Nexus - 0226 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Report: "Non-lonizing Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health" [From the updated March 1995 report, "NON-IONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND HUMAN HEALTH: ARE CURRENT STANDARDS "SAFE"?" compiled by Don Maisch.] [From the updated March 1995 report, "NON-IONIZING acting directly to damage cellular DNA implying that these fields ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND HUMAN HEALTH: ARE mmay not be capable of initiating cancer..." CURRENT STANDARDS "“SAFE"?" compiled by Don Maisch.] Official British Planning Policy Guidance on the development of telecommunications transmitting facilities is the PPG8. This 7.0 THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN: document basically gives the go-ahead for most installations, stat- 0 0 ing that government policy is to facilitate the growth of the WHET THE "EXPERTS" SAY telecommunications industry, including cellular phones. Many In drafting its own guidelines for both residential and occupa- commercial companies have been granted licences without the tional exposure to ELF (50 Hertz) electromagnetic radiation, need even to apply for planning permission. Where they do need Australian regulatory authorities have taken their guidelines and to apply, the PPG8 specifically states that "Radiation is a matter standards from overseas expert groups, which are covered in this _for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and not a matter for the section. Current Australian exposure limits for ELF electromag- _ planning system".* netic radiation are the same as the IRPA/INIRC limits (Section Considering that official British Government planning policy is 7.3). For residential magnetic field exposures this is 1,000 milli- ,to encourage the growth of the telecommunications industry, the gauss; and occupational, 5,000 milligauss. NRPB's role as an impartial regulator in setting EM exposure lim- When questions are raised by concerned citizens or groups __ its is drawn into doubt, especially as they still refuse to consider about EMF health hazards, Australian authorities such as the _ low-field biological effects in setting their guidelines/standards. NH&MRC [National Health & Medical Research Council] and the An example of the NRPB's apparent bias in favour of the ARL [Australian Radiation Laboratory] invariably refer to these telecommunications industry at the expense of "safe" standards expert groups as the ultimate authority on the issue. In fact, can be found in the March 1994 NRPB bulletin. Dr Kenneth Australian regulatory authorities apparently Duncan, the NRPB's medical adviser, in an have uncritically accepted the conclusions editorial discussing the policy of Prudent and standards set up by these expert groups Avoidance (which the British Government as "gospel"—not to be questioned. has rejected), stated: It is certainly a necessity for any govern- «. hs P s "Prudent Avoidance may seem as an intel- ment policy decision-maker to seek expert This bias on the side of lectually indolent term to avoid proper advice on a wide range of issues. However, | these expert groups has | assessment of risk and benefits and to escape when it comes to the EMF/health hazard the opposition that positive decision-making issue, the impartiality of these so-called done much to cloud the sometimes provokes... If we to expert groups is very much in doubt. fact that the evidence for | sensible conclusions in times of scientific To put it bluntly, from my study of state- * ifi bi I i | and technical advance, wi repare ments and decisions made by these expert sign icant bio ogica’ to have an underlying philo which groups, referred to in this paper, they seem effects from low-level accepts that some risks have to be accepted... to be ‘factoring in’ other concerns, such as Pie ee some of these judgements may be unpopula political, economic and military vested inter- electromagnetic fields 1S | but should not be avoided."® [Author's ests, in their.conclusions. This bias on the emphasis added.] side of these expert groups has done much to Vay strong. cloud the fact that the evidence for signifi- 7.2 THE USA (ORAU) cant biological effects from low-level elec- In 1989, the Oak Ridge Associated tromagnetic fields is very strong. Universities (ORAU) was commissioned by In the following discussion of some of the major expert groups, the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Co- the same problem arises in reference to standards covering the ordination (CIRRPC) to establish a panel to conduct an “indepen- radiofrequency part of the electromagnetic spectrum—that is, they dent" scientific review, and evaluation of the reported health haz- do not take into consideration low-level, non-thermal biological ards of exposure to extra low frequency electromagnetic fields, effects. especially those related to cancer and to reproductive and neuro- physiological effects. 7.1 GREAT BRITAIN (NRPB) In 1992 this panel concluded that: In 1989 the British National Radiological Protection Board "This review indicates that there is no convincing evidence in (NRPB), which has the responsibility for advising the government __ the published literature to support the contention that exposures to on the possible adverse health effects of both ionizing and non- _—_ extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF/EMF) ionizing radiation, released guidelines GS-11. These stated that generated by sources such as household appliances, video display the guidelines were for electric shock and heating effects only, and _ terminals, and local power-lines are demonstrable health hazards. did not attempt to address low field-level (non-thermal) effects. Epidemiological findings of an association between electric and The NRPB stated that it did not consider there was sufficient magnetic fields and childhood leukemia or other childhood or evidence of such low field-level effects to include in their guide- adult cancers are inconsistent and inconclusive. No plausible bio- lines. logical mechanism is presented that would explain causality. In May 1992, the NRPB issued a progress report on theirevalu- Neither is there conclusive evidence that these fields initiate can- ation of the biological effects of low-frequency electromagnetic cer, promote cancer, or influence tumor progression. Likewise, fields. there is no convincing evidence to support suggestions that elec- The NRPB said of the experimental studies so far: tric and magnetic fields result in birth defects or other reproduc- "The available evidence weighs against electromagnetic fields _ tive problems. Furthermore, any neuro-behavioral effects are like- 7.1 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 r field-lev = The NRPB stated that it did not consider there was sufficient evidence of such low field-level effects to include in their guide- lines. In May 1992, the NRPB issued a progress report on their evalu- ation 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 38 © NEXUS JUNE - JULY 1995 7.0 THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN: WHAT THE "EXPERTS" SAY