Thursday, August 09, 2012

8/10/12 - California Coastal Commission to hear appeal over NextG antennas for the North Coast


8/10/12 - California Coastal Commission to hear appeal over NextG antennas for the North Coast


Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I thought you might be interested in following this proceeding and reading my comments (below) regarding the issue.  Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) are the latest industry trend for meeting 4G broadband functions of streaming video anywhere at anytime.  These high level microwave radiation emitting antennas are being place on utility poles all over the country.  Basically we now have cell towers going up on the utility poles right outside our bedroom windows.  The FCC is currently reviewing their RF exposure guidelines and there is speculation that they plan to raise limit due to the increase of RF microwave radiation from 4G networks and smartphones.  I will send information on this at a later date.

I have not attached the RF engineering report (Attachment 1 of my comments) as I do not have an electronic version of this report.  If you would like a copy of this report, please contact me and we can make arrangements to get it to you.

Regards,

~ Angela


Angela Flynn
Green Evolution - for eco conscious living
https://sites.google.com/site/greenevolutionusa/homegreenevolutionusa@gmail.com
831-325-2880

CELL TOWERS AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS – LIVING WITH RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24352550/Cell-Tower-Rpt

"The greatest wisdom is in simplicity. Love, respect, tolerance, sharing, gratitude, forgiveness. It's not complex or elaborate. The real knowledge is free. It's encoded in your DNA. All you need is within you. Great teachers have said that from the beginning. Find your heart, and you will find your way."  Carlos Barrios, Mayan elder

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - Unless Otherwise Noted: All content directly originating fromangelaflynn80@hotmail.com has Creative Commons open access.  Please feel free to use and/or distribute with or without attribution.  All other content whether sent as an attachment, forwarded emails or text may only be used with permission from the originator.  




On Friday, August 10th the California Coastal Commission will consider:

17. NEW APPEALS. See AGENDA CATEGORIES.
a. Appeal No. A-3-SCO-12-006 (Next G, Santa Cruz Co.) Appeal by Commissioners Brennan and Stone, and by Joshua Hart, of Santa Cruz County decision granting permit with conditions to Next G Networks of California for installation of 6 new microcell facilities on existing utility poles (five along Highway 1 and one along Swanton Rd.) and 192 sq.ft. equipment shelter (adjacent to Swanton Rd.) along unincorporated northern Santa Cruz County coast area. (SC-SC)

The meeting will be held at:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS (5TH FLOOR)
701 OCEAN STREET 
SANTA CRUZ, CA  95060 
(415) 407-3211 - The phone number will only be in service during the meeting.


The public is encouraged to attend and to make comments at the meeting.  As the meeting starts at 9 am and this is agenda item 17 it is not certain as to what time the item will be heard, however CCC staff report that Friday agendas move quickly.  I suggest people get there no later than 9:30am.
You may listen and watch this meeting live via this link - http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html.  Instructions are in the left side bar.

You can read the background on this case at:  http://stopsmartmeters.org/2012/06/22/northcoast/

You can also access the agenda packet at this link - http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html.  Scroll down to Friday, August 10th's agenda and then click on item 17.  

You can also access the Santa Cruz County Planning Departments packet in this item at this link -  http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/planning/plnmeetings/PLNSupMaterial/PC/agendas/2012/20120125/011.pdf

Below are the comments I submitted to the California Coastal Commission.  I have also attached the text of the RF report that I submitted to the CCC.

Susan Craig
Supervising Coastal Planner
California Coastal Commission
725 Front Street
Suite 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 NextG
Santa Cruz County
Application #111114

August 8, 2012

Note: This material has been provided to the Coastal Commission Staff (original plus 21 copies of Attachment 1) on 8/8/12 and is entered Ex Parte.

Dear Ms. Craig,

I recommend that the Commissioners take jurisdiction over the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for this project for these reasons:

  • NextG/Crown Castle has submitted misleading and inadequate information to the Santa Cruz County Planning Department (SCCPD) and to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
  • Application 111114 and Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 raise regional and statewide issues of significance.
  • Substantial issues have been raised regarding Santa Cruz County's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) conformance due to the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision.
  • NextG/Crown Castle has unlawfully commenced installation for this project prior to the hearing of this appeal.
  • The precedential value of the local government's decision for future interpretations of its LCP.

NextG/Crown Castle has submitted misleading information in their application (#111114) to the SCCPD and in their response to the CCC Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006.

Attachment 4 of Application #111114 and Exhibit 10 of Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 are: Engineering Report; Radio Frequency Exposure Study; VRZ - Kathrein Scala 840 10525; Roofview Statistical Summary by Trott Communications Group, Inc. Irving, TX. This report calculates that the Radio Frequency (RF) exposure for the public will not exceed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Maximum Public Exposure (MPE) limit at ground level. However, at a community meeting on April 19th at the Davenport Resource Center a NextG Networks representative, Natasha Ernst, Esq., Director of Government Relations, handed me an engineering report by Health and Medical Physics Consulting (HMPC), Sacramento, CA (Attachment 1) dated August 12, 2011. In this report the RF exposure is calculated to be greater than the FCC MPE limit within 8 feet of the 2 antennas located at each site. Both engineering reports are for the Kathrein 84-10525 antenna configuration.

NextG maintains that the FCC MPE limits only apply to ground level exposure, however there is no basis for this. Many RF antennas are located in areas where the public has no access, such as on towers and poles and rooftops. However the applicants antennas are proposed to be installed on utility poles where the public has easy access. It is completely feasible that a member of the public could climb one of these poles. In particular Site DAV02 and Site DAV03 (Exhibit 1 of Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006), due to the equipment located under the antennas, could be considered attractive nuisances regarding public access. Due to this easy public access to the antennas it is established that the FCC MPE is calculated to be exceeded at these sites.

Section 704, (B) (iv) of the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA)* specifically allows the regulation of wireless services facilities on the basis of environmental effects if the RF emissions do not comply with the FCCs regulations concerning such emissions. It is now not only in the purview of this Commission to consider the environmental impact of these antennas, it is is also imperative that it do so.

The wireless industry is facing the need of providing enough bandwidth for the ever growing usage of wireless devices that stream video and games for 4G networks. The industry trend is to move to Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) as is the case with this application. DAS are being installed on utility poles in the near vicinity of people's homes and in protected wilderness areas. Due to the need to provide enough bandwidth for 4G networks, the antennas radiate higher levels of RF than 3G networks, which have typically been placed in locations prohibited to the public's access such as on towers and rooftops. The RF emissions from DAS antennas are leading to higher public exposures and to increasing potential adverse effects on endangered species.

This move to DAS antennas, which exceed the FCC MPE is of significance for the region and the state. Thus the onus is on the CCC to recognize this and to therefore review the scientific literature on exposures to RF prior to permitting DAS systems to be installed in sensitive habitat areas and publicly accessible areas.

Section 30240(b) of the CA Coastal Act states:

“Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.”

The scientific literature on RF exposure is vast (1,000s of studies and dating back decades - ref.http://www.bioinitiative.org/, http://emfwise.com/science.php, http://www.justproveit.net/content/scienceand http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp) and consistently shows evidence of harm to animals, insects, plants, amphibians and humans at levels of exposure well below the FCC MPE. The FCC MPE is purported to protect humans from thermal heating from RF exposure. There are no exposure guidelines for the proven non thermal effects to RF exposure for humans and there are no exposure guidelines (thermal and non thermal) for other forms of life (nonhuman). This lack should not be accepted as protection. The EPA is on record in stating that the FCC MPE should not be considered protective (see - http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf). RF absorption stimulations show that children absorb quantitatively higher amounts of RF than adults do and therefore have lower thermal exposure thresholds (see - http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2011.622827?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528om%2Bgandhi%2529&searchHistoryKey=). As most nonhuman beings are smaller than humans it is plausible to assume that they would also have much lower thermal thresholds than adults.

Appendix 1 of this testimony lists reports and studies that show RF exposure impacts on plants, insects, amphibians, birds and mammals. As these non human beings may very well frequent the areas that exceed the FCC MPE it is of the utmost import that the CCC investigate the potential adverse effects on them with particular focus on species on the endangered species list. These non human inhabitants of the Coastal area are an essential part of the viewshed that is entrusted to be protected by the CCC. In the absence of Federal guidance on protective RF exposure for non human beings and in light of the evidence of harm from RF exposure the CCC has a need to consider the environmental effects from DAS antennas and to restrict such antennas in sensitive habitat areas.

Electrosensitivity to RF emissions has been documented in peer-reviewed, published scientific studies and acknowledged as a disability and functional impairment by a growing number of governments around the world, including Spain and Sweden. Lack of access resulting from adverse health consequences of wireless technology is subject to the rules and regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Any decision made by a local or state government that restricts access granted to, or mobility of a class of citizens because of a medical condition or disability is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and of Coastal Access provisions in sections 30211 and 30252 of the Coastal Act:

“…development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea…” (sec. 30211) and “new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast.” (sec. 30252)

A growing population of humans have become sensitized to RF and require areas with low RF exposure. A good analogy of this phenomenon is made by examining human exposure to the slightly higher in frequency electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun. It is well established that no two people have the same sensitivity to sunlight. People who have higher sensitivity go to great measures to avoid high exposure. They wear shielding materials and do not go into sunlight during peak exposure periods. However even those who are less sensitive to sunlight still suffer adverse biological harm from overexposure. Our biology requires that we have a recovery period in between exposures. If there is an extreme overexposure this recovery period may be for the rest of the person's life.

Another comparison can be made in the biological reaction to RF and to sunlight. It is well established that the biological effects of sun exposure are not immediately apparent. Sunburn and blistering often occur after exposures rather than during exposures. The person being exposed is not aware of the severity of the exposure until after they are out of it. This delayed reaction also occurs with RF exposures. Many people, myself included, find that they cannot sleep if they have high RF exposure during the day. Many people develop microwave hearing or ringing in the ears after RF exposure. This phenomenon may last for hours, days or even years after a high RF exposure. It is essential that areas low in RF are preserved for people who have been exposed to RF to the point where they have become sensitized to all RF emissions.

While it is not in the purview of the CCC to determine what the "safe" level of RF exposure is for an individual it is in their purview to preserve access to coastal areas for all regardless of their disability. For this reason the CCC needs to consider it a priority to preserve low RF areas. There already exists 911 service for cell phone users in the area under consideration for NextG's DAS. According to the CCC staff report, "NextG has not established that denial of this project would be inconsistent with the provisions of the FTA related to establishing wireless service."

Appendix 2 lists evidence of the growing population of humans who have become sensitized to RF emissions.

The CCC staff report on Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 NextG advises the Commissioners that no substantial issues have been raised regarding Santa Cruz County's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) conformance due to the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision. This is not true.

There are substantial issues raised by Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 NextG regarding the LCP. The staff report claims that "...co-locating relatively small and relatively unobtrusive cellular antennas and equipment with existing utility pole infrastructure will not significantly impact visual resources..." While this may be true for the opinion of staff it does not hold true for me or for others. The mock ups of the DAS along the North Coast create a cluttered and unsightly viewshed. Utility poles with large boxes and antenna arrays do not blend into the scenery. They are blights that diminish the wild natural scenery of the North Coast.

The non-flush mounted antennas at four highway sites and the 2 foot pole extension at the Swanton Road site are not consistent with the LCP's wireless ordinance. Additionally, the LCP requires that PG&E and other utilities move to buried lines. (Section 5.10.24 “requires underground placement of all other new or supplementary transmission lines within views from scenic roads where it is technically feasible…". NextG has already unlawfully installed fiber optic cable strung from utility poles in spite of the unsettled status of CCC Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006. NextG has shown not only a lack of regard to the LCP, it has also shown complete disregard to the authority of the CCC and California law.   

If this appeal is denied and NextG's projects continues there will be a precedential effect of the Santa Cruz County LCP. The SCCPD should not be given the okay to permit projects that are substantially at odds with their LCP as they have done with this one. The viewshed and access to the coastal regions need protection from ever encroaching overdevelopment.

I move that the CCC determine that Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 raises substantial issue with the respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed under sections 30603 of the Coastal Act regarding consistency with the Certified Local Coastal Plan and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

In particular, NextG/Crown Castle has submitted misleading and inadequate information to the Santa Cruz County Planning Department (SCCPD) and to California Coastal Commission (CCC); Application 111114 and Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 raise regional and statewide issues of significance; substantial issues have been raised regarding Santa Cruz County's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) conformance due to the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision; NextG/Crown Castle has unlawfully commenced installation for this project prior to the hearing of this appeal; and, due to the precedential value of the local government's decision for future interpretations of its LCP.

Submitted by

Angela Flynn
Green Evolution
351 Redwood Heights Road
Aptos, CA 95003

Attachment 1: Jerrold T. Bushberg, Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM; Health and Medical Physics Consulting RF engineering calculations. 8/12/11

Appendix 1: RF exposure reports and studies on plants, insects, amphibians, birds and mammals.

Appendix 2: Evidence of the growing population of humans who have become sensitized to RF emissions.

*Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act
(B) Limitations –
(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, 
and modification of personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of 
RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission’s 
regulations concerning such emissions.

Addendum: In addition to visual blight, overloading of power lines and utility poles creates a potential increase in fire danger as the additional weight makes the lines and poles more likely to blow over in storms. Adequate safety must be ensured prior to installation. CCC should include consideration of the Malibu Canyon fire where Sprint, AT&T and Verizon Wireless have agreed to pay a $12 million settlement with the state. Edison and NextG have not settled and face $75 million in fines if found guilty.

Sprint, AT&T and Verizon Wireless have reached an agreement that the firms are collectively responsible for paying $12 million worth of civil penalties for their lack of maintenance on the poles, which led to overloading.
Southern California Edison and the phone company NextG, who are not a part of the proposed agreement, face up to $74 million for overloading the poles that fell in the 2007 fires.

Appendix 1 

Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 NextG
Santa Cruz County
Application #111114

RF exposure reports and studies on plants, insects, amphibians, birds and mammals.

Bees, Birds and Mankind Destroying Nature by `Electrosmog´
Ulrich Warnke
Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies
"Today, unprecedented exposure levels and intensities of magnetic, electric, and electromagnetic fields from numerous wireless technologies interfere with the natural information system and functioning of humans, animals, and plants. The consequences of this development, which have already been predicted by critics for many decades, cannot be ignored anymore. Bees and other insects vanish; birds avoid certain places and become disorientated at others. Humans suffer from functional impairments and diseases. And insofar as the latter are hereditary, they will be passed on to next generations as pre-existing defects"

Mobile telephony radiation radiation on living organisms
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos and Lukas H. Margaritis

New Delhi, India group set up by the Environment and Forest Ministry recommends special laws to protect urban flora and fauna from the threats of electro magnetic field (EMF) and radiation emerging from mobile towers.

Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory.
Electromagn Biol Med. 2010 Jun;29(1-2):31-5.
Balmori A., C/Navarra, Valladolid, Spain. abalmori@ono.com

Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Jun;31(2):151-65. Epub 2012 Jan 23.
GSM 900 MHz radiation inhibits ants' association between food sites and encountered cues.
Cammaerts MC, De Doncker P, Patris X, Bellens F, Rachidi Z, Cammaerts D.
Source Université Libre de Bruxelles, Faculté des Sciences, Bruxelles, Belgium. mtricot@ulb.ac.be

Mobile Phone Antennas Blamed for Presence of Cataracts in Calves
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zürich

Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice
Tamir S. Aldad, Geliang Gan, Xiao-Bing Gao & Hugh S. Taylor
Scientific Reports, Nature Publishing Group, Mar 15, 2012

Brain proteome response following whole body exposure of mice to mobile phone or wireless DECT base radiation
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, Athina Samara, Marianna H. Antonelou, Anta Xanthopoulou, Aggeliki Papadopoulou, Konstantinos Vougas, Eugenia Koutsogiannopoulou, Ema Anastasiadou, Dimitrios J. Stravopodis, George Th. Tsangaris & Lukas H. Margaritis
Published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Early Online: 1–25, 2012 Copyright Q Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

Nonthermal GSM RF and ELF EMF effects upon rat BBB permeability.
Nittby H et al.
Environmentalist 2011; 31 (2): 140-148

Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping
Daniel FAVRE
Apidologie (2011) 42:270–279 DOI: 10.1007/s13592-011-0016-x

The following studies are available through - http://www.livingplanet.be/emrbirds.htm

A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding House Sparrows (Passer domesticus)
Joris Everaert and Dirk Bauwens (2007)
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26:63-72
The urban decline of the House Sparrow (Passer domesticus): a possible link with electromagnetic radiation
Alfonso Balmori and Örjan Hallberg (2007)
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26:141-151

Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork (Ciconia ciconia)
Alfonso Balmori (2005)
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24:109-119

Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife
Alfonso Balmori (2009)
Pathophysiology 16:191-199

The following studies are available through - http://emf-portal.de/suche.php?sform=6&go=ORI&l=e

Lizards respond to an extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field.
med./biol.
Nishimura T, Okano H, Tada H, Nishimura E, Sugimoto K, Mohri K, Fukushima M (2010), J Exp Biol 213 (Pt 12): 1985 - 1990
Exposure: low frequency field

Changing and shielded magnetic fields suppress c-Fos expression in the navigation circuit: input from the magnetosensory system contributes to the internal representation of space in a subterranean rodent.
med./biol.
Burger T, Lucova M, Moritz RE, Oelschlager HH, Druga R, Burda H, Wiltschko W, Wiltschko R, Nemec P (2010), J R Soc Interface 7 (50): 1275 - 1292
Exposure: magnetic field, geomagnetic field

Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields disrupt magnetic alignment of ruminants.
med./biol.
Burda H, Begall S, Cerveny J, Neef J, Nemec P (2009), Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106 (14): 5708 - 5713
Aim: To show that extremely low frequency magnetic fields generated by high-voltage lines disrupt alignment of the bodies of ruminants with the geomagnetic field.
Endpoints: cognitive/behavioural endpoints ( body alignment of ruminants in the geomagnetic field)
System: animal (species/strain): cattle and roe deer
Exposure: 50 Hz, magnetic field, geomagnetic field, low frequency field, 50/60 Hz (AC), power transmission line, high voltage

Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetoreception in American cockroach.
med./biol.
Vacha M, Puzova T, Kvicalova M (2009), J Exp Biol 212 (Pt 21): 3473 - 3477

Bats respond to polarity of a magnetic field.
med./biol.
Wang Y, Pan Y, Parsons S, Walker MM, Zhang S (2007), Proc Biol Sci 274 (1627): 2901 - 2905

Disruption of magnetic orientation in hatchling loggerhead sea turtles by pulsed magnetic fields.
med./biol.
Irwin WP, Lohmann KJ (2005), J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 191 (5): 475 - 480
Aim: To study the magnetic orientation in hatchling loggerhead sea turtles.
Endpoints: cognitive/behavioural endpoints (magnetic orientation/magnetoreception)
System: animal (species/strain): sea turtle/loggerhead (Caretta caretta)
Exposure: magnetic field, signals/pulses

Magnetic compass orientation of migratory birds in the presence of a 1.315 MHz oscillating field.
med./biol.
Thalau P, Ritz T, Stapput K, Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2005), Naturwissenschaften 92 (2): 86 - 90
Exposure: 1.315 MHz

Magnet-induced disorientation in hatchling loggerhead sea turtles.
med./biol.
Irwin WP, Lohmann KJ (2003), J Exp Biol 206 (Pt 3): 497 - 501

Orientation of Paramecium swimming in a DC magnetic field.
med./biol.
Nakaoka Y, Takeda R, Shimizu K (2002), Bioelectromagnetics 23 (8): 607 - 613
Exposure: 60 Hz, 50/60 Hz (AC)

Effect of a magnetic pulse on the orientation of silvereyes, zosterops l. lateralis, during spring migration
med./biol.
Wiltschko W, Munro U, Ford H, Wiltschko R (1998), J Exp Biol 201: 3257 - 3261
patial orientation of trout (Salmo trutta L.) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walb.) embryos in natural and artificial magnetic fields. med./biol.
Formicki K, Bonislawska M, Jasinski M (1997), AIeP 27 (2): 29 - 40

Two magnetoreception pathways in a migratory salamander.
med./biol.
Phillips JB (1986), Science 233 (4765): 765 - 767
Exposure: magnetic field, geomagnetic field

Methods for producing disturbances in pigeon homing behaviour by oscillating magnetic fields.
med./biol.
Ioale P, Guidarini D (1985), J Exp Biol 116: 109 - 120
Exposure: low frequency field

Flight, orientation, and homing abilities of honeybees following exposure to 2.45-GHz CW microwaves.
med./biol.
Gary NE, Westerdahl BB (1981), Bioelectromagnetics 2 (1): 71 - 75
Exposure: 2.45 GHz

Orientation of homing pigeons altered by a change in the direction of an applied magnetic field.
med./biol.
Walcott C, Green RP (1974), Science 184 (133): 180 - 182
Exposure: magnetic field

Appendix 2

Appeal A-3-SCO-12-006 NextG
Santa Cruz County
Application #111114

Evidence of the growing population of humans who have become sensitized to RF emissions.

MCSA NEWS
VOLUME 7 ISSUE 7 JULY 2012
The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields: Problems & Solutions
Andrew Goldsworthy, BSc, Ph.D

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1815 (2011)
The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment.

enter 2012 0014
European Parliament WRITTEN DECLARATION on the recognition of multiple chemical sensitivity and electrohypersensitivity in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD).
Raül Romeva i Rueda, Kriton Arsenis, Willy Meyer, Michèle Rivasi, Oreste Rossi

SELETUN STATEMENT - New International EMF Alliance announces scientific Consensus Statement: World Health Urgently Needs to Lower EMF Standards.
Santa Cruz County Department of Health report: Health Risks Associated With SmartMeters. (pg 9-18)
Poki Stewart Namkung, M.D. M.P.H.

Austrian Medical Association (ÖAK) guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine - Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: two sides of the same coin?

Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) The National Research Programme “Non-Ionising Radiation – Health and Environment” (NRP 57).

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction?
Genuis SJ, Lipp CT.
Review. Sci Total Environ (2011), doi:10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2011.11.008

Mobile communications and health of population: the risk assessment, social and ethical problems
Yury Grigoriev
Published in the Environmentalist online December 20, 2011

IT'IS Database for thermal and electromagnetic parameters of biological tissues.
Hasgall PA, Neufeld E, Gosselin MC, Klingenböck A, Kuster N,
The Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (IT'IS)

SUMMARY OF THE MCS/EHS MEETING AT THE WHO HEADQUARTERS GENEVA

Labor Court in Madrid, Spain recognizes electromagnetic sensitivity as a cause of permanent disability.

Electromagnetic intolerance elucidated‏.

WHO IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B Carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans).

Ongoing France, Multicenter national study will evaluate the sensitivity of patients to electromagnetic fields exposure as well as their state of health and quality of life.
National Hospital Clinical Research

Ongoing The National Toxicology Program (NTP) headquartered at NIEHS is leading the largest laboratory rodent study to date on cell phone radio frequency.
Dr. Michael Wyde, Ph.D.

Individual differences in the effects of mobile phone exposure on human sleep: Rethinking the problem
Bioelectromagnetics
Volume 33, Issue 1, pages 86–93, January 2012
Sarah P. Loughran1,2,3, Raymond J. McKenzie1,2, Melinda L. Jackson1,4, Mark E. Howard5, Rodney J. Croft2,6,*
Article first published online: 3 AUG 2011
DOI: 10.1002/bem.20691
Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY: EVIDENCE FOR A NOVEL NEUROLOGICAL SYNDROME
David E. McCarty, M.D., Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Andrew L. Chesson, Jr., M.D., Clifton Frilot, II, Ph.D., Eduardo Gonzalez-Toledo, M.D., Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D.
Int J Neurosci. 2011 Dec;121(12):670-6. Epub 2011 Sep 5.

Mobile phone use and stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults - a prospective cohort study.
Thomée S, Härenstam A, Hagberg M M.
BMC Public Health. 2011; 11: 66.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)