In the digital era of the 21st century, we are not exposed to one Wi-Fi transmitter antenna. One typical school classroom might have dozens of radiation streams from dozens of transmitting antennas: 30 laptops, 30 cell phones, a wireless printer, a wireless security system, an overhead internet access point and a cell tower located in line of sight outside the window.
As of 2011, radiofrequency (RF) radiation is classified as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO.
There is a large number of studies establishing a concern that exposure to even low level electromagnetic fields causes adverse health effects. Studies showing possible health effects, that are corroborated as more research is done.
What are the Existing Standards on Wireless Digital Technology (Radiofrequency Radiation)?
There Are No Safety Standards. Currently there are no national or international “standards” for safe levels of the radiation emitted by wireless or microwave devices. It is important to know that different countries have different standards and approaches to the current thermal (heat) RF exposure standards. The biologically toxic (oxidative/membrane) RF exposure levels, shown to produce harm at non-thermal levels.
This is an alarming concern as many countries rush towards 5G (i.e., device to device in the Internet of Things).[2]
Let’s repeat that again:
The telecommunications industry and the Big Tech sector, related industry associations, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, and standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), focus exclusively on providing safety standards for the thermal effects of RFR. Any non-thermal effects are either ignored or denied.
Different Countries Have Different Exposure Standards
During the last 20 years, more than 20 position papers and resolutions regarding EMF and health have been adopted by EMF researchers and physicians. These include the Vienna EMF Resolution, Austria, 1998; Stewart Report, UK, 2000; Salzburg Resolution, Austria, 2000; Freiburg Appeal, Germany, 2002; Catania Resolution, Italy, 2002; Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association Statement, Ireland, 2005; Helsinki Appeal, Finland, 2005; Benevento Resolution, Italy, 2006; Venice Resolution, Italy, 2008; Porto Alegre Resolution, Brazil, 2009; Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Resolution, Russia, 2001; International Doctors’ Appeal, Europe, 2012; and the Report of the Standing Committee on Health, Canada, 2015.[2]
Building Biology Standards
Standards for EMF exposure in Building Biology is based on the precautionary principle and lowest biological harm for sleeping areas. It is informed by reports by the BioInitiative Working Group. In August 2007 and December 2012, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of 29 experts with different competences, published two groundbreaking reports “BioInitiative 2007/resp. 2012 – A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)” edited by Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, calling for preventive measures against EMF exposure based on the available scientific evidence.
The BioInitiative report 2012 includes sections on the evidence for effects on: gene and protein expression, DNA, immune function, neurology and behavior, blood-brain barrier, brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, childhood leukemia, melatonin, Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, fertility and reproduction, fetal and neonatal disorders, autism.
Austria
has one of the strictest standards. Since 2007 the Highest Health Council of the Ministry of Health in Austria has recommended to take preventive action by reducing exposure levels from RF devices which may lead to long-term human exposure of at least a factor of 100 below the guideline levels of the European Commission and by issuing rules on how to reduce one’s individual exposure to RF radiation from mobile phones
Singapore
The Singapore National Environment Agency, the national authority for radiation protection, to ensure that radio frequency radiation safety requirements from mobile phone base stations are met.[x] It follows the WHO standards.
South Korea
In Korea, many websites for public and nonpublic institutions provide information aiming to improve public awareness and EMF knowledge [19-22]. This information includes large amounts of data on human limitation levels, EMF measurements of electronic products, base station information, general safety guidelines, and false beliefs.
*Europe: The ICNIRP recommendations were adopted by the EU in its Council Recommendation of 1999. However, this does not consider long-term non-thermal effects. It also does not consider non-thermal bio effects.
France
On July 8, 2015, a court in Toulouse, France, ruled in favor of a woman with the diagnosis “syndrome of hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation” and determined her disability to be 85% with substantial and lasting restrictions on access to employment.[9]
The first low-EMF zone has been established at Drôme, France in July 2009.[10]
Italy
The Italian Supreme Court confirmed a previous decision by the Civil Court of Appeals of Brescia (no. 614 of 10 December 2009) that ruled that the National Institute for Workmen’s Compensation (INAIL) must compensate a worker who had developed a tumor in the head due to long-term, heavy use of mobile phones while on the job.[11]
Taiwan
Russia
Russia set strict standards and has not loosened these. In contrast to the ICNIRP guidelines, the Russian safety standards, are based on non-thermal RF effects, which were obtained by several research institutes in the former Soviet Union during decades of studies on chronic exposures to RF. It is interesting to find that Russian researchers looked at RFR exposures and immune dysfunction over 2 decades ago and because of these robust studies which were replicated in 2006-2009 they set their upper limit of RFR at 10 μW/cm2.
Canada
EMF Exposure Guidelines in Canada are under the jurisdiction of Health Canada who has not independently established guidelines for magnetic field or electric field exposure. When pressed, they will state that Canada follows the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection “ICNIRP” guidelines of 830 mG or 83,000 nT (Magnetic Field) or 5000 V/m (Electric Field) for a 24-hr period. Since these guidelines are based on short-term acute exposure we still do not have guidelines that protect the public from long-term low level exposure.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation (which represents over 200,000 teachers across Canada (2013)) recommends “prudent use of Wi-Fi” whenever possible including the recommendation to limit consistent exposure in schools by turning off wireless access points when not in use.
The Elementary Teacher's Federation of Ontario - over 76,000 teachers (2013) adopted resolutions:
"That ETFO study the impact of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, including the possible implications for schools and members, with a report with recommendations.
The British Columbia Teachers' Federation (41,000 public school teachers (2013) adopted resolution to protect teachers' health: "The BCTF supports members who are suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity by ensuring that their medical needs are accommodated in the workplace."
The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association - 37,000 teachers (2012) recommends pulling plug on Wi-Fi in schools, schools should practice “prudent avoidance of exposure” given the mounting evidence against WiFi exposure especially on children.
May of 2012: To accommodate children with EHS and to provide choice for parents who want to heed health warnings to reduce exposure for children who are most vulnerable, the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils (BCCPAC) called for a moratorium on Wi-Fi in schools, and for a minimum of one school in each district at each level to be free of Wi-Fi.
United States of America
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to evaluate the effect of emissions exposure on human health. Its exposure limit was adopted by the FCC in 1996. However, based substantially on the IEEE C95.1-1991 but officially ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 which is identical as the U.S. government’s exposure limit regulation. This means that effectively the standards adopted in 1996 are really from 1991. EHT scientific advisor Lloyd Morgan took a look at the history of the development of the standards and has detailed the key statements in the documents so that you can understand how the guidelines developed. Read it here.
The FCC recognised the safety problems with WiFi and recommended that such devices are not operated less than 20 cm from the human body for 30 minutes.
It is interesting that in 1976, the US Naval Medical Research Institute published a bibliography of 3,700 scientific papers on the thermal and non-thermal biological effects! If you are interested in the history of US government reports on wireless, click here.
Some states recognise the risks and are taking action. For example, the state of Oregon passed SB 283 in June 2019. This is a “bill relating to exposure to radiation in schools in this state; and declaring an emergency.” The weight of scientific evidence prompted Oregon’s politicians to vote 50-8 for the measure. Inter alia, the Bill obliges “the Oregon Department of Education to develop recommendations to schools in this state for practices and alternative technologies that reduce students’ exposure to microwave radiation that Oregon Health Authority report identifies as harmful.”
For a full list of EMR exposure guidelines go here
References
1. http://www.safeinschool.org/
5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. (2018) Martin L. Pall, PhD. Discusses SCENIHR and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection – ICNIRP, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) Guidelines for RFR and robust scientific literature on adverse health effects which are both considered and not considered in their deliberations. https://einarflydal.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf
2. Oberfeld G. Precaution in Action – Global Public Health Advice Following BioInitiative 2007. In Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors. BioInitiative Report 2012: A Rationale for a Biologically based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), 2012. Available at: http://www.bioinitiative.org.
3. Havas M. International expert’s Perspective on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and ElectromagneticRadiation (EMR) [Internet]. Peterborough, ON, (CD): 2011 June
11 (updated 2014 July). Available at: http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-ofelectromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/.
x. https://ehtrust.org/singapore-policy-recommendations-cell-phones-wireless-radiation-health/; https://www.imda.gov.sg/user-and-set-up-guides/mobile-and-broadband/mobile-phone-base-stations-and-radiofrequency-radiation
[9] Première reconnaissance d’un handicap dû à l’électrosensibilité en France. Le Monde fr avec AFP | 25.08.2015. Available at: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/08/25/premiere-reconnaissance-en-justice-d-unhandicap-u-a-l-electrosensibilite_4736299_3244.html.
10. Abelous D. France has its first radiation-free refuge in the Drome [Internet]. EURRE/Drome (FR): Agence France Presse (AFP), 2009 Oct 9. Available at: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AFP_France_has_its_first_radiation_free_refuge_in_the_Drome_09_10_2009.pdf.
19. Seoul (Korea): EMF; c2005. Electromagnetic field (EMF) [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 5]. Available from: http://www.emf.or.kr/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]
Naju (Korea): Korea Electric Power Corporation; c2019. Korea Electric Power Corporation [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 10]. Available from: http://home.kepco.co.kr/kepco/KO/D/A/KODAPP001.do?menuCd=FN050401/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]