Provisional
edition
The potential dangers of
electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment
Resolution 1815 (2011)
Text adopted by the
Standing Committee,
acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 27 May 2011 (see Doc. 12608, report of the Committee on the
Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Huss).
1.
The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states’
commitment to preserving the environment and environmental health, as set
out in many charters, conventions, declarations and protocols since the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Stockholm Declaration
(Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely
Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment and health, Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution,
and more generally, Recommendation 1885 (2009) on drafting an additional protocol
to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy
environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information, public
participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice – implementation
of the Aarhus Convention.
2.
The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic
fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of
ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. According to the
World Health Organisation, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent
one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about
which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to
varying degrees of to electromagnetic fields, the levels of which will continue
to increase as technology advances.
3.
Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless
technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base
stations, relaying information with radio frequency signals. Over 1.4 million
base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with
the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that
allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area
networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas
(airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base
stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the radio frequency
exposure of the population.
4.
While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have
wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising
frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain
high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile
telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal,
biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body
even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
5.
As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic
fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly recommends that the ALARA or
“as low as reasonably achievable” principle is applied, covering both the
so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of
electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle
should be applicable when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be
determined with sufficient certainty, especially given the context of growing
exposure of the population, including particularly vulnerable groups such as
young people and children, which could lead to extremely high human and
economic costs of inaction if early warnings are neglected.
6.
The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary
principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of
statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known
or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in
adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high
levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent
well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the
case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
7.
Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or
waves and the potential consequences for the environment and health has clear
parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication,
chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It
therefore highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of
scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced
assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.
8.
In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member
states of the Council of Europe:
8.1.
in general terms:
8.1.1.
take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields,
especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the
exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;
8.1.2.
reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure
standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation
Protection, which have serious limitations and apply “as low as reasonably
achievable” (ALARA) principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic
or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;
8.1.3.
put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of
potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on
human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of
reproductive age;
8.1.4.
pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” persons suffering from a
syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special
measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered
by the wireless network;
8.1.5.
in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human
health, step up research on new types of antennas and mobile phone and DECT-type devices, and
encourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies
which are just as efficient but have less negative effects on the environment
and health;
8.2.
concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX
for computers and other wireless devices such as baby phones:
8.2.1.
set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all
indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding
0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per
metre;
8.2.2.
undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device
prior to licensing;
8.2.3.
introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or
electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate
(SAR) of the device and any health risks connected with its use;
8.2.4.
raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones,
baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves,
if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the
use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not
permanently emit pulse waves;
8.3.
concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1.
develop within different ministries (education, environment and health)
targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert
them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of
mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2.
for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give
preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of
mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises;
8.4.
concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base
stations:
8.4.1.
introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other
electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings;
8.4.2.
apply strict safety standards for sound electric systems in new dwellings;
8.4.3.
reduce threshold values for relay antennas in accordance with the ALARA
principle and install systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of
all antennas;
8.4.4.
determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennas not solely
according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and
regional government officials, local residents and associations of concerned
citizens;
8.5.
concerning risk assessment and precautions:
8.5.1.
make risk assessment more prevention oriented;
8.5.2.
improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk
scale, making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several
risk hypotheses and considering compatibility with real life conditions;
8.5.3.
pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;
8.5.4.
formulate a human rights oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA
principles;
8.5.5.
increase public funding of independent research, inter alia through
grants from industry and taxation of products which are the subject of public
research studies to evaluate health risks;
8.5.6.
create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds;
8.5.7.
make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;
8.5.8.
promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including
civil society (Aarhus Convention).
Doc. 12608
6 May 2011
The potential dangers of
electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment
Report1
Committee on the
Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
Rapporteur: Mr Jean HUSS,
Luxembourg, Socialist Group
Summary
The potential health
effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power
lines and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a
significant amount of public debate. While electrical and electromagnetic
fields in certain frequency bands have fully beneficial effects which are
applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from
extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in
the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have
more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants,
insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are
below the official threshold values.
One must respect the
precautionary principle and revise the current threshold values; waiting for
high levels of scientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and
economic costs, as was the case in the past with asbestos, leaded petrol and
tobacco.
A.
Draft resolution2
1.
The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states’
commitment to preserving the environment and environmental health, as set out
in many charters, conventions, declarations and protocols since the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Stockholm Declaration
(Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment and health, Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light
pollution, and more generally, Recommendation 1885 (2009) on drafting an additional
protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a
healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information,
public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice –
implementation of the Aarhus Convention.
2.
The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic
fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of
ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. According to the
World Health Organisation, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent
one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about
which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to
varying degrees of to electromagnetic fields, the levels of which will continue
to increase as technology advances.
3.
Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless
technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base
stations, relaying information with radio frequency signals. Over 1.4 million
base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with
the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that
allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area
networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas
(airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base
stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the radio frequency
exposure of the population.
4.
While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have
wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising
frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or
certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications
and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful,
non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the
human body even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold
values.
5.
As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic
fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly recommends that the ALARA or
“as low as reasonably achievable” principle is applied, covering both the
so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of
electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle
should be applicable when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be
determined with sufficient certainty, especially given the context of growing
exposure of the population, including particularly vulnerable groups such as
young people and children, which could lead to extremely high human and
economic costs of inaction if early warnings are neglected.
6.
The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary
principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of
statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known
or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in
adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high
levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent
well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the
case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
7.
Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or
waves and the potential consequences for the environment and health has clear
parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication,
chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It
therefore highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of
scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced
assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.
8.
In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member
states of the Council of Europe:
8.1.
in general terms:
8.1.1.
take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields,
especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure
to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;
8.1.2.
reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure
standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation
Protection, which have serious limitations and apply “as low as reasonably
achievable” (ALARA) principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic
or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;
8.1.3.
put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of
potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on
human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of
reproductive age;
8.1.4.
pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” persons suffering from a
syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special
measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered
by the wireless network;
8.1.5.
in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human
health, step up research on new types of antennas and mobile phone and DECT-type devices, and
encourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies
which are just as efficient but have less negative effects on the environment
and health;
8.2.
concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX
for computers and other wireless devices such as baby phones:
8.2.1.
set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all
indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding
0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per
metre;
8.2.2.
undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior
to licensing;
8.2.3.
introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or
electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate
(SAR) of the device and any health risks connected with its use;
8.2.4.
raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones,
baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves,
if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the
use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not
permanently emit pulse waves;
8.3.
concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1.
develop within different ministries (education, environment and health)
targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert
them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of
mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2.
ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and
schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and
civil society organisations;
8.4.
concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base
stations:
8.4.1.
introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other
electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings;
8.4.2.
apply strict safety standards for sound electric systems in new dwellings;
8.4.3.
reduce threshold values for relay antennas in accordance with the ALARA principle
and install systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all
antennas;
8.4.4.
determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennas not solely
according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and
regional government officials, local residents and associations of concerned
citizens;
8.5.
concerning risk assessment and precautions:
8.5.1.
make risk assessment more prevention oriented;
8.5.2.
improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk
scale, making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several
risk hypotheses and considering compatibility with real life conditions;
8.5.3.
pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;
8.5.4.
formulate a human rights oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA
principles;
8.5.5.
increase public funding of independent research, inter alia through
grants from industry and taxation of products which are the subject of public
research studies to evaluate health risks;
8.5.6.
create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds;
8.5.7.
make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;
8.5.8.
promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including
civil society (Aarhus Convention).
B.
Explanatory memorandum by Mr Huss, rapporteur
Contents
Page
1.
Introduction...................
..............................................................................................................5
2.
Background to the debate.......
.....................................................................................................5
3.
Growing concerns in Europe..........
...............................................................................................6
4.
Effects on the environment: plants, insects,
animals...
....................................................................6
5.
Biological effects of electromagnetic fields in
medicine.
.................................................................7
6.
Therapeutic use of electric currents or electromagnetic
waves...
.......................................................7
7.
Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and
health protection.... 8
8.
Contending forces and arguments: the dispute over the incidence of biological
effects and over
threshold
values 9
9.
Scientific studies and arguments pursued by associations and NGOs, by groupings
of scientists,
by
the European Environment Agency and by the European
Parliament....
..............................9
10.
Conclusions.............................................................................................
.................................12
1.
Introduction
1.
Electromagnetic fields, whether emitted by high-voltage lines, domestic
appliances, relay antennas, mobile telephones or other microwave devices, are
increasingly present in our techno-industrial environment.
2.
Obviously, in evolutionary terms, living or working in artificial
electromagnetic extremely low frequency and high frequency fields, on top of
the electromagnetic fields naturally occurring in the environment, is still a
relatively new experience for human beings, fauna and flora. It goes back no
further than fifty years or so, when intensive industrial and domestic exposure
began with radars, radio waves and televisions and electromagnetic fields
generated by high-voltage lines and household electrical appliances.
3.
It was only from the 1990s onwards that the new telephony and wireless mobile
communication technologies began to boom ever faster Europe-wide and even
worldwide thanks to increasingly diverse and sophisticated applications: mobile
telephones, cordless telephones, WiFi, WLAN (wireless local area network), etc.
4.
The term "electromagnetic fields" covers all the fields emitted by
natural and man-made sources. A distinction is drawn between static fields and
alternating fields. In the latter case there is essentially a differentiation
between extremely low frequency (ELF) fields, such as domestic electricity, and
hyper-frequency (HF) fields, which include mobile telephones. Electrical fields
are measured in volts per metre (v/m), whereas magnetic fields are measured in
terms of current-induced exposure in microteslas (µt). Since very weak
electrical currents are part of human physiology, at the level of communication
between cells for example, the question of the possible disruptive effects of
present levels of artificial exposure on the human environment and any
consequences they might have for health may legitimately be raised.
5.
It should be noted with satisfaction that a major contribution was made by the
technological innovations resulting from electrification and new
radio-telecommunication techniques to economic growth and the material
well-being of the populations of industrialised countries. Domestic appliances,
for example, have greatly helped to lighten the load from everyday chores in
millions of households and played a not inconsiderable role in the women's
liberation movement.
2.
Background to the debate
6.
Nevertheless, it must be said that, since some of these new technologies were
first introduced, environmental or health problems have emerged and become a
topic of discussion in certain countries, both in scientific circles and in the
field of health and occupational medicine. From the 1930s onwards, radar waves
were linked to certain "microwave syndromes" among operators and
technicians subjected to intensive and prolonged exposure. The former USSR and
Eastern bloc countries adopted very low preventive thresholds aimed at
protecting operators' health.
7.
In the United States and western Europe, discussion of potential harm to health
resulting from electromagnetic fields focused, in the 1970s and 1980s,
essentially on the problem of high- or very high-voltage lines and protection
in the workplace (for those working on computers, in electrically powered
steelworks, etc). As far as the risks from high-voltage lines are concerned, an
American epidemiological study (Wertheimer and Leeper, 1979) demonstrated a
link between the proximity of high-voltage lines and child leukaemia,
corroborated in 2001 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
which classified these fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans"
(category 2B). At the same time, from the early 1980s onwards, another issue
relating to electromagnetic fields and chemical pollution was raised at
international conferences: discomforts due to office computer screens,
health effects in the form of headaches, fatigue and eye and skin problems.
Regarding the electromagnetic aspect of those effects, stringent preventive
standards (TCO standards) were proposed at the beginning of the 1990s by the
Swedish Confederation of Employees and then widely adopted.
8.
The 1990s saw a boom in mobile telephony and its rapid expansion, first in the
industrialised countries and then increasingly in the developing countries of
Africa, Asia and Latin America.
9.
Mobile telephony and ever more sophisticated wireless telecommunication
applications have not only been taken on board in professional spheres but have
also quite literally invaded our private life. This affects even very young
children, at home, at school, on transport, etc.
3.
Growing concerns in Europe
10.
However, for a good ten years or so, Europe's populations have begun to show
increasing concern over the potential health risks of mobile telephony, with
reliable information on these questions in short supply. In a recent
Eurobarometer study (European Commission), 48% of Europeans stated that they
were concerned or very concerned over the potential health risks posed by
mobile telephony. The presumption of risk was noted among 76% of Europeans
concerning relay antennas and 73% concerning the potential effects of mobile
telephones respectively.
11.
Such concerns over electromagnetic fields or waves have triggered the emergence
and growth of a multitude of citizens' initiatives in many countries. These
initiatives are mostly directed against the installation of relay antenna
stations, above all close to schools, nurseries, hospitals or other
institutions caring for children or vulnerable individuals, and also
increasingly challenge other aspects of wireless telecommunication such as WiFi
in schools for example.
12.
The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
organised two hearings with experts on 17 September 2010 and 25 February 2011.
13.
At the first hearing of experts, Mr Ralph Baden of the Occupational Medicine
Department of the Ministry of Health of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg spoke
generally about the issue of very low frequency and high frequency
electromagnetic fields and waves and the respective applicable threshold
values. He listed the different sources of those electromagnetic fields outside
dwellings: relay antennas, high-voltage lines, radio stations, television,
radars, etc, but laid special emphasis on the results of measurement readings,
on sources of such fields in homes or public buildings and provided concrete
examples of simple and practical means of reducing exposure to these
"indoor" fields and eliminating certain health problems, such as
headaches, insomnia, coughs, depression, etc.
4.
Effects on the environment: plants, insects, animals
14.
At the same hearing of experts, Dr Ulrich Warnke of the Institute of Technical
Biology and Bionics in Saarbrücken described the biological effects of certain
microwave frequencies on plants. Depending on the frequencies, their intensity
and modulation and the length of exposure, scientific studies demonstrated
stress reactions and disruptions of gene expression. Recent studies by the
cellular biology laboratory of Clermont-Ferrand University (2007), for example,
clearly show the effects of mobile telephony microwaves on plant genes, in particular
tomato plants.
15.
Other scientific international studies show comparable stress reactions in
certain types of beans, as well as deciduous and coniferous trees exposed to
various frequencies (relay antennas, TETRA frequency).
16.
Dr Warnke highlighted the innate magnetic compass used by certain animals or
insects to orient themselves in time and space and which dictates the internal
functioning of their organism, before going on to demonstrate how extremely
weak artificial fields or waves could adversely affect the sense of direction,
navigation and communication of certain animals or insects: migratory birds,
pigeons, certain kinds of fish (sharks, whales, rays) or certain insects (ants,
butterflies and especially bees). He suggested that malfunctions induced by
artificial electromagnetic waves might be one of the major causes – besides
problems of exposure to chemicals – of repeated incidents of whales being
washed up on beaches or the death or disappearance of bee colonies (colony collapse
disorder) observed in past years.
17.
The great multitude of scientific studies quoted during the hearing of experts
should certainly prompt policymakers to reflect on their decisions and act
accordingly. One final aspect mentioned during the hearing concerned the
potentially pathogenic effects observed in livestock – calves, cows, horses,
geese, etc. – following the installation of mobile telephone masts nearby:
unaccountable deformities of new-born calves, cataracts, fertility problems.
18.
In the face of fast-growing concerns and opposition in many Council of Europe
member states, the response of top executives of electricity companies and
mobile telephone operators is to deny that their industrial and commercial activities
have any adverse effect on human health. At the hearing in Paris on 25 February
2011, the official representatives of French and European mobile telephone
operators passionately argued that the official threshold values applicable in
most countries in the world were adequate to protect human beings from the
thermal effects of mobile telephones and that any biological effects, if these
could be demonstrated, would not have any adverse effects on human health.
19.
To back up their argument, the experts quoted the scientific assessments
carried out by associations such as the International Committee on
Non-Ionisation Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a small private NGO near Munich,
or by official organisations: the World Health Organization, the European
Commission and a number of national protection agencies. It appears that these
European and national organisations or international bodies have based their
thinking on the threshold values and recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP
when that private association was set up near Munich at the beginning of the
1990s.
20.
Yet, at the same hearing, leaders of associations of citizens and
representatives of the NGOs such as "Robin des toits", laid heavy
emphasis on the numerous risks and harmful biological effects and related
health problems which they believed to be linked to electromagnetic fields or
waves from mobile telephony, relay antennas, high-voltage lines and other
artificially generated electromagnetic fields, even at very low levels that
were well below the officially applicable threshold values.
21.
The representative of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, an
official advisory body to the European Union, stressed the importance of the
precautionary principle written into the European treaties and accordingly
pointed to the need for effective preventive measures to protect human health
and avoid painful health issues or scandals of the kind already experienced
over asbestos, tobacco smoking, lead and PCBs (polychlorobiphenyls), to name
but a few. He presented a convincing analysis of the scientific assessment
methods currently used and the different levels of evidence to conclude, on the
basis of the "Bioinitiative" scientific report and other more recent
studies by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, that the indices or levels of
proof were sufficient at this stage to prompt action by governments and
international bodies.
22.
Finally, another expert specialising in clinical medicine and oncology
confirmed, on the basis of the findings of biological and clinical analysis of
several hundred French patients describing themselves
as "electrosensitive", that a syndrome of intolerance to
electromagnetic fields (SIEMF) does exist and that those people are not
feigning illness or suffering from psychiatric disorders.
5.
Biological effects of electromagnetic fields in medicine
23.
It has been established since the beginning of the 20th century that
electromagnetic fields operating at various frequencies can have useful and
beneficial effects in clinical medicine, whether for diagnosis or treatment.
24.
Scientific developments since the Second World War have revealed that the human
organism does not function solely on the basis of biological or biochemical
cellular reactions but that humans are also electromagnetic beings. It is now
well known that nerve cells communicate between one another using electrical
impulses. The most powerful electrical signals detected in humans are those
generated by nervous and muscular activity. In the case of the heart, which is
the most important muscle group in the body, cardiac functioning is medically
diagnosed by recording the electrical signals emitted by it (electrocardiogram
– ECG). Again at the level of diagnosis, electroencephalography (EEG) allows
non-invasive monitoring of the brain's electrical activity. The EEG has been
widely used in the clinical areas of brain disorders, sleep pattern monitoring
or confirmation of clinical death.
6.
Therapeutic use of electric currents or electromagnetic waves
25.
Without going into detail, the rapporteur wishes to point out that certain
electrical currents or electromagnetic waves used at certain frequencies may
have a perfectly beneficial effect in medical terms. There are a number of
examples illustrating the therapeutic benefits of electrotherapy: clinical
effects of direct electric currents (electrolysis), clinical effects of
external electrical impulses on the cardiac muscle (defibrillators,
pacemakers), clinical effects of micro-currents generated by pulsed magnetic
fields to improve healing in tissue repair and bone fractures, to mention only
the best known of these non-ionising frequency band applications.
26.
But while electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have
fully beneficial effects, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from
extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in
the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have
more or less potentially harmful biological effects on plants, insects and
animals as well as the human body even when exposed to levels that are below
the official threshold values.
7.
Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and health
protection
27.
It should be noted that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and
the potential consequences for the environment and health has clear parallels
with other current issues, such as the licensing of chemicals, pesticides, heavy
metals or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), to mention only the best known
examples. It is certain that one cause of public anxiety and mistrust of the
communication efforts of official safety agencies and governments lies in the
fact that a number of past health crises or scandals, such those involving
asbestos, contaminated blood, PCBs or dioxins, lead, tobacco smoking and more
recently H1N1 flu were able to happen despite the work or even with the
complicity of national or international agencies nominally responsible for
environmental or health safety.
28.
Indeed, it is in this connection that the Committee on the Environment,
Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs is currently working on the question
of conflicts of interest and the urgent need for real independence of
scientists involved in the official agencies tasked with evaluating the risks
of products prior to licensing.
29.
The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the
least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health
impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency
waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO,
European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and
structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having
rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by
recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of
electromagnetic fields.
30.
If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with
replicating and adopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP,
this has essentially been for two reasons:
–
in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their
promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation;
–
and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little
involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and
health.
31.
With regard to the frequently inconclusive if not contradictory findings of
scientific research and studies on the possible risks of products, medicines
or, in this case, electromagnetic fields, a number of comparative studies do
seem to suggest a fairly strong correlation between the origin of their funding
– private or public – and the findings of risk assessments, a manifestly
unacceptable situation pointing to conflicts of interest which undermine the integrity,
the genuine independence and the objectivity of scientific research.
32.
Concerning the assessment of health risks resulting from mobile telephone radio
frequencies, for example, in 2006 Swiss researchers from Bern University
presented the findings of a systematic analysis of all research results and
concluded that there was a strong correlation between how the research was
funded and the results obtained: 33% of studies funded by industrial concerns
conclude that exposure to mobile telephone radio frequencies has an effect on
our organism. That figure rises to over 80% in studies carried out with public
funding.
33.
Accordingly, in this field and in others, one should call for genuine
independence on the part of the expert appraisal agencies and for independent,
multidisciplinary and properly balanced expert input. There must no longer be
situations where whistleblowers are discriminated against and renowned
scientists with critical opinions are excluded when experts are selected to sit
on expert committees or no longer receive funding for their research.
8.
Contending forces and arguments: the dispute over the incidence of biological
effects and over threshold values
34.
It seems obvious that the prime considerations for societies dependent on
electricity, mobile telephony and telecommunication are the economic and
financial parameters, hence profits and market shares. Understandably, in this
context more stringent regulations and threshold values which ostensibly
inhibit their business dealings are viewed with disfavour and forcefully
resisted – as could be seen from the irritated and sometimes emotional
statements of a representative of French mobile telephony at our committee’s
hearing for contrastive expert opinion.
35.
The representatives of mobile telephony have for years espoused the same
paradigm and the same line of argument, in which they invoke the soothing
discourse of most international agencies and institutions. For example, the
threshold values of 100 microtesla for low or high frequency electromagnetic
fields and 41/42 volts/metre for the very high frequencies of mobile telephony
on 900 megahertz (MHz) are claimed to be quite adequate for protecting the
public against thermal effects. At very high levels, the radio frequency fields
are plainly liable to produce harmful thermal effects on the human body, in the
estimation of all parties moreover.
36.
Of course there remains the very vexed question whether there are non-thermal
or athermic, hence biological, consequences for the environment and the human
body. The operators’ representatives totally deny the existence of nefarious
long-term biological effects for electromagnetic fields below the threshold
values in force. To illustrate the nature and extent of these threshold values,
let us mention by way of an example Article 5.1 of Directive 2004/40/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 concerning the minimum
standards for protecting workers: “… However, the long-term effects, including
possible carcinogenic effects due to exposure to time-varying electric,
magnetic and electromagnetic fields for which there is no conclusive scientific
evidence establishing a causal relationship, are not addressed in this
Directive. …” (Introduction, paragraph 4).
37.
So the protection of workers is only valid for averting thermal effects, and
only in the short term!
38.
Any potentially harmful biological effects are disregarded by the operators,
agencies and official regulations, and to justify this attitude they abide by
the contention that firstly, the ascertainment of a biological effect need not
signify its being of a pathological character dangerous to the human
constitution. Furthermore, they discern no absolutely conclusive scientific
evidence of a cause and effect relationship between electromagnetic fields and
radio frequencies and long-term pathological consequences of their non-thermal
or athermic effects. And to emphasise these statements they invoke numerous
scientific publications said to indicate no significant biological effect.
39.
The operators’ arguments on the whole can be summed up as follows:
–
The threshold values recommended by the ICNIRP are values ensuring health
security;
–
Child mobile phone users are no more sensitive than adults;
–
There are no significant biological effects apart from thermal effects;
–
If there were any possibly harmful biological effects, moreover, there would be
no scientifically acceptable mechanism of action to account for them.
9.
Scientific studies and arguments pursued by associations and NGOs, by groupings
of scientists, by the European Environment Agency and by the European
Parliament
40.
Serious scientific and medical studies revealing biological effects of a
pathological nature have existed since the 1930s concerning radio frequencies
and microwaves from radar installations. It also points out that harmful
effects of protracted exposure to the low or very low frequency electromagnetic
fields of electrical transmission lines or computer screens were observed
already in the late 1970s, and the WHO’s IARC (International Agency for
Research on Cancer) classified these fields as “possibly carcinogenic” for
humans (Group 2B) in 2001.
41.
The rapporteur recalls the proven positive biological effects of certain
medical applications (electrotherapies) of electromagnetic fields and
microwaves at very low intensity. If there are such beneficial effects in
certain frequency bands, then adverse biological effects on the human body
should be just as much in the realm of plausibility or possibility.
42.
Scientific studies concerning the negative effects of certain microwave
frequencies on plants, insects and wildlife or farm animals are disturbing in
more than one respect, and the scientific studies disclosing potentially
pathogenic biological effects on the human body are also important and not to
be merely brushed aside.
43.
These studies are very numerous indeed: the 2007 “Bioinitiative” report
analysed over 2 000 of them, and more were added by an important monograph
published in 2010 by the Ramazzini Institute, the national institute for study
and control of cancer and environmental diseases “Bernardo Ramazzini” in
Bologna, Italy.
44.
A significant number of top scientists and researchers have banded together in
a dedicated international body entitled ICEMS, “International Commission for
Electromagnetic Safety”, in order to carry out independent research and
recommend that the precautionary principle be applied in the matter. In 2006
(Benevento Resolution) and 2008 (Venice Resolution), these scientists published
instructive resolutions calling for the adoption of far tougher new safety
standards and rules.
45.
Scientific studies disclose athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic
fields or waves on cells, the nervous system, genetics, etc., which essentially
fall into three categories: biological effects influencing the metabolism,
sleep, the electrocardiogram profile; effects observed in experimentation on
animals or in cell cultures (in vitro); effects emerging from epidemiological
studies on prolonged use of mobile telephones or on living near high voltage
power lines or base stations of relay antennas.
46.
The term “biological effect” is used to refer to a physiological, biochemical
or behavioural change brought about in a tissue or a cell in response to an
external stimulus. Not every biological effect necessarily poses a serious
threat to health; it may simply show the normal response of the cell, tissue or
organism to that stimulus.
47.
A medical or pathological biological effect, on the other hand, is an effect
that may imperil the organism’s normal functioning by causing more or less
severe symptoms or pathologies. Precisely, a growing number of scientific
studies made by teams of high-level academic researchers demonstrate the
existence of potentially or definitely pathological biological effects.
48.
The rapporteur acknowledges that it is not possible within the compass of this
report to analyse and summarise the findings of all these studies. A synopsis
of the greater number of them (some 2 000) was produced in the
“Bioinitiative” report, a report drawn up by 14 scientists of international standing
who concurred, regarding mobile telephony and other radio frequencies, as to
abnormally high incidence of brain tumours and acoustic neuroma, effects on the
nervous system and cerebral functions, and effects on genes, cell stress
proteins and the immune system. In this context, it has been observed for
instance that radio frequency exposure can cause inflammatory and allergic
reactions and impair the immune function even at levels well below the norms of
exposure for the public.
49.
A major programme of research into the specific features of these effects such
as genotoxicity of waves (REFLEX programme), funded by the European Commission
and involving 12 European research teams, was launched and the results were
made public in December 2004. The conclusions of the report were disturbing on
several counts as the results bore out genotoxic effects of mobile telephone
waves, and in particular greater frequency of chromosomal deletions and breakup
of DNA molecules in different types of cultivated human and animal cells. In
addition, stress protein synthesis was greatly increased and gene expression
was modified in various types of cells.
50.
Concerning the Interphone study, the biggest epidemiological survey carried out
on mobile phone users and their exposure to glioma, meningioma, acoustic
neuroma and tumours of the parotid gland after protracted use of their mobile
telephones, the partial early results published on 18 May 2010 by IARC more
than ten years after the commencement of the study point to profound
disagreement between the different teams of researchers (16 teams from 13
countries) over the interpretation of these results. The study co-ordinator, Ms
Elisabeth Cardis, summed up a kind of compromise by saying that the study did
not reveal an increased risk, but one could not conclude that there was no risk
because there were sufficient results suggesting a possible risk. Indeed, some
results show that lasting intensive use very significantly increases the risks
of glioma (40% and even 96% looking at ipsilateral use, that is to say where
the glioma has appeared at the side of the head to which the telephone was
held) and the meningioma risks (15%; 45% for ipsilateral use).
51.
The rapporteur feels that one of this epidemiological study’s principal
weaknesses lies in the fact that the period of mobile phone use analysed,
extending until the early years of the 21st century, is probably too short at
less than 10 years to reach altogether conclusive results given the period of
latency and growth of cerebral tumours. In fact, ionising radiation
(radioactivity) is recognised as a cause of brain cancer, but cases due to
radioactivity rarely become apparent before 10 or 20 years of exposure.
52.
The Interphone study, performed solely on adults, nevertheless raises serious
speculation as to what will happen, after 15 or 20 years of intensive use, to
the young adults, teenagers or even children who are currently the biggest
users and in whom absorption of the radiation is still greater and more problematic.
53.
The rapporteur would like to emphasise another side of the potential risks:
while attention is focused at present on the radiation from mobile phones, and
while he appeals for the wisest possible use of this device, by children and
young people especially, it is inescapable that for some years there have been
many other sources of electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies.
54.
Whether outside or inside offices and dwellings, we are now exposed to a whole
variety of electromagnetic frequencies on top of the chemical pollutants in the
air that we breathe or accumulated in the food chain. Outdoors or indoors, we
encounter the electromagnetic fields or the radio frequencies of the (nearby)
electric power lines and of the base stations of GSM, UMTS and WiFi relay
antennas or of, for example, radio or radar stations. Besides these, inside
offices or private residences there is very often the radiation of cordless
telephones (DECT), baby phones and other devices of wireless technology.
55.
What is more, industrialists seek a further expansion of mobile telephony
infrastructures for hosting the “fourth generation” 4G facility with the
intention of delivering a secure, comprehensive broadband mobile system for the
cordless modems of laptop computers, “smart” mobile phones and other portable
backup devices for broadband mobile Internet access, games services, etc.
56.
In Israel, the ministries concerned (environment, health, communication) fall
back on the application of the precautionary principle, opposing the
introduction of these new infrastructures on the ground that the effects of the
irradiations should be verified before authorising new systems.
57.
A question that always strongly arouses the European populations is the problem
of where base stations and relay antennas are sited. In parallel to certain
local or regional studies (mainly Swiss and German) describing the advent of
health problems in farm animals after the installation of mobile telephone
relay antennas near some farms, describing unaccountable problems of fertility,
deformity, cataracts, etc., certain local or regional epidemiological studies,
carried out by groups of scientists and doctors, have succeeded in also showing
certain disease symptoms in residents of districts or villages near relay
antennas installed a few months or years ago. These local studies were carried
out in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, etc.
58.
According to these epidemiological and also partly clinical studies, symptoms
appearing or increasing some time after relay antennas were commissioned or
after the beams emitted were intensified by raising the number or the power of
the antennas were sleeping disorders, headaches, blood pressure problems,
dizziness, skin trouble and allergies. The scientific value of such local
studies is regularly queried by the operators and very often the security and
regulatory bodies too, and so a most recent study released early in 2011 in a
German medical publication (Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 1/2011) is nonetheless
worthwhile and revealing, although the number of participants in the study (60
persons) remains quite small. These persons, from the locality of Rimbach in
Bavaria, underwent analysis before a new relay antenna base station came into
service in January 2004, then afterwards in July 2004, January 2005 and July
2005. In this study, as in similar epidemiological studies, the symptoms that
increased or became aggravated after the station began operating were sleep
disorders, headaches, allergies, dizziness and concentration problems.
59.
The worth of this study spanning a year and a half is that the doctors and
scientists could measure and determine significant changes in concentrations of
certain stress-related or other hormones in urine samples. To sum up the
results, there is a significant increase of adrenalin and noradrenalin over
several months and a significant reduction of dopamine and phenylethylamine
(PEA), changes indicating a state of chronic stress which, according to the
authors of the study, caused the aforesaid heightened symptoms. The authors
correlate the lowered PEA levels with impaired attention and hyperactivity of
children, disorders which hugely increased in Germany over the years 1990-2004.
60.
Here, too, the rapporteur stresses that some people may be more sensitive than
others to electromagnetic radiation or waves. The research performed, for
instance, by Professor Dominique Belpomme, President of the Association for
Research and Treatments Against Cancer (ARTAC), on more than 200 people
describing themselves as “electrosensitive” succeeded, with corroborative
results of clinical and biological analyses, in proving that there was such a
syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields across the whole spectrum of
frequencies. According to these results, not only proximity to the sources of
electromagnetic emissions was influential, but also the time of exposure and
often concomitant exposure to chemicals or to (heavy) metals present in human tissues.
In this context, Sweden has granted sufferers from electromagnetic
hypersensitivity the status of persons with reduced capacity so that they
receive suitable protection.
61.
In connection with the proven or potential risks of electromagnetic fields, it
should also be noted that after a Lloyd’s report, insurance companies tended to
withhold coverage for risks linked with electromagnetic fields under civil
liability policies, in the same way as, for example, genetically modified
organisms or asbestos, which is hardly reassuring given the potential risks
that stem from these electromagnetic fields.
62.
Finally, the rapporteur wonders whether it might not be expedient and
innovative to try and develop new wireless communication technologies, equally
powerful but more energy-efficient and above all less problematic in terms of
the environment and health than the present microwave-based wireless
communication. Such systems, optical or optoelectronic communication
technologies employing visible and infrared light, are reportedly being
developed in the United States and Japan and could largely replace the present
technologies. Should such changes in transmission and communication systems
prove realistic, it would then be a case of technological and economic
innovations not to be missed or obstructed.
10.
Conclusions
63.
The potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic fields on the environment
and human health have not yet been fully elucidated and a number of scientific
uncertainties continue to exist in that regard. Nevertheless, anxieties and
fears remain in wide sectors of the population over the health hazards posed by
the waves, and also of the demands voiced by high-level scientists, by
groupings of doctors and by the associations of concerned citizens which abound
in many Council of Europe member states.
64.
The precautionary principle and the right to a healthy environment,
particularly on behalf of children and future generations, must be key factors
in all economic, technological and social development of society. In that
regard, the Parliamentary Assembly has decided on several previous occasions
(see Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment and health:
better prevention of environment-related health hazards and Recommendation 1959 (2011) on preventive health care
policies in the Council of Europe member states) that coherent, effective
preventive measures must be taken to protect the environment and human health.
65.
After analysing the scientific studies available to date, and also following
the hearings for expert opinions organised in the context of the Committee on
the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, there is
sufficient evidence of potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic fields on
fauna, flora and human health to react and to guard against potentially serious
environmental and health hazards.
66.
That was moreover already the case in 1999 and 2009 when the European
Parliament overwhelmingly passed resolutions upholding the precautionary
principle and efficient preventive actions vis-ŕ-vis the harmful effects of
electromagnetic fields, in particular by substantially lowering the exposure
thresholds for workers and the general public according to the ALARA principle,
by restoring genuine independence of research in that field, and through a
policy of enhanced information and transparency towards the anxious populations
(see European Parliament Resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns
associated with electromagnetic fields, 2008/2211 INI).
67.
Lastly, the Assembly could endorse the analyses and warnings issued first in
September 2007, then in September 2009, by the European Environment Agency
(EEA) concerning the health hazards of electromagnetic fields, mobile telephony
and not least mobile phones. According to the EEA, there are sufficient signs
or levels of scientific evidence of harmful biological effects to invoke the
application of the precautionary principle and of effective, urgent preventive
measures.
1 Reference to the committee: Doc. 11894, Reference 3563 of 29 May 2009.
2 Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the
committee on 11 April 2011.
