How safe is your cell? Possible links between cancer and wireless radiation should be ‘aggressively’ studied: panel
Sheryl Ubelacker, Canadian Press | April 1, 2014 | Last Updated: Apr 1 11:36 AM ET
More from Canadian Press
More from Canadian Press
Spencer Platt/Getty Images filesIs your cellphone creating additional risk for cancer? Probably not, experts say, but aggressively pursuing research is the only way to rule out additional problems.
TORONTO — The potential risk of cancer from cellphone and wireless frequencies should be aggressively pursued with new research, an expert panel recommends. But federal guidelines that spell out safe exposure levels of radiofrequency waves emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices appear to be mostly adequate, experts say.
The Royal Society of Canada panel issued its report Tuesday on Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, which sets out limits on exposure to radiofrequency fields aimed at protecting the health of workers and the general public.
The panel was asked by Health Canada to recommend any necessary changes to the code following a review of the latest research on adverse health effects linked to radio waves from mobile phones, Wi-Fi equipment, cellular phone towers and TV/radio broadcast antennas.
‘Safety Code 6 limits are science-based and are designed to avoid all known hazards of radiofrequency radiation’
“The conclusion of the panel was that the Safety Code 6 limits are science-based and are designed to avoid all known hazards of radiofrequency radiation,” said panel chair Paul Demers, director of the Occupational Cancer Research Centre in Toronto.
“And we do not believe at this time that additional precautionary measures should be introduced directly into the exposure levels or limits.”
However, the eight-member panel said Health Canada should pursue research to try to determine if there is a link between exposure to radiofrequency waves from ubiquitous wireless devices and cases of cancer.
Studies investigating the issue have had inconsistent results
“That certainly is one of the areas that has arisen as a concern,” said Demers, noting that studies investigating the issue have had inconsistent results.
“This is an area that certainly deserves further scrutiny, but at this point it’s still in the possible category in terms of a potential health effect. So that’s why we recommend that there still be research ongoing.”
As part of its review, the expert panel also sought input from the public about possible adverse health effects from radiofrequency waves.
Demers said members heard testimony from a number of people who considered themselves to be hypersensitive to emissions, with symptoms that fall under a broadly defined category called idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields, or IEI-EMF.
“We were very concerned with the health of these folks who did present to the panel,” he said.
“So we recommended that Health Canada further investigate their problem … understanding their health conditions and finding ways to find effective treatments for these individuals.”
While there is no scientific evidence to pinpoint a clear relationship between exposure to radiofrequency waves and reported symptoms, Demers said “there are people who are seriously ill and seriously concerned about that, and we believe that this should be a priority area for research to identify just what is causing their symptoms.”
Panel member Ken Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania who studies the health effects of electromagnetic fields, said studies on human exposure to Wi-Fi devices have provided little useful data on biological effects.
“There’s very good evidence about how much exposure these things produce, and based on what we know and within the framework of Safety Code 6, we can say that the exposure is below that which is reasonably expected to be hazardous,” he said.
“As far as proving that the use of Wi-Fi does not cause health effects, well that’s a very difficult question and there’s not much data at this point.”
‘We didn’t find specific evidence to say that children were at increased risk’
Demers said many people are concerned about children’s exposure to radiofrequency waves. Those concerns include the effects of cellphone emissions on still-developing brains, since research has shown that about one-third of radio waves are absorbed through the skull.
“Again we didn’t find specific evidence to say that children were at increased risk, but as a general principle, we usually try to take a higher level of action when it comes to our children,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment