electromagnetic pollution touches all of us

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Article 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

In order to protect the environment the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
 by: The Bioinitiative Working Group
 August 2007

An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.
[Since the release of this ground breaking report, world governments are warning their citizens about the use of wireless technology and will no doubt refer to it when establishing future wireless, electric, and electromagnetic technology policies.]
Read more...

ATTITUDES TO HEALTH DANGERS OF NON-THERMAL EMFs
A review of the polarisation in attitudes towards research into the health dangers of non-thermal electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
 by: Michael Bevington
 January 2008

The investigation of the health effects of electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) is unusual among most areas of scientific study in generating a distinct polarisation in attitudes among scientists. The depth of this division is apparent to the general public and has led to a sharp decline in the public’s confidence in many scientific studies and related government pronouncements. For instance, according to research of 2007 in Europe, 76% of 27,000 people surveyed believe there are health dangers associated with mobile phones.1 In contrast, the 2007 UK government MTHR report declared that there was no health danger for the first 10 years’ use of a mobile phone, although admitting a risk of cancer and neurological illnesses thereafter. This degradation in the status of both the science and the scientists is becoming increasingly serious as human health is exposed to ever-greater threats from irradiation by non-thermal EMFs. Too often the absence of any proof of harm is wrongly assumed to show the proof of the absence of harm.
Read more...

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES
  by: Andrew Michrowski, Ph.D.
  November 2007

What are the issues, the second-hand effects, and the standards for the wireless technologies?
Life on earth has evolved amidst a broad band of electromagnetic frequencies, which originate from throughout the universe. By 1980, environmental exposure to artificial, repetitive or random signals in the radiofrequency / microwave band has risen dramatically – by more than a trillion times, mostly for military technology.

Since 1980, mostly for newly-introduced commercial applications, the average “second-hand” exposure in Southern Canada has risen from about 0.005 microWatt/cm2 to the current background environmental range of 0.4 to 100.0 µWatt/cm2. We note an 8 to 20,000-fold increase with peaks in downtown Toronto and some centres, including Brantford and Mississauga. About 100 square kilometres in Southern Ontario have environmental broadband radiofrequency and microwave power emission exposures during timeframes that can exceed the Health Canada Safety Code 6 exposure limit of approximately 0.6 to 1 milliWatt/cm2 (600 - 1,000microWatt/cm2). Such illegal irradiation coverage can be expected to rise exponentially to several hundred square kilometres in both Ontario and Quebec by the end of this decade, on a more persistent basis, as more and more wireless technologies are approved by governments and marketed. Note that individuals within such exposed zones may experience a continual body temperature rise, with time, (but actually “feel” colder, and may seek greater warmth).

Read more...

THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES
 Medical Perspective by: Margaret E. Sears (M.Eng., Ph.D.)
 Legal Perspective by: Cara Wilkie and David Baker
 June 2007

[The Canadian Human Rights Commission approved a Policy on Environmental Sensitivities on June 15th, 2007. In this policy, EHS is classified as an environmental sensitivity and therefore a disability.]
Approximately 3% of Canadians have been diagnosed with environmental sensitivities. They usually experience neurological impairments, and often experience other symptoms including runny eyes and nose, headaches, fatigue, pain and breathing and digestive problems. Environmental sensitivities may develop gradually after chronic exposure to relatively low levels of chemicals as seen in "sick buildings," or suddenly after a major exposure to an environmental disaster or a chemical spill. This condition may be initiated by one or a combination of environmental factors such as mould, pesticides, solvents, chemicals off-gassing from carpets or furnishings, or electromagnetic phenomena.
Read more...