22 April 2013
"Business Bias As Usual: The Case of Electromagnetic Pollution" (Part 8) by Professor Angelo Levis, Valerio Gennaro, and Spiridione Garbisa
Abstracts of the five presentations, as published prior to the Congress by Gigaherz, will be posted. Professor Angelo Levis, who gave testimony at the recent Italian Supreme Court case involving Innocente Marcolini, delivered quite another presentation, based on a paper he had written with two other persons in 2012, “Business bias as usual: the case of electromagnetic pollution” (published in Elsner W, Frigato P, Ramazzotti P eds: “Social Costs Today. Institutional Analyses of the Present Crises”. Routledge (Taylor&Francis Group), London and New York 2012: 225-68 (www.routledge.com).
The Supreme Court case is important because it is the first time that a high court —in any country— has ruled in favor of a link between mobile phone radiation and tumor development and because the Court “acknowledged the presence of conflict of interest and thus ‘business bias’ within ICNIRP, IARC and Interphone.” In fact, the court recognized the greater reliability of independent scientific studies such as those conducted by Dr. Lennart Hardell compared to industry-funded studies such as Interphone.
Following is the last part (8) of the paper (well worth a read in its entirety!), “Business bias as usual” - “How to promote protection against the health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)”, written by Prof. Angelo Levis, Valerio Gennaro, and Spiridione Garbisa. (The text is without the footnotes and reference list contained in the original version. The full paper is available here. All parts will eventually be posted on this blog.)
To quote Prof. Levis: "The tragedy is that the unfolding story of EMF looks set to become another case of history repeating itself – following in the tracks of ionizing radiation, asbestos, tobacco smoke, and many other now demonstrated human carcinogens where evidence of harm was officially recognized only a score or even more years after the initial warnings. In view of the evidence we already have, this time we can act early, rather than giving cause for future generations once again to regret our inaction – it is our duty and responsibility as scientists, in particular to our offspring! "
How to Promote Protection Against the Health Effects of Exposure to EMF
In view of the considerable volume of experimental data demonstrating the biological and health effects of EMF, plus possible mechanisms of action, the position held today by the WHO, EC, ICNIRP, IARC and other major national and international agencies appears unsustainable and without justification – this stance draws from guidelines drawn up at the end of the 90s and is based on theoretical assumptions from over 50 year ago. In fact, for defining the exposure limits, these guidelines are based on:
a) health effects alone, thus ignoring the biological data that underpin them and help explain the mechanisms by which they arise;
b) only effects that have been unequivocally demonstrated and accepted by the whole scientific community, quite overlooking the Precautionary Principle;
c) thermal effects alone, while non-thermal effects, and in particularly effects at low intensity
are now well documented;
d) short-term effects alone, disregarding long-term effect data found in the literature, in particular genetic and carcinogenic effects.
This position – also shared by the main bodies concerned with protection of human health, is a priori rigid, refutes historical evidence, declines scientific challenge, and appears to be influenced not by prudence but by conservation of clearly identifiable financial interests. Data in the scientific literature in fact clearly justify an urgent revision of national laws on EM pollution, in particular in terms of the principle of minimization through the preventative planning and programming by the Regions and Municipalities as regards development of EMF-emitting installations, along with information campaigns and participation of the citizen.
Quantifying the long-terms risks is difficult for residential exposure to ELF/EMF because this requires conclusive data on the body of the population exposed and on the values of the magnetic fields present. As regards mobile telephony, our examination of the literature data (25) leads us to conclude that even today the risk of head tumors resulting from mobile phone (MP) use is very high. Lloyd-Morgan (33), while underestimating by 50% the number of cell users, without considering the risk for cordless users and assuming a minimum latency time of 30 years, calculates "there would be about 1,900 cell-phone-induced brain tumors out of about 50,000 brain tumors diagnosed in 2004, increasing to about 380,000 cell-phone-induced brain tumors within 2019 in the USA alone", which would require "an increase in health costs of an annual US$ 9.5 billion and the need for a 7-fold increase in number of neurosurgeons". An estimate of the incidence of head tumors must begin with the correct number of cell-phone users (5 billion subscriptions worldwide at mid 2010), should also consider the risk to cordless users, and assume at least a doubling of the incidence of head tumors and of acoustic neuromas as documented by Hardell already after a latency of at least 10-15 years, that gives about 750,000 new cases worldwide even today.
As if this were not enough, a number of factors raise our concern still further: the latency of head tumor induced by MPs can exceed 30 years; risk is higher in those starting MP use when young and who have not yet accumulated 10 years of latency; there is a continued rise in MP use by youngsters, attracted to new facilities from the MP companies (photography, listening to music, videophony, internet); the data by Hardell on the increase in other types of malign and benign head tumor – besides brain gliomas, astrocytomas, and acoustic neuromas – are for the main part today only indicative. Therefore, there is no doubt that today we are dealing with just the tip of an iceberg, and will have to wait one or two decades before its real dimensions come to light. But it is clear that a significant increase in tumor risk is already established, so that the use of MPs could lead to a health crisis of dramatic proportion(34).
While recognizing that mobile telephony is an extraordinary technology of inestimable value, responsible science must raise awareness of the risks involved.
As also expressed by the EEA and the EP, we thus conclude that there is sufficient epidemiological evidence to warrant application of the Precautionary Principle aimed at:
• setting exposure limits that are precautionary;
• limiting the spread of wireless technology in schools and highly frequented places (libraries, offices, hospital wards);
• providing accurate information about the risks from exposure to MPs, with low-cost voluntary options ("prudent avoidance") based on caution in the use of MPs and other devices emitting MF. A 10-point list of simple personal actions designed to substantially reduce to cell-phone radiation was produced by the Viennese Medical Officers in 2006, adopted in the same year by the French Agency on Radiofrequencies (www.sante_radiofrequences.org), by several international scientific committees (see footnote 5 and ref. 30), and through a document signed by of 20 scientists (www.devradavis.com, http://archive.truthout.org/article/twenty-appeal-against-cell-phone);
• awareness-raising in schools through a campaign on the use of the various wireless transmission technologies;
• discouraging the use of MPs by minors under 14 years;
• epidemiological monitoring of the possible harmful effects produced by residential and occupational EMF exposures.
Given the results and considerations set out in Section 3, it is small wonder that a number of scientists have maintained that "the long-term use of cellphones was leading to brain tumors and was more dangerous to health than smoking cigarettes" (35), and that "MPs could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos" (the reader is referred to Khurana – an Australian neurosurgeon who collaborated with Hardell in the meta-analyses showing increased risk of head tumors in MP users – interviewed by G. Lean for "The Independent", 30.03.08).
In conclusion, it is perfectly clear that an ex-ante evaluation of the overall impacts of today's technological innovations is not only compatible with the Precautionary Principle, but actually necessary, as also borne out in some of the Italian magistracy's statements (see Section 2.3) and the recommendations of the EP and of the EEA. This evaluation is particularly vital in the case of exposure to EMF, given the state of advancement of scientific knowledge about their possible/probably harmful effects on the human health. In fact, the Precautionary Principle was designed to justify actions to protect the public and the environment even in the absence of any significant knowledge, so it could be used to justify exposure reductions to EMF despite the amount of – seemingly but almost ever ad hoc produced – conflicting evidence of risks.
Should any doubt still remain, it is worth recalling the consequences of the four main scenarios facing us with EMF, especially with RF from mobile phones, underlined by D. Gee (32): "The first is similar to the case studies where much avoidable harm was not prevented. The second is where precautionary actions to reduce MF exposure prevent much potential harm, whilst stimulating more sustainable innovation in the production and use of MP technologies and energy systems. The third is where such precautionary actions to reduce exposures are taken but turn out to have been unnecessary, needlessly costly, and worrisome. The fourth is that no action is taken to reduce exposure and no convincing harm emerges from EMF exposure. We do not know which scenario will unfold, but we do know that a choice over current and future EMF exposures must be made now, if the costs of possibly being wrong are to be minimized. The choice is ours.
Shakespeare might have described our dilemma thus: “to know or not to know, to act or not to act?”
The tragedy is that the unfolding story of EMF looks set to become another case of history repeating itself – following in the tracks of ionizing radiation, asbestos, tobacco smoke, and many other now demonstrated human carcinogens where evidence of harm was officially recognized only a score or even more years after the initial warnings. In view of the evidence we already have, this time we can act early, rather than giving cause for future generations once again to regret our inaction – it is our duty and responsibility as scientists, in particular to our offspring!
http://www.ambientesalute.eu/documenti/documenti4/documenti/campielettromagneticibusinessbaias.pdf
How to Promote Protection Against the Health Effects of Exposure to EMF
In view of the considerable volume of experimental data demonstrating the biological and health effects of EMF, plus possible mechanisms of action, the position held today by the WHO, EC, ICNIRP, IARC and other major national and international agencies appears unsustainable and without justification – this stance draws from guidelines drawn up at the end of the 90s and is based on theoretical assumptions from over 50 year ago. In fact, for defining the exposure limits, these guidelines are based on:
a) health effects alone, thus ignoring the biological data that underpin them and help explain the mechanisms by which they arise;
b) only effects that have been unequivocally demonstrated and accepted by the whole scientific community, quite overlooking the Precautionary Principle;
c) thermal effects alone, while non-thermal effects, and in particularly effects at low intensity
are now well documented;
d) short-term effects alone, disregarding long-term effect data found in the literature, in particular genetic and carcinogenic effects.
This position – also shared by the main bodies concerned with protection of human health, is a priori rigid, refutes historical evidence, declines scientific challenge, and appears to be influenced not by prudence but by conservation of clearly identifiable financial interests. Data in the scientific literature in fact clearly justify an urgent revision of national laws on EM pollution, in particular in terms of the principle of minimization through the preventative planning and programming by the Regions and Municipalities as regards development of EMF-emitting installations, along with information campaigns and participation of the citizen.
Quantifying the long-terms risks is difficult for residential exposure to ELF/EMF because this requires conclusive data on the body of the population exposed and on the values of the magnetic fields present. As regards mobile telephony, our examination of the literature data (25) leads us to conclude that even today the risk of head tumors resulting from mobile phone (MP) use is very high. Lloyd-Morgan (33), while underestimating by 50% the number of cell users, without considering the risk for cordless users and assuming a minimum latency time of 30 years, calculates "there would be about 1,900 cell-phone-induced brain tumors out of about 50,000 brain tumors diagnosed in 2004, increasing to about 380,000 cell-phone-induced brain tumors within 2019 in the USA alone", which would require "an increase in health costs of an annual US$ 9.5 billion and the need for a 7-fold increase in number of neurosurgeons". An estimate of the incidence of head tumors must begin with the correct number of cell-phone users (5 billion subscriptions worldwide at mid 2010), should also consider the risk to cordless users, and assume at least a doubling of the incidence of head tumors and of acoustic neuromas as documented by Hardell already after a latency of at least 10-15 years, that gives about 750,000 new cases worldwide even today.
As if this were not enough, a number of factors raise our concern still further: the latency of head tumor induced by MPs can exceed 30 years; risk is higher in those starting MP use when young and who have not yet accumulated 10 years of latency; there is a continued rise in MP use by youngsters, attracted to new facilities from the MP companies (photography, listening to music, videophony, internet); the data by Hardell on the increase in other types of malign and benign head tumor – besides brain gliomas, astrocytomas, and acoustic neuromas – are for the main part today only indicative. Therefore, there is no doubt that today we are dealing with just the tip of an iceberg, and will have to wait one or two decades before its real dimensions come to light. But it is clear that a significant increase in tumor risk is already established, so that the use of MPs could lead to a health crisis of dramatic proportion(34).
While recognizing that mobile telephony is an extraordinary technology of inestimable value, responsible science must raise awareness of the risks involved.
As also expressed by the EEA and the EP, we thus conclude that there is sufficient epidemiological evidence to warrant application of the Precautionary Principle aimed at:
• setting exposure limits that are precautionary;
• limiting the spread of wireless technology in schools and highly frequented places (libraries, offices, hospital wards);
• providing accurate information about the risks from exposure to MPs, with low-cost voluntary options ("prudent avoidance") based on caution in the use of MPs and other devices emitting MF. A 10-point list of simple personal actions designed to substantially reduce to cell-phone radiation was produced by the Viennese Medical Officers in 2006, adopted in the same year by the French Agency on Radiofrequencies (www.sante_radiofrequences.org), by several international scientific committees (see footnote 5 and ref. 30), and through a document signed by of 20 scientists (www.devradavis.com, http://archive.truthout.org/article/twenty-appeal-against-cell-phone);
• awareness-raising in schools through a campaign on the use of the various wireless transmission technologies;
• discouraging the use of MPs by minors under 14 years;
• epidemiological monitoring of the possible harmful effects produced by residential and occupational EMF exposures.
Given the results and considerations set out in Section 3, it is small wonder that a number of scientists have maintained that "the long-term use of cellphones was leading to brain tumors and was more dangerous to health than smoking cigarettes" (35), and that "MPs could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos" (the reader is referred to Khurana – an Australian neurosurgeon who collaborated with Hardell in the meta-analyses showing increased risk of head tumors in MP users – interviewed by G. Lean for "The Independent", 30.03.08).
In conclusion, it is perfectly clear that an ex-ante evaluation of the overall impacts of today's technological innovations is not only compatible with the Precautionary Principle, but actually necessary, as also borne out in some of the Italian magistracy's statements (see Section 2.3) and the recommendations of the EP and of the EEA. This evaluation is particularly vital in the case of exposure to EMF, given the state of advancement of scientific knowledge about their possible/probably harmful effects on the human health. In fact, the Precautionary Principle was designed to justify actions to protect the public and the environment even in the absence of any significant knowledge, so it could be used to justify exposure reductions to EMF despite the amount of – seemingly but almost ever ad hoc produced – conflicting evidence of risks.
Should any doubt still remain, it is worth recalling the consequences of the four main scenarios facing us with EMF, especially with RF from mobile phones, underlined by D. Gee (32): "The first is similar to the case studies where much avoidable harm was not prevented. The second is where precautionary actions to reduce MF exposure prevent much potential harm, whilst stimulating more sustainable innovation in the production and use of MP technologies and energy systems. The third is where such precautionary actions to reduce exposures are taken but turn out to have been unnecessary, needlessly costly, and worrisome. The fourth is that no action is taken to reduce exposure and no convincing harm emerges from EMF exposure. We do not know which scenario will unfold, but we do know that a choice over current and future EMF exposures must be made now, if the costs of possibly being wrong are to be minimized. The choice is ours.
Shakespeare might have described our dilemma thus: “to know or not to know, to act or not to act?”
The tragedy is that the unfolding story of EMF looks set to become another case of history repeating itself – following in the tracks of ionizing radiation, asbestos, tobacco smoke, and many other now demonstrated human carcinogens where evidence of harm was officially recognized only a score or even more years after the initial warnings. In view of the evidence we already have, this time we can act early, rather than giving cause for future generations once again to regret our inaction – it is our duty and responsibility as scientists, in particular to our offspring!
http://www.ambientesalute.eu/documenti/documenti4/documenti/campielettromagneticibusinessbaias.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment