Electromagnetic Field Exposure Standards - why our children are the canaries in the mine - Building Biology
212
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-212,single-format-standard,theme-buildingbiology,woocommerce-no-js,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,qode-content-sidebar-responsive,columns-4,qode-theme-ver-10.1.2,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.7,vc_responsive

Electromagnetic Field Exposure Standards – why our children are the canaries in the mine

01 Dec Electromagnetic Field Exposure Standards – why our children are the canaries in the mine

Posted at 04:07h in Hazards by
0 Likes
Children are uniquely susceptible to electromagnetic fields because they have thinner skulls, higher metabolic rates, and immature immune and nervous systems.
In addition, in light of how young they are initially being exposed to EMFs, they will be exposed to these frequencies for much longer periods of time than has ever occurred in the history of mankind.

AUSTRALIA’S EXPOSURE STANDARDS – A WOEFUL EXAMPLE

I recently gave a talk to 400+ people at a Stop Smart Meter Forum in Victoria and, as part of my presentation, compared Australia’s exposure standards for Radiofrequencies used in telecommunications (Wi-Fi, mobile phones, smart meters, cordless phones…) to other countries like China, Switzerland, Russia and Austria which by the way – are one hundred to one million times LOWER than what is permitted in Australia. As a parent, this should raise some concerns – surely the authorities have our best interest at heart? After hearing Dr Don Maisch speak in relation to how the standards were developed and the blatant conflict of interest in the majority of board members who have strong ties to the telecommunications industry, many left the forum in disbelief. How did a form of technology, which the World Health Organisation classified on the 31st May 2011 as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ get introduced into most of our schools, workplaces and homes for the sake of dividends for shareholders?

Here is my presentation on Electrical Hypersensitivity (Stop Smart Meter Forum, 25th November 2012)

The most famous person to have electrosensitivity is Gro Harlem Brundtland former Prime Minister of Norway and retired Director of the World Health Organisation.

WHY THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT ACTING

  1. Exposure is imperceptible, ubiquitous, has multiple sources and it varies over distance and time. In addition they keep changing the frequencies (2G, 3G, 4G which makes it difficult to demonstrate cause and effect).
  2. It is not an ionising form of radiation so it cannot damage DNA. Many studies have shown it can disrupt the cell membrane, alter melatonin production amongst other theories.
  3. Brain tumours have a long latency period of between 15 to 25 years. The use of mobile phones and other technologies that use this type of radiation has only been in the general population in the past 15 years. Despite this, there has been a 35% increase in brain tumours in Australia between 2000 and 2008 (Dobes et al, 2011) which is similar to that found in other studies. 
  4. There is too much money to be made. Conflict of interest is rife in the telecommunications, tobacco and chemical industries who are involved in setting our exposure standards – after all it all comes down to dividends for shareholders. Read Don Maish’s PhD thesis – Procrustean Approach.
  5. There are no pathological markers – wrong! According to Bevington (2011), there are several biomarkers found in people with Electrical Hypersensitivity.
  • lowered heart rate variability in the harmonic frequencies
  • microcirculation (laser doppler imaging at the earlobe)
  • active electrical skin potentials for stress
  • brain: increased blood stress proteins, decreased urinary melatonin
  • lymphocyte chemical sensitivity. A blood test for lymphocyte sensitivity against benzoate, petrol exhaust, formaldehyde, metabisulphite, natural gas, nickel and salicylate before and after EMF exposure. This increases intracellular calcium, displacing magnesium, interferes with ADP/ATP and produces fatigue
  • Neurochemical marker antibody evaluation may signify screen dermatitis
  • skin conductance
  • photo-dermatology tests for skin sensitivity to EMFs.
  • polyparametric – tests 3 types of EMFs (50Hz, pulsed and unpulsed radiofrequencies)
  • spontaneous hand movements from exposure to FM radio and digital TV frequencies

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE (excerpt from Healthy Home Healthy Family book)

  1. Implement the Precautionary Principle and develop exposure standards to account for the most sensitive in our society – young children, pregnant women, the immuno-compromised and the elderly. Recommend that all schools have hard wired / fibreoptic connections, not Wi-Fi.
  2. Create EMF free zones and communities
  3. Get the telecommunications industry to develop phones that enable children to only text (not make or receive calls)
  4. Provide warning labels on all mobile phones, and wireless technologies
  5. Ban wireless baby monitors (whcih can be similar in their strength of radiation to mobile phone towers!), opting instead to use hard wired connections
  6. Ban the use of mobile phones and Wi-Fi on public transport (as they create hotspots from the radiofrequenices bouncing around the metal carriages)
The German Government in 2007 recommended to its citizens to avoid Wi-Fi because of health concerns, suggesting to use hard wired connections wherever possible.

Reference: Bevington, M 2011, Electromagnetic – Sensitivity and Electromagnetic – Hypersensitivity. A Summary. UK: Capability Books.