Health risks of nuclear and wireless radiation compared

An article recently published in the Environmentalist, by Cindy Sage, compares the biological effects of nuclear radiation to biological effects of common everyday wireless radiation exposures.

Nuclear radiation fallout is expected to recirculate in the environment from the Fukushima Japan disaster for another 40 years.  Meanwhile, we are surrounded with ubiquitous and harder to avoid levels of wireless radiation from cell towers, cell phones, wi-fi, DECT phones, etc.  Sage concludes that both types of  exposures present similar biological effects:

“There is long-standing scientific evidence to suggest that low-dose ionizing radiation (LD-IR) and low-intensity non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (LI-NIER) in the form of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation share similar biological effects.”

“Reducing preventable, adverse health exposures in the newly rebuilt environment to both LD-IR and LI-NIER is an achievable goal for Japan. Recovery and reconstruction efforts in Japan to restore the communications and energy infrastructure, in particular, should pursue strategies for reduction and/or prevention of both kinds of exposures.”

Sage writes, “In both kinds of exposure (chronic, low-level), these effects include genotoxicity and DNA fragmentation with chromosome aberrations; immune and inflammatory reactions (allergic reactions and development of hypersensitivity); reduction or suppression of the immune system or disregulation of the immune system; effects on lymphocytes and increased risk for lymphoproliferative diseases;and increased risk of other cancers in adults and in children.”

Link to the science: The similar effects of low-dose ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation from background environmental levels of exposure

5 thoughts on “Health risks of nuclear and wireless radiation compared”

  2. How does one test for the emf levels mentioned above (AC Magnetic, AC Electric, RF Radiation)?

    Thank you.

  4. FYI:
    On March 3, 2012, the Austrian Medical Association (ÖAK) released guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses:
    http://www.aerztekammer.at/documents/10618/976981/EMF-Guideline.pdf
    It was great to see that the work of various CHE-EMF partners is quoted in this guideline.

    The suggested treatment protocol includes:
    1 History of health problems and EMF exposure
    2 Examination and findings
    3 Measurement of EMF exposure
    4 Prevention or reduction of EMF exposure
    5 Diagnosis
    6 Treatment

    In addition to basic diagnostic tests, for example, 24-hour monitoring of blood pressure (absence of nighttime decline), ECG, and heart variability is recommended.

    EMF exposure level testing and subsequent reduction strategies are a major component of this guideline.
    Recommended threshold levels (e.g. SBM-2008) and EMF testing protocols (e.g. VDB Guidelines) are based on the building biology approach.

    AC magnetic fields
    within normal limits < 20 nT or 0.2 mG ... significant concern > 400 nT or 4 mG

    AC electric fields
    within normal limits < 0.3 V/m ... significant concern > 10 V/m

    RF radiation
    within normal limits < 1 µW/m2 ... significant concern > 1000 µW/m2

    In contrast to the Nordic Council of Ministers http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2000-839, which suggested in 2010 to use ICD-10 codes R00-R99 “symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings not elsewhere classified” and specifically R68.8, the ÖAK recommends to use Z58.4 “exposure to radiation.”

    The primary treatment consists of reducing EMF exposures. In addition, lifestyle coaching (e.g. exercise, nutrition, sleep habits, stress reduction), holistic therapies (e.g. antioxidant therapies), and treatment of symptoms (until the cause(s) have been identified and eliminated) are also recommended.

    Katharina Gustavs
    http://www.buildingbiology.ca

Comments are closed.