ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPOSURE: A SECRET AGENDA? by Don Maisch An excerpt from: Nexus Magazine June/July 1998

If proposed revised EMR safety standards are adopted, Australians and New Zealanders may soon legally be exposed to five times today's radiation levels, despite damming evidence that no level is actually 'safe' for health.

3rd May 1995

Dear Editor,

I've been meaning to contact your magazine for several months now regarding the health hazards from microwave/radiofrequency (MW/RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

My report deals with power-line frequencies (ELF), and covers some of the problems with RF/MW frequencies. Of special concern are current attempts by the Standards Association of Australia to increase existing maximum limits for RF/MW radiation by a factor of five (times five).

The Standards Sub-committee met last week for a vote on whether to pass the proposals or not. The CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation) - a committee member and a strong opponent of increasing existing radiofrequency exposure levels - delivered a damning report which indicated that the existence of a thermal (low-level) biological effects must be taken into account in setting exposure levels, and that the proposed DR95900 levels are dangerously high.

As a result of the CSIRO report and their scientific opposition to DR959000, Telecom and Optus (much to their credit) withdrew their support for the DR959000's increased limits and abstained from the final vote. They apparently stated, in light of the CSIRO report, that they saw no need to increase existing levels.

However, the Department of Defence representatives on the Standards Committee voted in favour of increasing RF/MW exposure levels, so that when it came to the vote, of the 20 committee members, seven voted against and nine for, with four abstentions.

Dr Michael Rapicholi, committee chairman and architect of the DR959000, considered a vote of nine out of 20 as approval, and succeeded in ramming the new standards through against much opposition. The relevant trade union representatives on the committee have indicated that they will actively oppose the adoption of DR959000 by the Australian and New Zealand governments.

In my conversations with several people involved with this particular committee, concerns were raised about a possible "secret agenda" in the insistent push to get these high limits approved by the committee

After all, if Telecom and Optus see no need to increase existing limits, then why do "we" need significantly higher levels? - especially so, considering the significant hazards as mentioned by the CSIRO and in several other submissions to the committee.

It is possible that the push to raising safety limits is more to do with the development of future MW?RF technology than with existing communication systems.
Our exposure to MW/RF radiation is increasing rapidly with the development and popularity of cellular/mobile phones, wireless communications, etc.

One such "brave new world" project which is of concern is a plan to surround the world with an array of low-orbit satellites which would be part of a global cellular phone system. With this system, mobile phone users can call anywhere in the world. Instead of the phone transmitting to a nearby phone tower, it would transmit directly to an overhead satellite positioned about 500 kilometers high.

Obviously such a phone would require more transmitting power than existing ones So are present mobile phones "safe"? The following information may be of interest to mobile phone users and prospective buyers:

1. Studies have shown that 30 per cent of the radiated energy from the aerial of a mobile phone is absorbed directly into the brain of the user.

2. Two research studies on EMR at frequencies similar to mobile phone transmissions have shown it to cause DNA breakages in the brains of exposed rats.

3. The US Food and Drug Administration has advised mobile phone users to us them only when absolutely necessary and, when used, to make calls as brief as possible.

4. Recent legal claims in the USA maintain that brain tumors may be caused by the use of digital cellular telephones.

I am currently collecting information for a report dealing exclusively with cellular (mobile) telephone systems and the health hazards implicated. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Don Maisch

North Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Report: "Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields
and Human Health"
"ARE CURRENT STANDARDS SAFE?"

Compiled by Don Maisch

The Other Side of the Coin: What the "Experts" Say

In drafting its own guidelines for both residential and occupational exposure to ELF (50 Hertz) electromagnetic radiation, Australian regulatory authorities have taken their guidelines and standards from overseas expert groups, which are covered in this section. Current Australian exposure limits for ELF electromagnetic radiation are the same as the IRPA/INIRC limits (Section 7.3). For residential magnetic field exposures this is 1,000 milligauss; and occupation, 5,000 milligauss.

When questions are raised by concerned citizens or groups about EMF health hazards, Australian authorities such as the NH&MRC (National Health & Medical Research Council), and the ARL (Australian Radiation Laboratory) invariably refer to these expert groups as the ultimate authority on the issue. In fact, Australian regulatory authorities apparently have uncritically accepted the conclusions and standards set up by these expert groups as "gospel" - not to be questioned.

It is certainly a necessity for any government policy decision-maker to seek expert advice on a wide range of issues. However, when it comes to the EMF/health hazard issue, the impartiality of these so-called expert groups is very much in doubt. To put it bluntly, from my study of statements and decisions made by these expert groups, referred to in this paper, they seem to be 'factoring in' other concerns, such as political, economic and military vested interests, in their conclusions. This bias on the side of these expert groups has done much to cloud the fact that the evidence for significant biological effects from low-level electromagnetic fields is very strong.

In the following discussion of some of the major expert groups, the same problem arises in reference to standards covering the radiofrequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum - that is, they do not take into consideration low-level, non-thermal biological effects.

Great Britain (NRPB)
In 1989 the British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which has the responsibility for advising the government on the possible adverse health effects of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, released guidelines GS-11. These stated that the guidelines were for electric shock and heating effects only, and did not attempt to address low field-level (non-thermal) effects.

The NRPB stated that it did not consider there was sufficient evidence of such low field-level effects to include in their guidelines.

In May 1992, the NRPB issued a progress report on their evaluation of the biological effects of low-frequency electromagnetic fields.

The NRPB said of the experimental studies so far:
"The available evidence weighs against electromagnetic fields acting directly to damage cellular DNA implying that these fields may not be capable of initiating cancer....."

Official British Planning Policy Guidance on the development of telecommunications transmitting facilities is the PPG8. This document basically gives the go-ahead for most installations, stating that government policy is to facilitate the growth of the telecommunications industry, including cellular phones.
Many commercial companies have been granted licences without the need even to apply for planning permission.
Where they do need to apply, the PPG8 specifically states that "Radiation is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and not a matter for the planning system".

Considering that official British Government planning policy is to encourage the growth of the telecommunications industry, the NRPB's role as an impartial regulator is setting EM exposure limits is drawn into doubt, especially as they still refuse to consider low-field biological effects in setting their guidelines/standards.

An example of the NRPB's apparent bias in favour of the telecommunications industry at the expense of "safe" standards can be found in the March 1994 NRPB bulletin. Dr Kenneth Duncan, the NRPB's medical adviser, in an editorial discussing the policy of Prudent Avoidance (which the British Government has rejected), stated:
"Prudent Avoidance may seem as an intellectually indolent term to avoid proper assessment of risk and benefits and to escape the opposition that positive decision-making sometimes provokes..... If we are to come to sensible conclusions in times of scientific and technical advance, we must be prepared to have an underlying philosophy which accepts that some risks have to be accepted...... some of these judgements may be unpopular but should not be avoided."

The USA (ORAU)
In 1989, the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) was commissioned by the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Co-ordination (CIRRPC) to establish a panel to conduct an "independent" scientific review, and evaluation of the reported health hazards of exposure to extra low frequency electromagnetic fields, especially those related to cancer and to reproductive and neurophysiological effects.

In 1992 this panel concluded that: "This review indicates that there is no convincing evidence in the published literature to support the contention that exposures to extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF/EMF) generated by sources such as household appliances, video display terminals, and local power-lines are demonstrable health hazards. Epidemiological findings of an association between electric and magnetic fields and childhood leukemia or other childhood or adult cancers are inconsistent and inconclusive. No plausible biological mechanism is presented that would explain causality. Neither is there conclusive evidence that these fields initiate cancer, promote cancer, or influence tumor progression. Likewise, there is no convincing evidence to support suggestions that electric and magnetic fields result in birth defects or other reproductive problems. Furthermore, any neuro-behavioral effects are likely to be temporary and do not appear to have health consequences."

The ORAU panel, not content to let the issue die there, 'nailed the final nail into the coffin' with the following ending: "This review does not provide justification for a major expansion of the national research effort to investigate the health effects of ELF/EMF. In the broad scope of research, any health concerns over exposures to ELF/EMF should not receive a high priority."

The independence of the ORAU panel is severely compromised by the fact that J.Glenn Davis, Chairman of the Medical Sciences Division of ORAU, and who headed the panel, was previously a senior US Air Force commander who retired from active duty in 1990 to take up his position with ORAU. The US Air Force has played an active role in opposing EMF research. (See section 1.5, The 1990 EPA Report, and section 7.6, page 33, references 110).

Another possible military connection with the ORAU panel was the fact that they excluded the scientific literature and standards relative to all higher frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum above 30 KHz, thereby excluding radio, microwave and radar frequencies which the military is obviously heavily reliant on.

IRPA/INIRC Interim Guildines 1990
The International Radiation Protection Association and its committee, the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (IRPA/INIRC) had the responsibility for the development of health criteria standards for non-ionizing radiation. Their standards form part of the World Health Organisation's Environmental Health Criteria Programme and has been adopted by the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the National Health & Medical Research Council as the standards for Australia.

To quote from their guidelines: "From a preview of the scientific literature, it is apparent that gaps exist in our knowledge, and more data needs to be collected to answer unresolved questions concerning biological effects of exposure to their fields (EMF). On the other hand, analysis of the existing literature does not provide evidence that exposure at present day levels has a public health impact which would require corrective action.

"A cost-benefit analysis taking into account national public health priorities and consideration of economic impact and social issues may be necessary to derive limits suited to the conditions prevailing in different countries."

The exposure limits for magnetic fields are as follows:

Limits of Exposure to 50/60 Mertz magnetic fields

I. Occupational - Magnetic Field Intensity
Whole working day 5,000 milligauss
Two-hours-per-day limit 50,000 milligauss
For limbs 250,000 milligauss

II. General Public (Residential) - Magnetic Field Intensity
24 hours per day 1,000 milligauss
Two-hours-per-day limit 10,000 milligauss

When you consider that the magnetic field levels indicated as having adverse health effects in the studies listed earlier are in the range of 1 - 4 milligauss, there is cause for concern, to say the least.

Why this discrepancy? It is hard to believe, but all the studies indicating adverse health effects were apparently not considered by the IRPA/INIRC when setting the standards. They admit this in their concluding remarks: "The exposure limits are based on established or predicted effects of exposure to 50/60 Hz fields. Although some epidemiological studies suggest an association between exposure to 50/60 Hz fields and cancer, other do not.

"Not only is this association not proven, but present data does not provide any basis for health risk assessment useful for the development of exposure limits."

Further on in the IRPA/INIRC interim guidelines, they state: "To date, chronic low-level exposure to 50/60 Hz fields has not been established to increase the risk of cancer."

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
The ICNIRP took over from the previous IRPA/INIRC committee as standard-setter for non-ionizing radiation. To quote from their press release of 12 May 1993: "The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reviewed the data about possible carcinogenicity of power-frequency magnetic fields at its first annual meeting on May 7-12, 1993, held in Neuherberg, Germany. This review considered all scientific data that have been published or publicly presented since the "interim Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to 50/60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields" were published in 1990 by the predecessor International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC) of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). The major reason for the interim nature of these guidelines was the inability to arrive at a scientifically-based judgement concerning any causal relationship between 50/60 Hz magnetic field exposures and the excess occurrence of cancer.

"The most recent data reflect some improvements in methodology in laboratory studies and in epidemiological studies of both occupational and general populations. After careful consideration of this evidence, the Commission concludes that the data related to cancer do not provide a basis for health-risk assessment of human exposure to power-frequency fields. Accordingly, the Commission confirms the interim guidelines published in 1990 (IRPAINIRC 1990)."

The Australian Radiation Advisory Committee - And the Theriault Study
In September 1994, in the Annual Report of the Radiation Advisory Committee, the RAC gave their version of the outcome of the French/Canadian study of electrical workers, known as the Theriault study. To quote from their report: "A combined French/Canadian occupational study was published this year. The study looked at whether workers in three electricity utilities with exposure to higher levels of magnetic fields had a higher incidence of cancer in the study period 1970 - 1989. The study provided no conclusive evidence of a link between occupational exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and cancer, and there was little or no consistency between the three utilities studied."

Of the thousands of research papers of EMF health effects dating back to the 1970s, none has found conclusive evidence. Conclusive evidence in relation to health issues only comes about by comparing a large number of individual studies to build up a case, such as was done with tobacco smoking. Sir Richard Doll (NRPB) himself admitted this about the smoking issue. It is very unscientific to use this term in relation to only one study.

As for the Theriault study, its results are similar to findings from previous studies. That is, positive associations between ELF magnetic field exposure and a number of cancer types were indicated, with associations being strongest for leukemias, followed by brain cancers.

In a further analysis of the Theriault study by Dr Filles Theriault and his team at McGill University, high-frequency transients (HFTs) and worker exposure were studied. Results showed up to a tenfold increase risk of developing lung cancer among highly exposed utility workers and a "very clear" exposure-response relationship.

This second analysis by Theriault has resulted in Hydro-Quebec (which owns the data collected by Theriault) barring Theriault and his team from further access to the data. This is the kind of thing which can happen when vested interests, such as power companies, fund research.

To find an "expert" group such as the Radiation Advisory Committee giving such an inaccurate report on the Theriault study is cause for concern.

This inaccurate reporting is perhaps understandable considering (quoting from the Victorian Government's "Report of the Panel on Electromagnetic Fields and Health", September 1992): "To date, the responsibility for communicating with the community about ELF fields has rarely been clearly defined, and most information is developed and disseminated by the utilities, as health authorities have not considered ELF fields as an important health matter."

It is inadvisable just to depend upon the electric power suppliers to pass on information to the public or health authorities, for results can be altered to suit their vested interests.

To get to the real issues involved in the EMF/health hazards debate, it is necessary to look past the "expert" groups and study the large body of scientific literature on the subject. This is a very complicated area which is made more complicated by the fact that the present situation on environment electromagnetic fields involves highly polarised opinions.

Conclusion
Current Australian regulations on human exposure to electromagnetic radiation are based on the ICNIRP/INIRC guidelines mentioned above, which, in part, state: "analysis of the existing literature does not provide evidence that exposure at present-day levels has a public health impact which would require corrective action."

However, considering the studies and weight of the evidence of human health hazards, the consistency of these reports and the seriousness of the disease implicated, it is now unacceptable for Australian Government agencies responsible for advising and setting standards to continue to base their recommendations on out-dated guidelines which are no longer appropriate in light of the evidence.

In contrast, the European Parliament has taken a strong progressive stand on limiting EMF exposure by adopting a resolution, title "On Combating the Harmful Effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation".

This resolution recognises that "the difficulty of demonstrating a relationship between dose and effect, enabling the effect of non-ionizing EMFs to be quantified...... does not prevent the adoption of legislative measures designed to minimise the exposure of workers and the public".

The European Parliament resolution takes seriously the health hazards from electromagnetic radiation. To quote in part from the resolution: ".... according to an increasing number of epidemiological and experimental studies, even slight exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields increases the risks of cancer, can be accompanied by nervous disorders and disruption of the circadian rhythms and seems capable of affecting developing organisms......"

".....the results of many in vivo and in vitr

o studies show increasingly clearly that the interaction mechanisms underlying such disorders and illnesses, centred mainly in the cell membrane, lead to disruption of melatonin secretions, ornithine decarboxylase activity and T-lymphocyte efficacy, testifying to the probable role of no-ionizing radiation in promoting cancer.......

"synergy phenomena must be expected between non-ionizing radiation and other physical or chemical agents."

Biological Effects of Mircorwave Radiation:
A White Paper

The White Paper produced below was written by Dr. Cletus Kanavy, chief of the Biological Effects Group of the Phillips Laboratory's Electromagnetic Effects Division at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, in October 1992. The references at the end of Kanavy's paper are omitted here

Ample experimental evidence exists from credible researchers from well-established and highly regarded institutions, both government and university, to justify a national research program into the full spectrum of biological effects of electromagnetic radiation.

The principal electromagnetic biological effects of greatest concern are behavioural aberrations, neural network perturbations, fetal (embryonic) tisssue damage, inducing birth defects), cataractorgenesis, altered blood chemistry, metabolic changes and suppression of the endocrine and immune systems. The verification of blood-brain barrier suppression should have a high priority. The passage of normal blood-borne toxins into the brain could explain some previously observed early behavioural aberrations, loss of phyical endurance, and functional central nervous system and perceptual changes.

A large amount of data exists, both animal experiemental and human clinical evidence, to support the existence of chronic, nonthermal effects. The Soviet studies of humans under occupational conditions report marked functional changes, sometimes accompanied by histological and biochemical changes, under the chronic influence of microwaves at power densities ranging from fractions of microwatts to a few milli-watts per square centimeter.

Research to date has concentrated on determining the psychological/physiological effects (changes) produced by electromagnetic fields of various power densities, carrier frequencies and modulation rates. These results are the macroscopic part of the issue. The microscopic part of the issue urgently needs to be addressed - namely the physical mechanisms behind the various observed biological effects. Various theories and interaction models exist to explain, in a limited way, some of these physical mechanisms for specific effects. None have yet been positively verified. This is believed to be a key issue which needs to be addressed as soon as possible…..

Other areas of concern centre on the uninvestigated human response to high-peak, low average power, moderate-to-high-pulse repetition frequency microwave fields. The relationships between these variables and the specific human responses should be of prime importance to the directed energy weapon (DEW) development programs. The ability of certain modulation frequencies imposed on various carrier frequencies to affect (lock onto) circadian rhythms poses a formidable research problem. A principal question raised is the existence of "frequency windows" and resonances associated with certain physiological and psychological responses.

The past several issues of Bioelectromagnetics have contained many articles by promiment US researchers which report nonthermal effects. New concerns are also forthcoming, i.e., bio-effects of ELF and electromagnetic fields in close proximity to high-voltage power lines and transformer banks. Thus the entire issue of human interaction with electromagnetic (RF & Microwave) radiation is pushing forward as a major national population health concern.

(Reprinted from Mircorwave News, Sept/Oct 1993)

Yet another Agenda?

by George Farquhar

Many researchers studying the agenda of the NWO believe that government supressed information on the effects of exposure to EM radiation is not only for profit alone.

Mass EM exposure along with contaminated vaccines and the poisonous floride and asparteme in our food and water supplies, is yet another engineering tactic of the permanent government to control us.

All the above are designed to make us mentally, emotionally and physically imbalanced.

A population that is "sick" from an overload of intentionally induced poisons is much easier to manipulate and control than a "healthy" well balanced society.

Home