NEW YORK–Today 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk. These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide.
“ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds. These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today. Scientists signing the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population and wildlife from EMF exposures.”
The “International EMF Scientist Appeal” asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.
The Appeal highlights WHO’s conflicting positions about EMF risk. WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B “Possible Carcinogen” in 2011, and Extremely Low Frequency fields in 2001. Nonetheless, WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines, developed by a self-selected group of industry insiders, have long been criticized as non-protective.
The Appeal calls on the UN to strengthen its advisories on EMF risk for humans and to assess the potential impact on wildlife and other living organisms under the auspices of the UN Environmental Programme, in line with the science demonstrating risk, thereby resolving this inconsistency.
Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University, says, “International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA. The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.”
Joel Moskowitz, PhD, of University of California, Berkeley, says, “ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds. These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today. Scientists signing the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population and wildlife from EMF exposures.”
International EMF Scientist Appeal: EMFscientist.org
Watch this short interview with Dr. David Carpenter, co-author of the Bioinitiative Report and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany.
Dr. Carpenter talks about cell phones and brain cancer risk, children’s risk, high intensity pulses from smart meters, 60 HZ fields, radio towers, Obama supported wifi in schools and electrosensitivity.
He says, “the evidence is overwhelming” that cell phones increase your risk of brain cancer, and children are at 5 fold greater risk. He says, “Children are by far the most vulnerable.” Regarding wifi in schools, “everyone will be adversely affected.” The interview concludes with some solutions on what you can do to protect yourself and children.
The sound you hear is the radiation emitted by the wireless router and the iPad. This radiation affects our bodies and is especially toxic for children.
Cindy Lee Russell, M.D., Vice President of Community Health, Santa Clara County Medical Association wrote an article warning about the health risks of technology in schools: Shallow Minds: How the Internet and Wi–Fi in Schools Can Affect Learning
Dr. Russell writes: “There are a host of concerns with classroom technology, and the virtual world it creates, that have not been explored in the rush to “modernize” education and prevent our kids from becoming “computer illiterate,” despite the fact that computers are designed for ease of use. These issues range from distraction in the classroom, impairment of cognitive development and long-term memory, deficiency in learning social skills, Internet addiction, cyber bullying, access to inappropriate content, eye fatigue,and security risks to online learning networks. In addition, the sheer cost of computers and continuous upgrades is likely to break many school budgets. We have not mentioned the issue of toxic e-waste, another growing public health problem.”
“We will not get rid of the Internet or computers. We should not ignore, however, the enlarging body of science that points to real threats to public health and, especially, our children’s safety and well-being. The best approach is precautionary. Reduce the risk by reducing the microwave emissions. It is our obligation as physicians and parents to protect our children. They are the future and our legacy.”
Dr. Russell recommends:
Dr. Russel cites the science, international actions, and provides a reference list. This is an excellent paper to give to school principals and administrators.
Damon Wyman and David Bird led a campaign to remove the wireless system from Te Horo School and replace it with cable-based internet due to concerns it could cause cancer and other health problems.
Damon is the father of Ethan who died from a brain tumor and had attended the local school. His son was exposed to Wi-Fi at school, and he also slept with an Internet-connected iPod under his pillow at night.
The school sent a survey to parents, and after reviewing the results agreed to remove the wi-fi in the junior classrooms. Watch the video here: http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/fathers-win-school-wi-fi-battle-5787916/video
Amy O’Hair investigates just how much wi-fi radiation is on a Southwest Airlines flight. She’s using a cornet meter. She finds out- its too much! (For wi-fi safety testing humans are compared to sacks of potatoes.) One solution: Ask the airlines for a device free zone on the plane, away from the routers. Alaska Airlines has some routes that are still wi-fi free.