IGNIR offers science-based advice and guidance on the health and environmental effects of man-made non-ionising radiation.  Its aim is to protect people and the environment from detrimental exposure to man-made EMF pollution, and comprises three functions:
To provide advice about appropriate safety levels for man-made electromagnetic exposure
To assess published guidelines on man-made electromagnetic exposure and make its own recommendations as to which are appropriate
Provide practical and reliable assessment guidelines for surveyors and building biologists.

IGNIR has developed a set of Guidelines for electromagnetic exposure based on the peer-reviewed EUROPAEM EMF Guidelines 2016.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html

It has three guideline groupings:
Day (D)
Night (N)
Sensitive (S)

It covers three frequency ranges:

Extremely Low Frequency

(ELF)Very Low Frequency

(VLF)Radiofrequency (RF)

Electromagnetic (EM) hygiene and safety involves minimising exposure levels that can be toxic to the environment and human health. The guidelines set forth by EUROPAEM (European Academy on Environmental Medicine) were published under open access by the international journal Reviews on Environmental Health. Although at present there are no assured safe levels of man-made EM exposure, and studies continue to show harm to living systems at very small exposure values, IGNIR’s guidance aims to help achieve substantial reduction in EM exposure.

IGNIR’s Guidelines are aimed to also help protect sensitive groups such as children, the elderly, fetuses, pregnant women, those with co-morbidity, body metal work and people with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS).

IGNIR’s latest independent guidelines on EMF exposure are available now to download and use.

https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IGNIR-Guidelines-2021.pdf

Source: https://ignir.org/

Added note by EMFSA:

See our February 2021 newsletter under the heading “Millimeter Waves Will Not Penetrate The Skin” https://mailchi.mp/emfsa/news

The post Jan 2021: IGNIR publishes International Guidelines for electromagnetic exposure appeared first on EMFSA.

  The “Other” Half of the Spectrum – Thermal and non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation exposure

D. Miles  EMFSA  www.emfsa.co.za

Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos

Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe BMBS (Soton) – UK / USA http://phiremedical.org

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-3/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.xml

South African Scientist  James Lech

Mr Lech’s CV is included in the link below:

Submission to the Department of Health, South Africa – EMF National Report 2108/2019

Carcinogenicity Studies

Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html

The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation [Health Matters] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8866792 and

The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation

Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/em.22343

9th October 2019: The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Radiation Programme has an ongoing project to assess potential health effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the general and working population. To prioritize potential adverse health outcomes, WHO conducted a broad international survey in 2018. Ten major topics were identified for which WHO will now commission systematic reviews to analyze and synthesize the available evidence. https://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/rf_ehc_page/en/

29th October, 2019:

“Non-ionizing radiation (radiofrequency), High Priority, ready within 5 Years” 

https://monographs.iarc.fr/news-events/advisory-group-report-on-priorities-for-the-iarc-monographs-during-2020-2024/

EMFSA October 2019 Newsletter

The post SAAPMB Congress 2019 Presentation Notes appeared first on EMFSA.

France [1] and Russia [2] have current laws to minimise Wi-Fi exposure to children in schools. These two countries have the world’s longest research history on health effect of microwaves, both over 100 years.

1. Too many devices for long periods of time = chronic exposure

Much of the research has focused on the effects of mobile phones, but there is already some research on chronic exposure to 2450 MHz frequency microwaves, including Wi-Fi devices. The problem in Wi-Fi routers lies in children’s chronic (24/7) exposure to pulsed microwave radiation. Isn’t that reason enough to minimise children’s risks in classrooms?

2. It can have damaging effects on our bodies

Wi-Fi and cell phone data is transmitted by pulsed microwave radiation. This creates a continuous electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure in which we are engulfed. When you browse the world’s largest EMF research database [3], it reveals the effect of Wi-Fi in two areas:

• Fertility[4]
• Oxidative stress [5]

Fertility damage is seen in animal and cell studies showing reduced motility of sperm and testes malfunction. Oxidative stress is seen both in animal and cell (in vitro) studies, indicating a risk of inflammation also to Wi-Fi users [6]. Chronic inflammation leads to diseases to which children and pregnant women are especially susceptible because child and fetal cells are still growing, their bones are softer, and they absorb more radiation. Women’s immune systems are suppressed during pregnancy so they are more vulnerable to radiation too.

3. Wireless transmitters are becoming more powerful

The Council of Europe warns about installing routers in schools and recommends a 100 µW/m² precautionary level in classrooms [7]. When a Wi-Fi router is installed in a classroom these levels can reach 30.000 µW/m² (peak value). In many schools, Wi-Fi routers are attached to the ceiling of the classroom. This may be particularly risky, because the router uses microwave radiation to transmit its device ID continuously, even when there is not a single wireless device connected to it. Often the router is rather close to children’s and teachers’ heads [8] and these signals enter one’s body as they travel through walls, ceilings and floors.

4. Wi-Fi routers don’t have to be on all the time

Today the default is to have Wi-Fi on all the time, which adds up to a very heavy cumulative dose of radiation. The mobile industry has a patent [9] to change Wi-Fi routers and the continuous 10 times per second (10 Hz) beacon signal for health reasons. 10 Hz pulse itself is problematic, since in human brainwaves this 10 Hz ‘hits’ the alpha band and can interfere with cognitive abilities and sleep.

The patent is to automatically shut down this continuous device ID sending [SSID]–functionality in the Wi-Fi router when not in use. This would bring a radical decrease in pulsed microwave radiation exposure especially when there is no traffic (no devices connected to the Wi-Fi router). This will create an environment where the Wi-Fi only turns on when it is needed, almost like “Eco-mode” on the cordless DECT phones available in some countries. The patent application mentions DNA damage, which has been found in multiple-studies [10]. Until this new technology is brought to market however, we would be wise to turn off the Wi-Fi when not absolutely needed.

So why do we still have Wi-Fi and BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies in schools? Often Wi-Fi risk is down-played by saying “the exposure is only a fragment of the public exposure guidelines.” Current radiation guidelines are 20 years old and do not take into consideration biological effects or the pulsed-nature of the signal, where there is a great difference between average and peak values [11]. When Wi-Fi devices produce pulsed microwave radiation, its peak values will exceed several precautionary recommendation levels of what is considered safe for exposure.

Additionally, current guidelines only account for radiation from one device. With dozens of devices emitting radiation at once in a typical classroom, children and staff are exposed to very high amounts of microwave radiation not accounted for in outdated guidelines. It is no wonder the EUROPAEM environmental health group listed Wi-Fi as one of the riskiest RF-technologies [12]. They point to the exceptionally fast rise time and fall time of Wi-Fi signals, which may have an effect on calcium channels in human cells and the unnatural opening of these channels [13] which can lead to disease.

5. What can be done to reduce the risk?

Generally, schools should be hard-wired, so that in every classroom the Internet is accessible through Ethernet-cable connections. It is feasible to have wired schools, with no Wi-Fi at all.  Even tablets can be attached to the Internet by Ethernet cables and adapters. For laptops and tablets, the Wi-Fi and other antennas (Bluetooth, data, locator) should be turned off (at least most of the time). As a half-measure, Wi-Fi could be used by the adults in the building during the hours in which children are not present. Data uploads and system updates could be done before and after school, or overnight. If Wi-Fi routers are installed, they should be placed away from classrooms and there should be a switch to turn each Wi-Fi router off immediately after use.

Maryland, USA, recently set a positive example and a precedent for healthier schools. Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council has provided excellent recommendations for safer use of Wi-Fi and other technologies in schools [14]. These recommendations echo our suggestions to use hard-wired connections with the wi-fi turned off.

See our courses for additional safety measures [15].

We urgently need accessible and healthier classrooms. We at Wireless Education are pleased to develop these together with learning-focused schools and parents, and look forward to doing so with the support of responsible companies.

References : see the link below.

Why are Some Countries Removing Wi-Fi in Schools and Others Not?

The post Health Reasons to Minimise Wi-Fi Exposure appeared first on EMFSA.

Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201731485X

Supplemental Material: http://bit.ly/6nationsupplement

The aim of this study was to quantify RF-EMF exposure applying a tested protocol of RF-EMF exposure measurements using portable devices with a high sampling rate in different microenvironments of Switzerland, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa, Australia and the United States of America.

We will focus on the South African part of the study:

This study is meaningless in terms of Building Biology / Europaem 2016 biological standards but to be fair does not appear to be intended as such. At best all it suggests is that South Africa  probably has some of the highest average radiation levels in the world in nearly every category. However the radiation levels are a very low % of  the WHO/ ICNIRP  guidelines as adopted by our South African Department of Health  so if attempts to use this study as a challenge will meet with the usual response.

However we can use the measurements from the study to compare with biological standards.

The study states that cell phone tower output is generally the main radiation source but we could not find any differential between different times of day or between workdays and weekends.

Although it provides much data from the measuring devices used it  does not represent reality in terms of overall 24/7 exposure at each location.

So what time of day were the measurements taken for each category and why does it matter?

Well, it’s all about traffic! Traffic effects radiation output from a cell tower. Also one would expect that in an industrial area there might be a huge difference between weekdays and weekends, in all other areas as per the graph above a typical range of 0.8 – 1.35V/m depending on the time of day could apply.

According to biology standards

Because effects are accumulative and vary according to the different transmission types, biology standards apply a time limit to exposure levels and a different risk factor for each transmission type. Also nighttime exposure must be a fraction of daytime exposure in order for natural body regeneration to be possible during sleep times.

The Measured Radiation Levels, Urban Areas, Nighttime, Biological Effects, South Africa:

If we assume that the readings were taken mid-morning [maximum traffic] and apply the limits for GSM [2G, 3G & 4G] as listed in Europaem 2016 plus using the graph above, a reasonable assumption of the actual nighttime exposure levels can be made as follows-

From the study – Central Residential Areas [daytime as measured] = 0.55V/m

Day/night ratio according to the above graph is 1.3V/m divided by 0.8V/m = a ratio of 1.6:1.0

Therefore nighttime exposure level compared to what was measure during the day could be as high as 0.55/1.6 = 0.34V/m

Conversion to microwatts/m2 so to compare with the above Europaem 2016 Precautionary Guidance Values = 304 µW/m2

But because the Europaem values are based on accumulative effects over a 4hr period it is fair to say that during nighttime sleep periods of up to 8hrs a double accumulative “dose” applies so 608 µW/m2 should be the figure used when comparing to the Europaem table and the recommendation below which states “below the precautionary guidelines” when the period of exposure exceeds 4hrs.

So! As the table above recommends a maximum level of 10 µW/m2 for nighttime exposure to GSM frequencies and modulation types it is reasonable to assume that in urban areas in S.A. according to this particular study the typical nighttime exposure levels from cell phone towers are potentially over 60 times the recommended biological limits in terms of both building biology standards and those of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine.

Increasing RF-EMF exposure as an environmental pollutant:

The Polluter-Pays Principle

This principle, widely understood to be commonsensical and intuitively fair, is analogous to the slogan ‘you break, you pay.” It makes the party responsible for producing the pollution responsible for paying for the damage done to the natural environment.It has attained the status of a regional custom, because of the strong support it has received in most OECD and EC countries. In term 16 of the Rio Decleration:

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments,taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the costs of pollution, with due regard to the public interests, and without distorting international trade and investment.

NEMA (The National Environmental Management Act) echoes this – the costs of remedying pollution, environmental  degredation and consequent health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects must be paid for by those harming the environment .

In terms of NEMA pollution definitions below:

“other waves”

“emitted from any activity”

“adverse effect on human health or wellbeing”

“or will have such an effect in the future”

In other words objectors have every right to object to ionizing and any other waves (non-ionising radiation) on health grounds. There is more than enough substantiating evidence. Refusal to accept health based objections is in violation of NEMA.

The measurements from the study are of concern. We agree with the 326 scientists from 41 nations who are  appealing for guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened (EMF Scientist Appeal). This is especially relevant in the light of  proposed ‘smart’city’ developments.

References

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305689940_EUROPAEM_EMF_Guideline_2016_for_the_prevention_diagnosis_and_treatment_of_EMF-related_health_problems_and_illnesses

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.xml#j_reveh-2016-0011_fig_002

RIO_E

https://emfscientist.org/

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/industrynews/huawei-enterprise/250933-south-africa-is-well-positioned-for-smart-city-development-huawei.html

The post RF-EMF exposure measurement study – Cape Town, South Africa. appeared first on EMFSA.

A Clinical Approach to Electrohypersensitivty

We encourage practicing physicians to evaluate carefully any concerns a patient may have about whether presenting symptoms are being caused by EMF exposures (and/or other environmental issues).  In particular, a physician is in a unique position to educate and support a patient to use a blinded approach—not unlike that employed by Bruntland and Eberle—in determining if they are truly reacting to some kind of EMF.

We recommend the following articles to physicians who encounter patients who might be electrosensitive:

• EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 (35):  A comprehensive review for evaluating a person with possible EHS, which includes sections on history, exam, labs, measurement of EMF exposure, prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, diagnosis, and treatment.
• Eberle’s physician recommendations (36): Another outline of how to approach the care of a person with suspected EHS, compatible with the Austrian guidelines.
• Genuis and Lipp’s review article (37):  They, too, offer both an overview of EHS and an approach to the management of the condition.
• Belpomme’s article(38): Potentially useful for directing which biomarkers might be measured.
• Eberle’s second article, “An Underworld Journey” (39):  Helpful for understanding the profound psychological sequelae that may result from this biophysical sensitivity.
  

  Summary Recommendations Derived from These Five Sources

  • Take the patient’s symptoms seriously: This alone will have a positive impact on the patient’s care.
  • Take a full history and physical:  The history should include identifying all suspected symptoms, variations of health problems depending on time and location, an assessment of EMF exposures, and an evaluation for other possible environmental sensitivities.  The Austrian guidelines note that there are no specific findings on physical exam to confirm or deny a suspected case of EHS.
  • Consider tests as indicated:  
  • • Pursue an appropriate non-EHS work-up as indicated by a patient’s symptoms.
    • The Austrian guidelines outline a comprehensive approach to a lab work-up for someone who may have EHS.
    • The Havas study suggests a possible diagnostic provocation study for those reporting sensitivity to radio-frequency EMF.
    • The Belpomme article suggests EHS biomarkers that might be worthy of measurement (e.g. checking serum histamine levels may help direct the therapeutic use of antihistamines).
    • Genuis and Lipp reference work that suggests an elevated prevalence of thyroid dysfunction and liver disease occurs in people with EHS.
  • Recommend a diagnostic “EMF vacation”.  This is most easily achieved by camping in a remote natural setting, with the support of a radio-frequency meter to confirm the environment is clear.  If symptoms improve dramatically during the “vacation”, only to return soon after coming home, then an environmental cause is possible.  Further investigation will then be needed to determine what in the environment may be a trigger for symptoms.
  • Have the patient keep a detailed symptom diary:  This is essential for helping to tease out if EMF exposures are the cause of a person’s symptoms.
  • If indicated, encourage the patient to have EMF levels evaluated at home and/or work.  Some will choose to do this themselves by ordering the necessary meters (measurements should be done for electric fields, magnetic fields, “dirty electricity” and radio-frequency radiation).  Given the complexity of the issue, however, getting EMF consultation from a reliable expert may be the preferred approach.  See the Austrian guidelines for specific recommendations about this kind of testing.
  • Use a physician’s understanding of blinded studies to help the person design exposure experiments.  As with the physician case histories described above, this will help identify triggers and then direct potentially beneficial interventions.  Meter(s) measuring the type(s) of EMF being tested will be essential to insure the quality of this self-study.
  • Encourage the person to avoid excess EMF exposure.  Here are simple, first-pass changes to consider: 1. minimize use of cellphones and cordless phones and turn them to airplane mode at night and when not in use; 2. use a wired internet connection and keep the computer in airplane mode when possible; 3. keep the internet router far from the bedroom and/or turn it off when not in use; 4. avoid the use of microwave ovens; and 5. consider calling your utility company and having nearby “smart meters” turned off or shielded.  See the Austrian guidelines and/or the Genuis and Lipp article for a more detailed review of first-pass strategies.
  • If indicated, consider a more radical approach to avoidance and shielding: For people with a severe form of EHS, the above first-pass changes may not be adequate.  Arranging EMF consultation, as mentioned above, may be critical in developing more advanced strategies.  For example, while EMF shielding can be hugely beneficial in creating a safe haven, it can also make an environment less safe if the shielding is not done properly.
  • Encourage a healthy lifestyle.  This includes a quality diet and aerobic exercise (if not contraindicated) especially after a significant exposure.  In addition, sleep is especially important to highlight (as per Belpomme’s work, melatonin production is commonly altered and insomnia is often a problem).  Interventions to consider include (1) making the bedroom into a safe EMF haven is essential, (2) using melatonin supplementation, and (3) avoiding excess blue light exposure (e.g. computer and TV screens), which can delay the circadian rhythm and disrupt sleep.
  • Support the patient’s exploration of complementary therapies.  In particular, a functional medicine evaluation may be useful.  The Austrian guidelines highlight that EMF exposure in electrosensitive people may cause a reduction of “oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity” and thus they recommend “anti-oxidative and anti-nitrosative therapies including trace elements, vitamins and amino acids.”  The Genuis and Lipp article makes similar recommendations focused on the remediation of a person’s nutritional and biochemical status.
  • Refer for counseling and/or recommend a support group as indicated.  See Eberle’s “Underworld Journey” article (39) for a harrowing account of what a person with severe EHS may encounter psychologically, beginning with overwhelm, fear and shame.  Don’t misinterpret these difficulties as being part of a psychosomatic illness.  On the contrary, they are the sequelae of the sensitivity, not the cause.  As profound as these psychological difficulties may be, they should be addressed in parallel with the physically-oriented approaches outlined above.
  • Use existing diagnostic codes as indicated.  The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 recommends the following diagnostic codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), ICD-10-WHO 2015:
    •  Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS): use existing codes for the different symptoms plus code R68.8 “Other specified general symptoms and signs” plus code Z58.4 “Exposure to radiation” and/or Z57.1 “Occupational exposure to radiation”.
    • EMF-related health problems (except EHS): use existing codes for the different diseases/symptoms plus code Z58.4 “Exposure to radiation”
    • and/or Z57.1 “Occupational exposure to radiation”

  References 

  35)  Belyaev I. (2016).  EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111 EUROPAEM_EMF_Guideline_2016_reveh-2016-0011

  36)  Eberle S. (2014).  What’s the diagnosis, doctor?  Sonoma Medicine; Fall 2014: 27-32.  http://www.nbcms.org/about-us/sonoma-county-medical-association/magazine/fall-2014-medicine-and-politics-departments-personal-history-whats-the-diagnosis-doctor.aspx?pageid=719&tabid=747

  37)  Genuis S. (2012).  Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction?  Science of The Total Environment. Volume 414, 1 January 2012, Pages 103-112.  Geniu and Lipp 2011(1)

  38)  Belpomme D. (2015).  Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326    http://www.ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1454070991_Reliable_biomarkers.pdf

  39) Eberle S. (2017).  An underworld journey: Learning to cope with electromagnetic hypersensitivity.  Ecopsychology; June 2017; 9 (2): 106-111. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/eco.2016.0036?journalCode=eco&

The post A Clinical Approach to Electrohypersensitivty appeared first on EMFSA.

The Problem:

Please note the following included in the recommendations section: Nicosia 2017 Declaration Position Paper on Electromagnetic Radiation and Radiofrequency Radiation in English

The recommendations were based on the existing rules published annually by the Medical Chamber of Vienna, Austria, the Cyprus Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Cyprus-Leaflet-EMF-and-Health-2017 and the recent Reykjavik 2017 Appeal.

Vienna Medical Association Issues Cell Phone Guidelines

2017 Reykjavik Conference on Technology, Wireless Radiation and Children’s Health

For more about the Nicosia Declaration see below

The 2017 Nicosia Declaration on Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Radiation

The post Nicosia Declaration on Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Radiation – 2017 appeared first on EMFSA.