The EMF Health Effects Survey 2019 is an anonymous survey circulated online from 11/27/2018 to 1/27/2019 through the EMF Safety Network lists, website, and affiliate online EMF groups. There are 876 respondents and over 1300 comments. THANK YOU to all who took the survey and to all who helped to circulate it!
Ed Halteman, PhD of Survey Design and Analysis has prepared a report of the Survey Results. A summary of the results is 52% of all respondents stated “severely”or “a lot” in response to the question of “How much does the current EMF environment (cell phones/smart meters/wireless etc.) limit your lifestyle – your ability to work, shop, play, and or spend time with friends and family?” 22% said they are affected a moderate amount, 15.6% a little and 10.5% not at all limited.
Respondents were asked to best match themselves to the following descriptions which are synonymous with mild, moderate, and severe Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). 49.3% said they are EMF Aware: “You are aware that electromagnetic fields and wireless radiation affect your health or make you feel unwell”
27.5% EMF Injured: “You have been injured by electromagnetic fields and/or wireless radiation”
19.1% Radiation sickness: “You have electromagnetic radiation sickness, a severe and chronic condition”
4.1% None of the above
The top health problems all respondents experience(d) and believe are related to EMF exposure are: Sleep; Fatigue; Concentration, memory or learning problems; and Stress and anxiety.
The top EMF device(s), all respondents believe caused or worsened their health problems are: Wi-fi; Cell phone; Smart meters; and Cell or radio tower.
The top remediations that people tried and reported as most helpful were: Prudent avoidance of EMF; turning electricity off at the breaker box, and shielding. The least helpful remedies were reported as: Medical doctors, prescription drugs and counseling or therapy.
When you look at the survey results segmented by self-description the numbers change. People with Radiation sickness had twice the number of health problems as EMF Aware, and 50% more than EMF Injured.
94% of people with Radiation sickness reported Concentration, memory or learning problems, compared to 47% of EMF Aware. People with Radiation sickness were more affected by cell or radio tower.
See the survey report by Survey Design and Analysis for more details on all descriptors and varying results between the three groups as well as a link to Survey summary and all comments. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/EMF_Wireless-Study-2019_Final-1.pdf
There is much to learn, and much more to say about these results. How can we best use this? Circulate this report to doctors and decision makers. Try a solution you haven’t tried yet. Have more compassion for people who are more affected than you. Understand not everyone is equally harmed. What else? Let us know!
In closing, please read the following commentary on this survey by Cindy Sage:
“The many hundreds of comments written by people responding to the EMF Health Effects Survey 2019 by the EMF Safety Network are illuminating and profoundly disturbing. The Survey itself is invaluable to teach us what it is like to live a life with EHS limitations. It doesn’t matter whether you live in the US, or Canada, or western Europe or Scandinavia. Or Asia. Or Australia. The accounts are so similar. The demoralizing effects are the same.
What is obvious is that these people are expressing the symptoms of microwave radiation illness that could be predicted based on decades of international scientific studies. The physiological basis for brain and body effects from microwave radiation exposures are well-accounted for in the science – so it should be no surprise to hear it. At least a dozen major studies and reviews of cell tower-level RF exposures (of 0.1 microwatt per centimeter squared or more) have identified these same health effects the Survey presents through the personal comments of responders.
We don’t often get a window into the life of a person with EHS – how isolating it is – how marginalized people are – and how withdrawn they must become to protect what is left of their health. We need to listen with ears wide open. This is real and real people are living greatly diminished lives. Imagine yourself forced to give up a productive life to live on the edge, and that edge keeps moving. Imagine being denied access to business opportunities, education, transportation, healthcare, public participation, recreation and places of celebration and renewal.
Again and again we are hearing the same things. I lived a normal life until… smart meters were installed on my wall… until a major macrocell tower was built next door…. until my office installed several wireless routers. My family didn’t understand. It took me some time to realize what was making me sick. It destabilized my relationships. I lost my freedom.
People with EHS have to give up so many things most people take for granted in life. Shopping, going out to dinner, attending meetings in public places, going to a child’s graduation or recital, travel along an interstate or by rail or air. Everyday activities that make up the fabric of life are no longer accessible – at least without paying the price.
It is an insidious and invisible progression where the activities of daily life are incrementally diminished by exposures that intensify with time, subject to no health and safety accounting at all. No one is keeping track of cumulative RF body burdens. There is no governmental agency that is tracking EHS illness reports, nor conducting a serious effort to revise health standards.
Perhaps the most valuable lesson we can learn from this Survey is educated compassion. The first thing we can do is to accept that EHS is real. The next thing we can do is to change our own behaviors. And, after that, wherever we have influence – we need to help others find healthier ways of interacting with technology that protects all of us.”
Editor, BioInitiative Reports
The Federal government is once again trying to take away local authority over cell towers. Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act (S.3157).
S. 3157 is similar to a California Senate bill, SB 649, which would have stripped local authority over cell towers. Governor Brown vetoed SB 649 in October 2017.
The National League of Cities (NLC) opposes S. 3157. They wrote, “Despite urging from NLC and other local government advocates during the bill’s drafting phase, many preemptive provisions remain in the bill, including limiting the actions local governments can take on small cell wireless facility siting in an effort to make deployments cheaper, faster, and more consistent across jurisdictions.”
Here’s an easy way to take action. They NLC will send a letter directly to your representatives in Congress for you. You will need to insert your zip code, (and maybe your full address), and then the letter template will appear.
PLEASE NOTE: Instead of using their letter, which has statements of support for small cells, copy and paste the words below.
As a constituent, I am writing to express my opposition to the “Streamlining The Rapid Evolution And Modernization of Leading-edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance (STREAMLINE) Small Cell Deployment Act” (S. 3157).
S. 3157 is similar to a California bill (SB 649) which would have created a state mandated system of cell towers and eliminated local review and safety oversight. SB 649 was opposed by 300 cities, 47 counties and over 100 community, planning, health, environment and justice organizations. SB 649 was vetoed SB 649 by Governor Brown on October 15, 2017.
The threat of public and environmental harm from wireless radiation is real and growing. Local control is needed to ensure community safety, welfare and compliance with federal, state, and local laws.
Peer-reviewed published science shows wireless radiation harms public health and nature. Health effects include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more. Children, the ill, and the elderly are more vulnerable.
International independent scientists are calling for biologically-based public exposure standards and reducing wireless radiation.
S. 3157 represents a direct affront to traditionally-held local authority. S. 3157 introduces an unnecessary, one-size-fits-all preemption of local jurisdiction. The bill also imposes unfair and inappropriate timelines on local governments.
For more information see this joint letter to Congress asking you to oppose any and all bills related to 5G and wireless radiation expansion: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Letter-to-Congress-2017-1.pdf
Privacy International (PI) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in the case of Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v. City of Naperville before the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
PI and EFF argue that usage data from smart electricity meters differs quantitatively and qualitatively from analog electricity meters, revealing intimate details regarding a person’s private in-home activities.
PI and EFF argue that an Illinois District Court’s decision that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in aggregate electrical usage data, regardless of whether the data is collected by a smart meter or analog meter, is flawed and that the Court’s decision should be reversed.
Patterns generated by smart meter data can be used to infer how many individuals reside in a home as well as their activities, habits, and rhythms of movement, including when they leave their home and when they go to sleep.
Smart meter data can even reveal which appliances are functioning at a given time, allowing one to infer, for example, when residents consume meals, take showers, watch TV, and use exercise equipment.
Privacy International Legal Officer Scarlet Kim said: “The transition from analog meters to smart meters — from a single monthly reading of energy usage to thousands of data points per month — transforms a blunt record of kilowatts consumed into a deeply personal snapshot of a person’s life. The data protection and privacy implications of collecting this data are not confined to Illinois but resonate around the world.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Attorney Jamie Williams said: “The lower court made false assumptions about how smart meter technology works, and its decision is a threat to the privacy of the 57 million and counting American homes with this new technology.”
Scientists in Germany studied tree damage in relation to electromagnetic radiation for nine years, from 2006-2015. They monitored, observed and photographed unusual or unexplainable tree damage, and measured the radiation the trees were exposed too.
“The aim of this study was to verify whether there is a connection between unusual (generally unilateral) tree damage and radiofrequency exposure.”
The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visual contact to any phone mast and power flux density under 50μW/m2) showed no damage.
The National Toxicology Program published a 25 million dollar study which is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on cell phone radiation and cancer. In the study the rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers, glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a tumor in the heart.
The summary includes, “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”
A media teleconference is being held today by the National Institutes of Health. However the news is already being reported on by Mother Jones, Wall Street Journal and others.
“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer” “It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”-Mother Jones
“A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”- Wall Street Journal
You can find the full study here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf+html
We are in an era of unprecedented psychological manipulation of the science on potential health effects of EMF and RFR.
Over the last few years, the BioInitiative Working Group has worked many hours on the European Commission’s science reviews of EMF and RFR. What they say matters. It’s the expert committee for the European Union (EU) recommending whether EMF and RFR public safety limits are okay, or need substantial revision. You know where we stand on this. The limits are grossly inadequate in Europe and the US.
The European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) did a bad job of it in 2009, and has unsurprisingly disappointed us again in 2015. Through deceptive language tactics, the Committee has deliberately put out misinformation to erase what should have been clear findings of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields. Health effects that matter greatly to millions of regular people who want to know about EMF.
What’s their NAME?
The Scientific Committee for Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, right? Emerging (not proven). Newly identified (not conclusively demonstrated).
What is the NAME OF THEIR REPORT?
“Final opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)” Not conclusively proven health effects.
What did they conclude?
That there are no conclusively proven biological effects.
How Could That Happen?
” While the scope of the Opinion [SCENIHR, 2015a] did include potential health effects, it was not SCENIHR’s objective to decide whether the possibility of an effect exists, as erroneously suggested by Sage et al. It should be noted that the term “risk” already accounts for probability of a harmful effect and that various levels”. (SCENIHR Leitgeb, 2015)
It would be just an academic farce if our lives didn’t depend on the outcome. But, we do. All around the planet, we depend on good advice from educated experts that are supposed to be independent thinkers and good analysts of what is a ‘potential health effect’. No amount of dust-kicking can obscure the basic fact that the SCENIHR failed to do what it was directed to do.
Read for yourselves. This is double-speak. The SCENIHR’S science review that has failed to carry out the central question asked of this Committee. This is an assessment on which the fate of billions of human beings depends, and upon which global health rests.
For SCENIHR to issue an unwarranted finding of ‘all clear’ by redefining the reporting terms and misreporting the evidence is bad for science, bad for the public and intensely bad for school children who are sitting in classrooms with WiFi all day, required to use wireless tablets for schoolwork. Read more: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rebuttal-emf-effects/