 12)

    M. Stress, Stress Proteins and DNA as a Fractal Antenna: Any agent (EMF, ionizing radiation, chemicals, heavy metals, etc) that continuously generates stress proteins is not adaptive, and is harmful, if it is a constant provocation. The work of Martin Blank and Reba Goodman of Columbia University has established that stress proteins are produced by ELF-EMF and RFR at levels far below current safety standards allow. Further, they think DNA is actually a very good fractal RF-antenna which is very sensitive to low doses of EMF, and may induce the cellular processes that result in chronic ‘unrelenting’ stress. That daily environmental levels of ELF-EMF and RFR can and do throw the human body into stress protein response mode (out of homeostasis) is a fundamental and continuous insult. Chronic exposures can then result in chronic ill- health.

    “It appears that the DNA molecule is particularly vulnerable to damage by EMF because of the coiled-coil configuration of the compacted molecule in the nucleus. The unusual structure endows it with the self similarity of a fractal antenna and the resulting sensitivity to a wide range of frequencies. The greater reactivity of DNA with EMF, along with a vulnerability to damage, underscores the urgent need to revise EMF exposure standards in order to protect the public. Recent studies have also exploited the properties of stress proteins to devise therapies for limiting oxidative damage and reducing loss of muscle strength associated with aging.”

    (Blank, 2012- Section 7)

    The mechanism involves direct interaction of EMF with the DNA molecule (claims that there are no known mechanisms of interaction are patently false)

    EMF stimulates stress proteins (indicating an assault on the cell).

    EMF efficiently harms cells at a billion times lower levels than conventional heating.

    (Blank, 2012- Section 7)

    Safety standards based on heating are irrelevant to protect against EMF-levels of exposure. There is an urgent need to revise EMF exposure standards. Research has shown thresholds are very low (safety standards must be reduced to limit biological responses). Biologically-based EMF safety standards could be developed from the research on the stress response.

    (Blank, 2012- Section 7)

    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, and are dependent on exquisitely timed cues from the environment at vanishingly small levels (Buzsaki, 2006; Strogatz, 2003). The key to synchronization is the joint actions of cells that co-operate electrically – linking populations of biological oscillators that couple together in large arrays and synchronize spontaneously. Synchronous biological oscillations in cells (pacemaker cells) can be disrupted by artificial, exogenous environmental signals, resulting in desynchronization of neural activity that regulates critical functions (including metabolism) in the brain, gut and heart and circadian rhythms governing sleep and hormone cycles (Strogatz, 1987).

    The brain contains a population of oscillators with distributed natural frequencies, which pull one another into synchrony (the circadian pacemaker cells). Strogatz has addressed the unifying mathematics of biological cycles and external factors disrupt these cycles (Strogatz, 2001, 2003). “Rhythms can be altered by a wide variety of agents and that these perturbations must seriously alter brain performance” (Buzsaki, 2006).

III. EMF EXPOSURE AND PRUDENT PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNING

Chronic exposure to low-intensity RFR and to ELF-modulated RFR at today’s environmental levels in many cities will exceed thresholds for increased risk of many diseases and causes of death (Sage and Huttunen, 2012). RFR exposures in daily life alter homeostasis in human beings. These exposures can alter and damage genes, trigger epigenetic changes to gene expression and cause de novo mutations that prevent genetic recovery and healing mechanisms. These exposures may interfere with normal cardiac and brain function; alter circadian rhythms that regulate sleep, healing, and hormone balance ; impair short-term memory, concentration, learning and behavior; provoke aberrant immune, allergic and inflammatory responses in tissues; alter brain metabolism; increase risks for reproductive failure (damage sperm and increase miscarriage risk); and cause cells to produce stress proteins. Exposures now common in home and school environments are likely to be physiologically addictive and the effects are particularly serious in the young (Sage and Huttunen, 2012).

IV. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
A. Defining preventative actions for reduction in RFR exposures

ELF-EMF AND RFR ARE CLASSIFIED AS POSSIBLE CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS – WHY ARE GOVERNMENTS NOT ACTING?

The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified wireless radiofrequency as a Possible Human Carcinogen (May, 2011)*. The designation applies to low-intensity RFR in general, covering all RFR-emitting devices and exposure sources (cell and cordless phones, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless hotspots, electronic baby monitors, wireless classroom access points, wireless antenna facilities, etc). The IARC Panel could have chosen to classify RFR as a Group 4 – Not A Carcinogen if the evidence was clear that RFR is not a cancer-causing agent. It could also have found a Group 3 designation was a good interim choice (Insufficient Evidence). IARC did neither.

Most safety standards are a thousand times or more too high to protect healthy populations, and even less effective in protecting sensitive subpopulations.

SENSITIVE POPULATIONS MUST BE PROTECTED
Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be set at lower levels than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS).

Wireless laptops and other wireless devices should be strongly discouraged in schools for children of all ages.

STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FOR JUDGING THE SCIENCE
The standard of evidence for judging the scientific evidence should be based on good public health principles rather than demanding scientific certainty before actions are taken.

WIRELESS WARNINGS FOR ALL
The continued rollout of wireless technologies and devices puts global public health at

risk from unrestricted wireless commerce unless new, and far lower exposure limits and strong precautionary warnings for their use are implemented.

New epidemiological and laboratory studies are finding effects on humans at lower exposure levels where studies are of longer duration (chronic exposure studies).

Real-world experience is revealing worrisome evidence that sperm may be damaged by cell phones even on stand-by mode; and people can be adversely affected by placing new wireless pulsed RFR transmitters (utility meters on the sides or interiors of homes), even when the time-weighted average for RFR is miniscule in both cases.

There is increasing reason to believe that the critical factor for biologic significance is the intermittent pulse of RF, not the time-averaged SAR. For example, Hansson Mild et al, (2012) concluded there could be no effect on sleep and testicular function from a GSM mobile phone because the “exposure in stand-by mode can be considered negligible”. It may be that we, as a species, are more susceptable than we thought to intermittent, very low-intensity pulsed RFR signals that can interact with critical activities in living tissues. It is a mistake to conclude that the effect does not exist because we cannot explain HOW it is happening or it upsets our our mental construct of how things should work.

This highlights the serious limitation of not taking the nature of the pulsed RFR signal (high intensity but intermittent, microsecond pulses of RFR) into account in the safety standards. This kind of signal is biologically active. Even if it is essentially mathematically invisible when the individual RFR pulses are time-averaged, it is apparently NOT invisible to the human body and its proper biological functioning.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 508 other followers

Goodreads
Blog Stats
  • 24,761 hits
%d bloggers like this: