Abstract

The wide-spread exposure to constantly evolving wireless technologies believed to pose a serious health threat. Human beings are persistently exposed to RF radiation from mobile phones and their base stations. The current study aimed at classifying and characterizing the exposure to RF radiation from the mobile phone base stations. Spatial distribution measurements were carried out in Khartoum city during two time periods, first in 2012 (pilot survey) and again during Sept. 2019–Jan. 2020, to cover a total of 282 antennas operating with GSM900, GSM1800, and UMTS2100. The tested antennas belong to three mobile communication companies namely Sudani, Zain, and MTN companies, that randomly coded into company A, company B, and company C for security purposes. Measurements were performed using frequency-selective RF analyzer at fixed distances from the antennas/towers. Data were subjected to advanced repeated measures ANOVA, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and spatial interpolation with ArcGIS. The averages of GSM900, GSM1800, and UMTS measurements were 0.01933 W/m², 0.0067 W/m², and 0.0046 W/m². The high levels of power densities for each single antenna were recorded at 90 m, 110 m, 130 m, and at 150 m distances, for the majority (70%) of the measured antennas and the peak/highest values reported mainly at 110 m distance. Conversely, the discriminant loadings as part of LDA, suggested that, much of variance among measurements is attributed to measurements at 150 m, 170 m, and 190 m distances, while visual illustration of group centroids implied that, the RF signals of the different companies were measured separately which support accuracy of frequency-selective measurements. The LDA has confirmed the ANOVA results that, the overall difference between the three companies was statistically significant for UMTS, and GSM900 measurements but not significant for GSM1800 measurements. Kriging interpolation using ArcGIS provided a strong evidence of great spatial distribution of exposure across the study area, with market places and typical urban residential quarters showing highest levels of RF. Few extreme values exceeding ICNIRP limits are reported but excluded from the calculations because of an issue of normality of data that is considered a prerequisite for parametric data analysis. Existence of extreme levels of RF indicates a need for further investigation and some antennas of Company B are mounted on towers belongs to Company C, implying multi exposure. Unexpected pattern of RF levels continued to increase up to 190 m distance and possibly beyond 190 m is reported for UMTS measurements of Company C.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11356-021-16555-x

The post Spatial variability of outdoor exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone base stations, in Khartoum, Sudan appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

Exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation was classified in 2011 as a possible human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organisation. Evidence of the risk of cancer risk has since strengthened. Exposure is changing due to the rapid development of technology resulting in increased ambient radiation. RF radiation of sufficient intensity heats tissues, but the energy is insufficient to cause ionization, hence it is called non‑ionizing radiation. These non‑thermal exposure levels have resulted in biological effects in humans, animals and cells, including an increased cancer risk. In the present study, the levels of RF radiation were measured in an apartment close to two groups of mobile phone base stations on the roof. A total of 74,531 measurements were made corresponding to ~83 h of recording. The total mean RF radiation level was 3,811 µW/m2 (range 15.2‑112,318 µW/m2) for the measurement of the whole apartment, including balconies. Particularly high levels were measured on three balconies and 3 of 4 bedrooms. The total mean RF radiation level decreased by 98% when the measured down‑links from the base stations for 2, 3 and 4 G were disregarded. The results are discussed in relation to the detrimental health effects of non‑thermal RF radiation. Due to the current high RF radiation, the apartment is not suitable for long‑term living, particularly for children who may be more sensitive than adults. For a definitive conclusion regarding the effect of RF radiation from nearby base stations, one option would be to turn them off and repeat the measurements. However, the simplest and safest solution would be to turn them off and dismantle them.

In the present study, for the whole apartment including the balconies, the measurements of RF radiation had a total mean of 3,811 μW/m2 and a total median of 1,313 μW/m2. For rooms inside the apartment, the tower bedroom had the highest mean (5,954 μW/m2) and median (4,504 μW/m2). Also the girl’s bedroom with mean 2,531 μW/m2 and median 2,271 μW/m2 and the boy’s bedroom with a mean of 1,471 μW/m2 and median 1,122 μW/m2 were high values. Time spent in a bedroom is usually many hours per night, which means long term exposure when relatively high levels of RF radiation are still present.
RF radiation exposure at or below these levels indicated above have influenced several physiological parameters in the body of mammals in laboratory studies. Effects on oxidative cell stress and DNA damage in cells, opening of the blood‑brain barrier, up or down regulated proteins and microRNA in the brain, and testicular dysfunction, have been found. For people living near mobile phone base stations, effects have been seen on neurotransmitters, peripheral blood lymphocytes with DNA damage, lower antioxidant levels, decreased salivary secretion, adverse neuro‑behavioral symptoms, and an increased incidence of cancer. People residing near mobile phone base stations have more often complained of sleep disturbances, headaches,
dizziness, irritability, concentration difficulties and hypertension. Exposures to RF radiation were all below the reference levels in the ICNIRP guidelines. The effects were caused by non‑thermal RF radiation exposure and will now be briefly discussed. See ol_15_5_7871_PDF

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29725476/

The post Radiofrequency radiation from nearby base stations gives high levels in an apartment in Stockholm, Sweden: A case report appeared first on EMFSA.

The Lancy Medical Center includes seven physicians specializing in internal medicine, 21 psychiatrists/psychologists, one specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, and a number of therapists https://cmlancy.ch/

Recently opened, the Center did not have Wi-Fi in the second-floor waiting room (internal medicine) up until now. The personnel at the reception, including a number of young women, are being saturated with electrosmog (cordless phones, Wi-Fi, smartphones…). On several occasions, I talked to my doctor who is director of internal medicine at the Center, and to the personnel about this.

Imagine my disappointment recently to find Wi-Fi in the waiting room ! Being sensitive to Wi-Fi, I experience pressure in my head. My doctor is skeptical that the radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless technologies can produce health risks. He said to me that the Centre would lose “customers” if there was no Wi-Fi in the waiting room.

Denial of the risks of radiation for health is a sign of unhealthy collusion among the medical personnel. Almost no physician in Geneva has the courage to admit there is a risk. Do they know better than the 246 scientists from 41 countries who signed the International Appeal requesting effective protection against exposure to electromagnetic waves?

I ask myself, how can I consult a physician who denies the risks? We cannot find doctors in Geneva who would be able to help persons who are sensitive to RF radiation, let alone recognize that waves affect health.

And so, I am writing this letter in the hopes that a few doctors and other healthcare personnel would read it and help us persons who are neglected, rejected, and even ill-treated.

Open letter

Dear Ladies, Dear Sirs,

I am a patient of one of the doctors in the Lancy Medical Center. For several months, there was no Wi-Fi in the second-floor waiting room of the Center. The reception area, however, is saturated with radiofrequency radiation and I was concerned about the personnel who work there. I advised them to speak to their “director” in order to protect them from the radiation (wired solutions).

Imagine my disappointment when during a recent medical visit, I found rather strong Wi-Fi in the waiting room! I am sensitive to Wi-Fi, which creates pressure in the head.

Wi-Fi has no place on health premises. Exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless technology, including Wi-Fi, classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as category 2B, “possibly carcinogenic”, can be harmful, especially for persons who are unwell, those sensitive to this technology (electrohypersensitive persons, comprising at least 5% of the population) and particularly, children and pregnant women. Well-known scientists, independent of industry, are asking for a reclassification of this radiation to Group 1 – carcinogenic to humans.

In September 2017, the scientists responsible for the $25 million U.S. National Toxicology Program study on rats and mice exposed to radiation from cell phones concluded that “exposure to radiofrequency radiation could induce measurable damage to DNA under certain conditions of exposure”.

Wi-Fi should not be installed, either in medical offices or waiting rooms as an amenity for patients. In Geneva, certain health centers such as the Geneva Cancer League (Médiane) and some doctors’ offices respect application of the precautionary principle by banning Wi-Fi from the premises.

Moreover, it should be the responsibility of physicians to inform themselves about the risks of wireless technology and to educate their patients, especially those who are most vulnerable, parents of children and pregnant women, about the impact of radiation on the fœtus and the development and behavior of children.

In all cases, doctors, especially pediatricians, should at least inform parents about the use of babyphones, smartphones and tablets, recommending precautionary measures regarding safer use of this technology. The use of mobile phones by very young children will generate, during the course of their lives, a greater accumulation of electromagnetic radiation effects than that of adults. This could significantly increase the risk of their developing brain tumors and/or an intolerance to electromagnetic waves and other health disorders.

The Swiss Federal Office for Public Health recommends :

WLAN/Wi-Fi:
– Only switch your WLAN on when you need it. With laptops, in particular, it is a good idea to switch the WLAN off as otherwise the device will repeatedly try to connect to a network, leading to unnecessary radiation and a shorter battery life.
– Don’t hold your laptop close to your body while it is connected to a WLAN

Mobile phones
– Use headphones or a wireless head set with a weak Bluetooth transmitter (power class 2 or 3) in order to reduce radiation to the head.  ***** Note: we at EMFSA do not agree with this – Bluetooth in itself is problematic. We recommend an airtube headset without any metal. For more about Bluetooth please see http://www.saferemr.com/2016/09/airpods-are-apples-new-wireless-earbuds.html 

With regard to mobile phones : The standards relating to RF radiation were established many years ago and are not realistic. They apply to an adult 200-pound male, not to children who are developing, and are thus more vulnerable to and absorb more radiation than adults. Concerning the European Union standards (SAR values), which also apply to Switzerland, it has been found that many cell phones emit more radiation than the manufacturers are declaring. Most mobile phone tests by manufacturers are conducted at a certain distance from the body (between 15 to 25 mm). Recently, the SAR measurement has been the subject of a more severe European regulation. The new official standard should be inferior to 2W/kg at 5 mm distance. It is this level which makes certain models, including the iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy 5S non-marketable in France, and, one hopes, soon in Switzerland.

Thus, when tested in contact with the skin, for example, against the ear or trunk, in a pocket or bra, the phones emit radiation levels which exceed the standards. A cell phone should therefore never be used or kept directly in contact with the body. All mobile phone manuals contain this warning, but a large number of users ignore it or are unaware.

The post Switzerland: Open Letter to the Health Care Team at the Lancy Medical Center, Geneva, on Wireless Technology appeared first on EMFSA.

Measurements of Radiofrequency Radiation with a Body-Borne Exposimeter in Swedish Schools with Wi-Fi

Our research group published recently a study on radiofrequency (RF) radiation in schools using an exposimeter. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00279/full RF emissions in the classroom were measured by the teachers in order to approximate the children’s exposure. Teachers in grades 7–12 carried a body-borne exposimeter, EME-Spy 200, in school during 1–4 days of work. Eighteen teachers from seven schools participated. The mean exposure to RF radiation ranged from 1.1 to 66.1 μW/m². The highest mean level, 396.6 μW/m², occurred during 5 min of a lesson when the teacher let the students stream and watch YouTube videos. Maximum peaks went up to 82,857 μW/m² from mobile phone uplink.  The exposure levels varied between the different Wi-Fi systems, and if the students were allowed to use their own smartphones on the school’s Wi-Fi network or if they were connected to GSM/3G/4G base stations outside the school. An access point over the teacher’s head gave higher exposure compared with a school with a wired Internet connection for the teacher in the classroom. All values were far below International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s reference values, but most mean levels measured were above the precautionary target level of 3–6 μW/m² as proposed by the Bioinitiative Report. The length of time wireless devices are used is an essential determinant in overall exposure. Measures to minimize children’s exposure to RF radiation in school would include preferring wired connections, allowing laptops, tablets and mobile phones only in flight mode and deactivating Wi-Fi access points, when not used for learning purposes.

In Table 10 in the article examples of methods to reduce children’s exposure to RF radiation in schools are given

1. Wired connection to both teachers and students and no wireless networks or devices in school is the optimal choice. If this is not possible:
2. Wired connection to each classroom
a. to the teacher’s laptop,
b. for the students to download large files and videos.
3. To reduce exposure from Wi-Fi networks in school:
a. turn off Wi-Fi access points when not used for learning purposes,
b. position Wi-Fi access points outside of classrooms,
c. use directional Wi-Fi access points, which radiate into the direction of the client’s device.
4. Keep laptops and tablets in flight mode when Internet is not needed for learning purposes.
5. Wired connection to a landline telephone in each classroom could minimize the need for mobile phones for contact.
6. Mobile phones, including smart phones, could be left at home or collected in turned off mode. If allowed, they should be carried only in flight mode during school hours.

The post Measurements of Radiofrequency Radiation with a Body-Borne Exposimeter in Swedish Schools with Wi-Fi appeared first on EMFSA.

NTP CELL PHONE RADIOFREQUENCY MEDIA TELEBRIEFING

Dr. John Bucher, Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program.
05/27/16

Transcript of Telebriefing cellphone_508
June 15 – 16, 2016

Transcript: excerpts

The reason that we’re bringing these particular findings to the attention of the public today is the fact that they are in tumor sites, there’s tumor sites and types that have been identified in human studies.  In this study, we did keep our exposures down to the levels that did not cause significant heating in tissues and we have the potential for findings that would contribute to the discussion of whether the human brain tumors and acoustic neuromas which are a form of schwannoma, also called vestibular schwannoma. So if there is some relationship to the schwannomas that we see in the heart in our studies. If in, in fact, that these results could contribute to that discussion, we felt it was important to get that word out. When you consider the amount of time that people are spending on cell phones and the way that they’re using them, we couldn’t predict that these particular studies were going to be an adequate assessment of the potential use of cell phones now and in the future. So we wanted to make sure that the studies that we did, considering how expensive and time-consuming they were, examined possibilities for exposures that were beyond that that were examined in the European studies.

The whole body exposure limits that are set currently are quite a bit lower than were used in this study and that’s correct. But I did mention before and I do repeat, though, that we were interested in trying to understand the sensitivity of all tissues in the body to radiofrequency radiation and it made sense to us to go ahead and use whole body exposures that the animals could still thermoregulate; they were not too high for that, but that exposed all of the tissues to the limits that are currently used for exposures to the head when you use a cell phone next to your ear. So that was the reason for that.

most guideline studies for carcinogenicity for drugs or for industrial chemicals suggest that one have 15 animals per group and that’s the typical group size that we use in NTP studies, but we nearly double that for this particular study.

Hi, thanks. I noticed that the conclusions focused on hyperplastic lesions and glial cell neoplasms, are those cancerous or are they precancerous? Can you just give a little background on that in particular?
John Bucher:
Sure. So we’ve had a number of pathology groups evaluate those particular small lesions, the small hyperplastic lesions. They have come to the conclusion that they resemble in almost all respects except size, the neoplasms, the glial cell neoplasms and the schwannomas.
The pathology opinion is that they represent pre-neoplastic lesions, that have the potential to progress to neoplasia. So for our purposes, we would consider them part of a continuum of tumor formation.And I will say that we have – if you notice, you can go back into the appendices, there’s been extensive involvement of outside pathologists in reviewing these studies and including some pathologists with extensive experience in human brain tumors.

Just wanted to ask whether or not you observed a dose response, did the rates go up? Did the rates of tumors increase as the radiation exposure increased?
John Bucher: With respect to the tumors in the heart, the schwannomas, yes, there was dose response. There were less weaker indications of dose response in the brain tumors, but there were some statistical significance among the trends exhibited. So again the vestibular schwannoma is of interest to us because that’s the human schwannoma that is formed in the nerve that is most irradiated, most affected, most exposed during the use of a cell phone, that’s the acoustic nerve going from the ear to the brain. Our animals were exposed in whole body format so we felt that the increase in the schwannomas of the heart was of significance. It’s an analogous tumor type in an analogous cell type.

Lloyd Morgan:
You have found a significant risk for CDMA and the GSM modulation, are you going to repeat this study with UMTS and LTE modulations?
We don’t have any plans to repeat these studies at this time with different modulations. One of the problems with the whole area is that the technologies advanced so rapidly and the time that it takes to do these studies makes it difficult to keep up.
Lloyd Morgan:
Well, the additional question would be before the fifth generation is released, is should that be tested prior to release for carcinogenicity in animals?
John Bucher:
Well, that’s not a decision for us to make. I will say, though, that if we can get a better handle on the mechanisms of potential carcinogenicity, that there might be ways to shortcut the time that it takes to make an evaluation of this type for the different technologies and that’s really the goal of moving toxicology to a much more onto the molecular level than a tissue pathology level.

John Bucher: with respect to the reviewers. I think that those reviewers who are very familiar with the way these kinds of studies have been done have been very complementary in their performance. They have indicated that we have applied the criteria that we typically use for evaluating these studies appropriately and they’ve had in general agreed with our findings.

Here are some key points about the cell phone study:

• • The nomination for NTP to study cell phone radiofrequency radiation was made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
  • These are the largest, most complex studies ever conducted by NTP.
  • For the studies, rats and mice were exposed to frequencies and modulations currently used in cellular communications in the United States. The rodents were exposed for 10-minute on, 10-minute off increments, totaling just over 9 hours a day from before birth through 2 years of age.
  • NTP found low incidences of tumors in the brains and hearts of male rats, but not in female rats. Studies in mice are continuing.
  • NTP has provided these findings to its federal regulatory partners to enable them to have the latest information for public health guidance about safe ways to use cellular telephones and other radiofrequency radiation emitting devices.
  • Previous human, observational data collected in earlier, large-scale population-based studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk for developing cancer from cell phone use.

See more about the study at  https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety ( Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley)

The NTP is still studying the effects of 2G cellphone radiation which may soon be obsolete.

What about 3G, 4G, and 5G? Why must we rely on research from other nations to inform us about the health effects of this environmental toxin?

The Federal government should be held accountable for the lack of research in the U.S. on the health effects of wireless radiation since the 1990’s. http://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national-toxicology-progam-finds-cell.html

Microwave News reports: NTP Cancer Study Now Due Early 2018

The post Cell Phones – National Toxicology Program Study Update appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

The post World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review) appeared first on EMFSA.

Hot spots were identified, for example close to a wall mounted base station yielding over 95,544 µW/m2 and thus exceeding the exposimeter’s detection limit, see Figure below. A man is standing with his smartphone just a couple of meters below a base station (see arrow). In that area maximum measured power density in the GSM +UMTS 900 downlink band from the base station was 95,544 µW/m2, which is the upper limit of measurement for EME Spy 200. Almost all of the total measured levels were above the precautionary target level of 3 to 6 µW/m2 as proposed by the BioInitiative Working Group in 2012. That target level was one-tenth of the scientific benchmark providing a safety margin either for children, or chronic exposure conditions. Considering the rapid progress of this technology, including 5G that is to be launched in the near future, it is important to monitor current RF radiation exposure in the environment. High radiofrequency radiation at the Stockholm Central Station in Sweden

The post High radiofrequency radiation at the Stockholm Central Station in Sweden appeared first on EMFSA.