Protect Yourself from Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) hazards by supporting the BioInitiative Report recommendations on EMR exposure limits.
The EMR Policy Institute is putting forward this petition to endorse the recommendations of The BioInitiative Working Group Report. We are seeking support from other organizations whose missions call for responsible public health policy for children, for workers and for the general public both where they work and where they reside. We are also seeking the endorsement of individuals to call for tougher EMR safety policy globally as spelled out in the report: BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF).
Following the Petition language is the statement of support for The BioInitiative Report that was issued on September 17, 2007, by the European Environmental Agency (EEA). It summarizes the importance of the BioInitiative Report and the EMR safety actions it recommends.
Petition:
We, the undersigned, find that current government limits do not protect the public from adverse health effects from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from devices such as power lines, cell phones and wireless internet devices and their associated antenna sites, TV and FM broadcast towers and radar.
Most of the existing limits on this form of radiation are 1 to 4 thousand times too lenient to prudently protect humans from adverse health effects ranging from Alzheimer\'s and other neurodegenerative diseases, reproduction problems, sleep reduction, learning, memory, slowed ability of the body to repair damage, interference with immune function, cancer and electrohypersensitivity.
Based upon the scientific evidence set forth in The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) and a large body of additional research, we recommend that the following limits of electromagnetic radiation be set to not exceed:
I. Extremely-low frequency (ELF). Power Lines, appliances, interior electric wiring and other ELF-radiating devices:
A. Homes, schools and places where children spend large amounts of time: 1 milligauss *(1mG) for new construction; 1 milligauss (1mG) for all existing occupied space retrofitted over time.
B. All other construction: 2 milligauss (2mG)
*A milligauss is a measure of ELF field strength used to describe magnetic fields from appliances, power lines, interior electrical wiring,etc. A milligauss, abbreviated, is mG. Just as the power density of high frequency RF fields can be described in µW/cm2 or the corresponding electrical field in V/m, the parameter most easily measured for ELF is the magnetic field.
II. Long-term (cumulative) Radiofrequency Radiation*(RF)
A. Outdoor Pulsed- such as cell phone antennas, radar, TV and FM broadcast antennas, wireless internet antennas: One tenth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.614 volts per meter. * (0.1 µW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m)
*Radiofrequency radiation (RF) power density is measured in microwatts per centimeter squared or volts per metmer and abbreviated (µW/cm2)or (V/m).
Radiofrequency Radiation is used when talking about emissions from broadcast, radar and wireless facilities, and when describing ambient RF in the environment. In the United States and Canada, for example, the amount of allowable RF near a cell tower is one thousand microwatts per centimeter squared (1000 µW/cm2) for some cell phone frequencies.
B. Indoor Radiofrequency Radiation (RF) such as cell phones, wireless internet equipment and the radiation that permeates buildings from outdoor sources. One hundredth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.194 volts per meter (0.01 µW/cm2 or 0.194 V/m). Typically, RF power density from higher frequency outdoor sources such as UHF television or cell phone antenna base stations drops by a factor of ten when it permeates buildings. Lower frequency signals such as lower channel VHF TV and FM are not as severely attenuated as the higher frequencies.
Future research may demonstrate that these recommended levels are not protective enough; therefore, public policy makers should remain open to lowering them as the scientific evidence accumulates.
A new report raising concerns about the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on human health calls for tougher safety standards to regulate radiation from mobile phones, power lines and many other sources of exposure in daily life. The "BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) was compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals. The EEA has contributed to this new report with a chapter drawn from the EEA study, \"Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000\"
The EEA study reviews the histories of a selection of public and environmental hazards, such as asbestos, benzene and PCBs, from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm, to subsequent precautionary and preventive measures. Cases on tobacco smoking and lead in petrol are forthcoming.
Although the EEA does not have specific expertise in EMF, the case studies of public hazards analyzed in the publication show that harmful exposures can be widespread before there is evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding of how that harm is caused.
"There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives. We must remember that precaution is one of the principles of EU environmental policy," says Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the EEA.
Current evidence, although limited, is strong enough to question the scientific basis for the present EMR exposure limits, according to the BioInitiative Working Group.
The EMR Policy Institute is putting forward this petition to endorse the recommendations of The BioInitiative Working Group Report. We are seeking support from other organizations whose missions call for responsible public health policy for children, for workers and for the general public both where they work and where they reside. We are also seeking the endorsement of individuals to call for tougher EMR safety policy globally as spelled out in the report: BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF).
Following the Petition language is the statement of support for The BioInitiative Report that was issued on September 17, 2007, by the European Environmental Agency (EEA). It summarizes the importance of the BioInitiative Report and the EMR safety actions it recommends.
Petition:
We, the undersigned, find that current government limits do not protect the public from adverse health effects from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from devices such as power lines, cell phones and wireless internet devices and their associated antenna sites, TV and FM broadcast towers and radar.
Most of the existing limits on this form of radiation are 1 to 4 thousand times too lenient to prudently protect humans from adverse health effects ranging from Alzheimer\'s and other neurodegenerative diseases, reproduction problems, sleep reduction, learning, memory, slowed ability of the body to repair damage, interference with immune function, cancer and electrohypersensitivity.
Based upon the scientific evidence set forth in The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) and a large body of additional research, we recommend that the following limits of electromagnetic radiation be set to not exceed:
I. Extremely-low frequency (ELF). Power Lines, appliances, interior electric wiring and other ELF-radiating devices:
A. Homes, schools and places where children spend large amounts of time: 1 milligauss *(1mG) for new construction; 1 milligauss (1mG) for all existing occupied space retrofitted over time.
B. All other construction: 2 milligauss (2mG)
*A milligauss is a measure of ELF field strength used to describe magnetic fields from appliances, power lines, interior electrical wiring,etc. A milligauss, abbreviated, is mG. Just as the power density of high frequency RF fields can be described in µW/cm2 or the corresponding electrical field in V/m, the parameter most easily measured for ELF is the magnetic field.
II. Long-term (cumulative) Radiofrequency Radiation*(RF)
A. Outdoor Pulsed- such as cell phone antennas, radar, TV and FM broadcast antennas, wireless internet antennas: One tenth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.614 volts per meter. * (0.1 µW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m)
*Radiofrequency radiation (RF) power density is measured in microwatts per centimeter squared or volts per metmer and abbreviated (µW/cm2)or (V/m).
Radiofrequency Radiation is used when talking about emissions from broadcast, radar and wireless facilities, and when describing ambient RF in the environment. In the United States and Canada, for example, the amount of allowable RF near a cell tower is one thousand microwatts per centimeter squared (1000 µW/cm2) for some cell phone frequencies.
B. Indoor Radiofrequency Radiation (RF) such as cell phones, wireless internet equipment and the radiation that permeates buildings from outdoor sources. One hundredth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.194 volts per meter (0.01 µW/cm2 or 0.194 V/m). Typically, RF power density from higher frequency outdoor sources such as UHF television or cell phone antenna base stations drops by a factor of ten when it permeates buildings. Lower frequency signals such as lower channel VHF TV and FM are not as severely attenuated as the higher frequencies.
Future research may demonstrate that these recommended levels are not protective enough; therefore, public policy makers should remain open to lowering them as the scientific evidence accumulates.
A new report raising concerns about the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on human health calls for tougher safety standards to regulate radiation from mobile phones, power lines and many other sources of exposure in daily life. The "BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) was compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals. The EEA has contributed to this new report with a chapter drawn from the EEA study, \"Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000\"
The EEA study reviews the histories of a selection of public and environmental hazards, such as asbestos, benzene and PCBs, from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm, to subsequent precautionary and preventive measures. Cases on tobacco smoking and lead in petrol are forthcoming.
Although the EEA does not have specific expertise in EMF, the case studies of public hazards analyzed in the publication show that harmful exposures can be widespread before there is evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding of how that harm is caused.
"There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives. We must remember that precaution is one of the principles of EU environmental policy," says Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the EEA.
Current evidence, although limited, is strong enough to question the scientific basis for the present EMR exposure limits, according to the BioInitiative Working Group.
No comments:
Post a Comment