CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Telecommunications have become an integral part of our life; providing

services that range from phone connection, entertainment, information

and learning over a broad range of media. This wireless technology

relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennae, or base stations,

relaying information via radio frequency waves or signals that travel at

the speed of light.5

Apart from telecoms base station facilities, broadcast towers, radar

facilities and even domestic electrical and electronic home appliance

such as microwave ovens, television, radio and even remote controls

also act as sources of radio frequency emissions.

There has been a steady increase in public concerns pertaining to the

possible effects of electromagnetic radiation emanating from

telecommunications equipment/infrastructure on human health. It

should however be noted that people are often misled to think that

electromagnetic emissions from telecommunication facilities is the

same as or similar to nuclear and radioactive radiations. There are

several reasons for these public fears and these include media

announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to

a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown

or undiscovered hazards.

Given the large number of mobile phone users, it is important

therefore to investigate, understand and communicate any potential

public health impact from mobile phones which work by transmitting

radio waves through a network of fixed antennas called base

transceiver stations (BTS).6

5
emfrefugee.blogspot.com/.../nigeria-emf-what-experts-
say...base.html What Experts Say About Base Station Radiation BY CHIMA
AKWAJA, 29 JULY 2012

6
Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) 2012 at the Conference of first West
African conference on EMF exposure and health
While mobile phones are becoming beneficial as a tool for monitoring and
improving health, the radio frequency (RF) emission radiated by phones has
called into question its effect on human health. In the last 15 years several
researches have been conducted to establish mobile phone usage health risks.
Globally, the number of cell phone subscriptions is estimated by the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to be five billion.

1.0 Electromagnetic frequency

Electromagnetic frequency is a measure of how many times the peak of a wave
passes a particular point each second. It is measured in Hertz, which also can
be written as simply “per second”. The frequency of a wave is one of its most
fundamental principles, and the range of possible frequencies makes up
something known as the electromagnetic spectrum. This runs from low-energy
radio waves to high-energy gamma rays. Unlike its wavelength, the
electromagnetic frequency of a wave doesn’t change.7

Electromagnetic radiation is a type of wave that travels at the speed of light. It is

a transverse wave, which means it oscillates up and down in a direction opposite
that in which it is moving. The electromagnetic frequency of a wave is defined as
how many times the peak of this oscillation moves past a point each second. This
has a major effect on the properties of the wave, including its energy. The
wavelength, on the other hand, is the distance between two peaks of the wave
or, in other words, the length of a full cycle.8

A wave's electromagnetic frequency is directly related to the amount of energy

carried by the wave. Low-frequency electromagnetic waves, for example, have
small amounts of energy and, therefore, are relatively safe. These are more

7
www.wisegeek.com clear answers to common questions

8 www.wisegeek.com clear answers to common questions

commonly known as radio waves. Low-frequency waves, such as radio waves
and microwaves, have long wavelengths.

If the electromagnetic frequency of a wave is high, then the wave carries a large
amount of energy. Conversely, the wavelength of the wave in this situation is
very short. X-rays and gamma rays are two examples of high electromagnetic
frequency waves, which is why these types are dangerous when humans are
exposed to them. Visible light also is a type of electromagnetic wave with a
frequency somewhere around the middle of the electromagnetic spectrum.9

When a wave passes from one medium to another, such as from air to water, it
changes direction as the result of a phenomenon known as refraction. This is
because the wave changes speed as it enters a material with a different density.
A common mistake is to assume that this changes the electromagnetic frequency
of the wave. This is not the case, because the frequency of a wave stays the same,
regardless of the medium. It is the wavelength and speed of the wave that change,
resulting in a slower wave of the same energy.

Figure 3: Electromagnetic spectrum

9
www.wisegeek.com clear answers to common questions
1.1 What is Electromagnetic Radiation?
Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is a form of energy that is all around us and takes
many forms, such as radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma rays.
Sunlight is also a form of EM energy, but visible light is only a small portion of
the EM spectrum, which contains a broad range of electromagnetic
wavelengths.10

Electricity and magnetism were once thought to be separate forces. However,

in 1873, Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell developed a unified theory of
electromagnetism. The study of electromagnetism deals with how electrically
charged particles interact with each other and with magnetic fields.11

There are four main electromagnetic interactions:

 The force of attraction or repulsion between electric charges is inversely

proportional to the square of the distance between them.
 Magnetic poles come in pairs that attract and repel each other much as
electric charges do.
 An electric current in a wire produces a magnetic field whose direction
depends on the direction of the current.
 A moving electric field produces a magnetic field and vice versa.
 A wavelength is the distance between two consecutive peaks of a wave.
This distance is given meters (m) or fractions thereof. Frequency is the
number of waves that form in a given length of time. It is usually measured
as the number of wave cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). A short wavelength
means that the frequency will be higher because one cycle can pass in a
shorter amount of time, according to the University of Wisconsin.12

10
www.livescience.com/38169-electromagnetism.html
11
Jim Lucas, Live Science| Contributor | March 12, 2015
12
(http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/light.html)
 Similarly, a longer wavelength has a lower frequency because each cycle
takes longer to complete.
 Electromagnetic radiation spans an enormous range of wavelength and
frequencies. This range is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. The
EM spectrum is generally divided into seven (7) regions, in order of
decreasing wavelength and increasing energy and frequency. The common
designations are: radio waves, microwaves, infrared (IR), visible light,
ultraviolet (UV) X-rays and gamma rays. Typically, lower-energy radiation,
such as radio waves, is expressed as frequency, microwaves, infrared,
visible and UV light are usually expressed as wavelength and higher-
energy radiation such as X-rays gamma rays is expressed in terms of
energy per photon.

Figure 4: Electromagnetic Frequency Range

The electromagnetic spectrum is generally divided into seven regions, in order of
decreasing wavelength and increasing energy and frequency: radio waves,
microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays.13

a. Radio waves

Radio waves are at the lowest range of the EM spectrum, with frequencies of up
to 30 million hertz or 30 gigahertz (GHz) and wavelengths greater than about
10 millimeters (0.4 inches). Radio is used primarily for communications
including voice, data and entertainment media.

b. Microwaves

Microwaves fall in the range of the EM spectrum between radio and IR. They
have frequencies from about 3 GHz trillion hertz or 30 terahertz (THz) and
wavelengths of about 10 mm (0.4 inches) to 100 micrometers (um), or 0.004
inches. Microwaves are used for high-bandwidth communications, radar and as
a heat source for microwave ovens and industrial applications.

c. Infrared

Infrared is in the range of EM spectrum between microwaves and visible light. IR

has frequencies from about 30THz up to about 400 THz and wavelengths of
about 100 um (0.004 inches) to 740 nanometers (nm) or 0.00003 inches. IR light
is invisible to human eyes but we can feel it as heat if the intensify is sufficient.

d. Visible Light

Visible light is found in the middle of the EM spectrum, between IR and UV. It
has frequencies of about 400 THz to 800 THz and wavelengths of about 740 nm

13
Credit: Biro Emoke Shutterstock
(0.00003inches) to 380 nm (0.000015 inches). More generally, visible light is
defined as the wavelengths that are visible to most human eyes.

e. Ultraviolet Light

Ultraviolet light is in the range of the EM spectrum between visible light and X-
rays. It has frequencies of about 8 x 10 14 to 3 x 1015 and wavelengths of about
380 nm (0.000015 inches) to about 10 nm (0.0000004 inches). UV light is a
component of sunlight, however, it is invisible to the human eye. It has
numerous medical and industrial applications but it can damage living tissue.

f. X-rays

X-rays are roughly classified into two types: soft X-rays and hard X-rays. Soft X-
rays comprise the range of the EM spectrum between UV and gamma rays. Soft
X-rays have frequencies of about 3 x 1016 to about 1918 Hz and wavelengths of
about 10nm (4 x 10-7 inches) to about 100 picometers (pm) or 4 x 10 -8. Hard X-
rays occupy the same region of the EM spectrum as gamma rays. The only
difference between them is their source: X-rays are produced by accelerating
electrons while gamma rays are produced by atomic nuclei.

g. Gamma-rays

Gamma-rays are in the range of the spectrum above soft rays. Gamma rays have
frequencies greater than about 1018 Hz and wavelengths of less than 100 pm (4
x 10-7 inches). Gamma radiation causes damage to living tissues which make it
useful for killing cancer cells when applied in carefully measured doses to small
regions. Uncontrolled exposure though is extremely dangerous to humans.

1.2 What are Mobile phone base stations?

Mobile phone base stations are radio transmitters with antennas mounted on
either freestanding masts or on buildings. Radio signals are fed through cables
to the antennas and then launched as radio waves into the area, or cell, around
the base station.14 A typical larger base station installation would consist of a
plant room containing the electronic equipment as well as the mast with the
antennas.

Several types of antenna are used for the transmissions; panel-shaped sector
antennas or pole-shaped omni antennas are used to communicate with mobile
phones. Dish antennas form terminals for point-to-point microwave links that
communicate with other base stations and link the network together. Sometimes
the base stations are connected together with buried cables instead of microwave
links.15

Depending on the location of the base station and the level of mobile phone usage
to be handled, base stations may be anything from only a few hundred meters
apart in major cities, to several kilometers apart in the countryside.

a. Types of base stations

There are many different types of base station used by operators and it is not
always easy to categorize them firmly as macrocell, microcell or picocell.
Categorizations tend to be based on the purpose of the site rather than in terms
of technical constraints such as radiated powers or antenna heights.

Macrocellular base stations provide the main infrastructure for a mobile phone
network and their antennas tend to be mounted at sufficient height to give
them a clear view over the surrounding geographical area. For this reason
they tend

14
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone-base

15
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-
health/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health
to be obvious, particularly for the older sites with freestanding steel lattice
towers.

Microcell base stations provide additional radio capacity where there are a high
number of users such as in cities and towns. Microcell antennas tend to be
mounted at street level, typically on the external walls of existing buildings.
Microcell antennas are a great deal smaller than macrocell antennas and can
often be disguised as building features.

b. Transmissions from base stations

Base stations in areas of low mobile phone usage may only have one
transmitter connected to their antennas; hence, they will transmit only on one
frequency. Base stations in busier areas may have up to ten or more
transmitters connected to their antennas, allowing them to transmit on several
frequencies at the same time, and to handle communications with many
mobile phones.

The power of each base station transmitter is set to a level that allows a mobile
phone to be used within the area for which the base station is designed to provide
coverage, but not outside the coverage area. Higher powers are needed to cover
larger cells and also to cover cells with difficult ground terrain. Typical maximum
powers for individual macrocellular base station transmitters are around 5 to 10
watts (W), although the total radiated power from an antenna could be up to
around 100 W with multiple transmitters present.

For a low-capacity base station with only one transmitter, the radiated power
does not vary over time, or with the number of phone users. Up to seven phone
calls can be handled simultaneously by such a base station.

With larger capacity base stations having multiple transmitters, the output
power can vary over time and with the number of calls being handled. One of the
transmitters will transmit continuously at full power, whereas the other
transmitters will operate intermittently and with varying power levels up to the
maximum. As an example, the power output of a macrocellular base station with
ten 10 W transmitters could vary between a minimum of 10 W and a maximum
of 100 W over time. Microcellular base stations tend to operate at lower power
levels around 1 to 2 W and have fewer transmitters because of their smaller
coverage areas.

c. Beam shapes and directions

The power from antennas used with macrocellular base stations is radiated in
conical fan-shaped beams, which are essentially directed towards the horizon
with a slight downward tilt. This causes the radiowave strengths below the
antennas and at the base of masts to be very much lower than directly in front
of the antennas at a similar distance.

The beams from the antennas spread out with distance and tend to reach ground
level at distances in the range 50 to 300m from the antennas. The radiowave
levels at these distances are much less than those directly in front of the
antennas and can easily be calculated.16 At distances closer to the mast than
where the main beam reaches ground level, exposure occurs due to weaker
beams known as sidelobes the power density of which is not so easy to calculate
unless one has detailed technical information about the beam pattern from the
antennas.

16
http://hpa.org.uk/publications/radiation/nprarchive/miscellaneousnrpbreports/abstracts/NRPB
report NRPB-R321, Exposure to Radio Waves near Mobile Phone Base Stations.
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
For some time now, the general public has been concerned with the following
two questions: “What are the effects of radio waves on human health?” and, more
specifically, “What health risks are associated with the use of cell phones,
mobile radios, microwave radios, microwave ovens, broadcast radio and
television transmitters, power lines and X-rays?”

Electromagnetic waves are produced by the motion of electrically charged

particles. These waves are also called electromagnetic radiation because they
radiate from the electrically charged particles. They travel through empty space
as well as through air and other substances. Electromagnetic waves at low
frequencies are referred to as electromagnetic fields and those at very high
frequencies are called electromagnetic radiations17.

In recent times, many people have expressed an interest in learning if the use of
cell phones is associated with cancer. Many have heard or read about possible
links between cell phones and cancer, but conclusions are rarely definitive.18.

2.1 Electromagnetic Frequency Spectrum

Wireless communication links have been used worldwide for many years as
solutions for connectivity in point-to-point and point-to-multipoint
applications. The most common wireless solutions include AM and FM radio,
television broadcast stations, mobile and cellular phones, radar and
microwave systems.

The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum contains an array of electromagnetic waves

increasing in frequency from Extremely Low Frequency and Very Low Frequency

17Feyyaz Ozdemir and Aysegul Kargi (2011). Electromagnetic Waves and Human Health,
Electromagnetic Waves, Prof. Vitaliy Zhurbenko (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-304-0, InTech, Available
from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/electromagnetic-waves/electromagnetic-waves-and-human-
health

18 “Opinion on Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), Radio Frequency Fields (RF) and Microwave Radiation
on Human Health,” Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE).
(ELF/VLF), through Radio Frequency (RF) and Microwaves, to Infrared (IR) light,
Visible Light, Ultraviolet (UV) light, X-rays, and Gamma rays.

2.2 EMR & HUMAN HEALTH

2.2.1 Ionizing Radiation
Ionizing radiation contains sufficient electromagnetic energy to strip atoms and
molecules from the tissue and alter chemical reactions in the body (converting
molecules totally or partly into ions). X-Rays and Gamma rays are two (2) forms
of ionizing radiation. These rays are known to cause damage, which is why a lead
vest must be worn when X-rays are taken of our bodies and heavy shielding
surrounds nuclear power plants.

Human beings are constantly exposed to low levels of ionizing radiation from
natural sources. This type of radiation is referred to as natural background
radiation, and its main sources are:

• Visible light, ultraviolet light and infrared light (sunlight)

• Radioactive materials on the earth’s surface (contained in coal,

granite, etc.)

• Radioactive gases leaking from the earth (radon)

• Cosmic rays from outer space entering the earth’s atmosphere

through the ionosphere

• Natural radioactivity in the human body

2.2.2 Non-Ionizing Radiation

The lower part of the frequency spectrum is considered non-ionizing
Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR), with energy levels below that required for
effects at the atomic level. Examples of non-ionizing radiations are:

• Static electromagnetic fields from direct current (0 Hz).

• Low-frequency waves from electric power (50-60 Hz).

 • Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and Very Low Frequency (VLF) fields
(up to 30 kHz).

• Radio Frequencies (RF), including Low Frequency (LF), Medium

Frequency (MF) High Frequency (HF), Very High Frequency (VHF),
Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Microwave (MW) and Millimeter-
wave (30 kHz to 300 GHz).

• Infrared (IR) light, Visible light and Ultraviolet (UV) light (above 300
GHz).

Note: the frequencies between the highest microwave bands and infrared
light are rarely used, but are being studied for future applications19.

Some heating effect is generated by all of these waves. Insufficient energy is

available from most common sources to produce any type of damage to human
tissue, although it is probable that higher power densities, such as those
densities very near high-voltage power lines or high-power (megawatt) broadcast
transmitters, could have long-term health effects.

The power density of any source of EMR is not only related to the power level at
the source, but increases rapidly as the distance from the source decreases. A
common concern today, since more and more people are using cell phones than
ever before, is that cell phone antennas radiate near a person’s head. Cell
phones, however, radiate very little power. So, even while close to the head, they
are not considered a danger.

Some studies suggest that potential health hazards could be linked to excessive
exposure to high-power densities of non-ionizing radiation. These health hazards
include: • Cancer

• Tumors

19
Guidance for Industry and FDA—Regulation of Medical Devices, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
 • Headaches

• Fatigue

• Alzheimer’s Disease

• Parkinson’s Disease

Researchers, however, are unsure of specific long-term effects resulting from

prolonged exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

2.3 Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and Very Low Frequency

(VLF) Electromagnet Radiation (EMR)

EMR in the ELF and VLF range is both naturally occurring and man-made.
Natural EMR includes a background electromagnetic field created by the earth
as well as additional EMR created by thunderstorms, as well as solar and cosmic
activity. The strength of an electromagnetic field depends both on the power at
the source and the distance from the source20.

Exposure to man-made ELF/VLF occurs primarily due to the generation,

transmission and use of electrical energy. Electromagnetic fields are created
whenever electricity passes through a conductor. Actually, two (2)
interdependent fields are created: an electric field and a magnetic field. The
strength of the electric field depends on the voltage being carried, while the
magnetic field strength depends on the amount of current being carried
(amperage). Thus, electromagnetic fields are created by a variety of electrical
household appliances such as motors in refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, hair
dryers, irons, electric blankets, microwaves, televisions, stereo receivers, and
computers. In fact, because of the individual’s proximity to household
appliances, the level of electromagnetic fields is often far greater than those levels
produced by transmission lines strung on high towers. However, the appliances

20
Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, by John E. Moulder, Ph.D., Professor of Radiation Oncology.
only create electromagnetic fields while in use, whereas the transmission line
electromagnetic fields are continuous. While these man-made ELF/VLF electro-
magnetic fields may cause biological effects, the adverse effects on human health
are highly controversial.

2.4 Electrical Power Line Effects

The concern over electromagnetic fields emitted by power lines (Figure 2) has
long been a topic of conversation in the real estate and power industries. New
studies and conflicting reports are published every year. While it is easy to shield
a house against the electric field generated by nearby power lines, it is much
more difficult to shield against the magnetic fields they generate21. The magnetic
field can best be shielded by burying power transmission lines, but at a much
higher cost compared to over-headlines.

Figure 5: Electric power line

21
Ali Zamanian and Cy Hardiman Fluor Corporation, Industrial and Infrastructure Group
Animal experiments, laboratory studies of cells, clinical studies, computer
simulations, and human population (epidemiological) studies have been
conducted to determine the relationship between exposure to electro-magnetic
fields and a number of disorders, including depression, childhood leukemia,
central nervous system disorders, cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, etc. In the
past, numerous reports have presented conflicting information. Some of these
reports have provided evidence of adverse health effects, and some other reports
have failed to find any such correlation. Recently, the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Cancer Institute have released major studies finding
no evidence of a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer. These studies
suggest that power transmission lines are much less likely to cause cancer than
was previously suspected.

2.5 Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation

RF energy in the frequency range of LF, MF, HF VHF, UHF or Microwaves is often
referred to as radio waves, RF radiation, or RF emissions. Here, the term “RF
energy” is used for all frequencies between 30 kHz and 300 GHz. Some known
facts about RF energy are:

• The biological effects of RF energy are proportional to the rate of

energy absorption, and the level of absorption varies little with
frequency.

• RF energy has the ability to heat human tissue, much like the way
that microwave ovens heat food, and can be hazardous if the
exposure is sufficiently intense or prolonged.

• Damage to tissue may be caused by exposure to high levels of RF

energy because the body is not equipped to dissipate the excessive
amounts of heat generated. Possible injuries include skin burns,
deep burns, heat exhaustion and heat stroke.
 Eyes are particularly vulnerable to extended exposure to RF energy;
the lack of blood flow to cool the cornea can result in cataracts.

2.6 Broadcast Stations

Commercial AM/FM radio and TV broadcast stations transmit very high levels
of RF energy. Some of their antennas radiate power levels of several megawatts
but, fortunately, these antennas are generally placed on high towers or
buildings where no humans are nearby. Even so, humans absorb more RF
energy from AM/FM radios and TV broadcast station antennas than from
mobile telephone and base station antennas. However, once the energy is
absorbed from either source, the effects are basically the same.

An Australian group claimed to have evidence that living near television

broadcast station towers causes an increase in childhood leukemia. However,
follow-up studies conducted in Australia and in the UK contradicted this claim.
The follow-up studies found no significant correlation between RF exposure and
the rate of childhood leukemia in these cases22.

Cellular Telephones, Cordless Phones and Hand-Held Radios

Type of mobile radio Frequency (MHz) Average radiated power

Cellular/PCS 824-849 MHz A few hundred milliwatts

1850-1990 MHz

Two-way, hand-held 30, 50, 150, 450 and Between 2 and 5 watts

(walkie-talkie) 800 MHz bands

22
Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, by John E. Moulder, Ph.D., Professor of Radiation Oncology.
Cordless telephone 49, 915, 2450 MHz Tens of milliwatts

Table 1. Table showing typical portable/mobile radio equipment.

Most cellular/PCS and cordless telephones have either a small antenna

attached or the antenna is integrated into the body of the telephone. Because
the antenna of a cellular phone is close to the user’s head, such telephones
create greater RF exposure than other types of RF systems. Home cordless
telephones and other two-way hand-held radios have a similar effect. However,
cordless telephones have very low RF power output and two-way hand-held
radios are generally used in the push-to-talk mode, therefore, transmission is
not continuous. Table 1 illustrates the frequency bands and average radiated
power for cellular, PCS, hand-held radios and cordless telephones in the
United States.

2.7 Vehicular Mobile Telephones and Radios

Vehicular mobile telephones (not cellular) and radios have an antenna mounted
outside a vehicle, usually on the roof, window, trunk or fender. The metal surface
of a vehicle provides a shield between the mobile telephone or radio user and the
RF energy radiated by the antenna. The distance between the user and the
antenna also serves as protection against RF energy. Because of these two
factors, users of mobile equipment have little exposure to RF energy, even though
the average radiated power is significant, between 10 and 100 watts.

2.8 Base Stations and Radio Sites

Cellular/PCS and other two-way radio system base stations (radio sites) produce
RF energy. Therefore, people near the base stations are exposed to this type of
energy. However, the exposure is generally minimal due to the low level of power
(less than 100 watts) produced and the distance between the tower-mounted
antennas and any humans in the area.
Figure 6: Exposure of humans to RF energy from radio sites

2.9 RF Exposure Concerns

EMR from cellular/cordless and hand-held radios have billions of times less
energy needed to cause ionization or damage to DNA contained in human
tissue. The rapid and widespread use of this technology, however, has raised
concern over possible adverse health effects, in particular brain cancer. Several
studies which addressed this concern have been conducted in the United States
and other countries. These studies seem to rule out, with a reasonable level of
confidence, any association between EMR from these devices and cancer.

A growing number of scientific experts have shifted positions regarding the use
of these types of wireless devices. Many of these experts believe that a cancer
risk is associated with EMR in the higher wattage ranges.

For base stations located at radio sites, the consensus of the scientific
community is that the power produced is far too low to cause health hazards so
long as people are prevented from being in close proximity to the antennas.
No study, to date, has provided conclusive evidence that cell phones can cause
any illnesses. However, ongoing studies are examining the issue more closely.
Recent reports from Europe raised concern over possible links between cell
phone use and tumors in the ear, with the risk being greater for children than
adults.

It is important to note that cellular/PCS and cordless telephones are relatively

new technologies, and it is impossible to prove that any product or exposure is
absolutely safe in the absence of long-term research. Therefore, a good
“precautionary” approach would be for adults to keep cell phone conversations
short and to discourage the frequent, extended use of cell phones by children23.

A notable danger involving the use of cellular phones is not radiation related,
but is rather the increased risk of driving accidents while using them. The results
of several studies indicate that talking on a cellular telephone while driving
significantly increase the risk of accidents with some suggesting that it is almost
as dangerous as driving while drunk.

2.10 Effect of Microwave Ovens on Human Health and Food

Concerns are often expressed regarding the effects of EMR from microwave ovens
on people nearby and on the food prepared in them. Many people believe that
microwave ovens may cause cancer and that food prepared by them becomes
toxic.

This belief is simply not true. While forms of ionizing radiation such as X-rays
usually have sufficient localized energy to cause chemical damage to the
molecules in their path, non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves, does not
damage molecules. Microwaves generate purely thermal energy, creating heat in
moist food or tissue placed in the oven.

23
Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, by John E. Moulder, Ph.D., Professor of Radiation Oncology.
Microwave ovens are designed and tested so that negligible micro-wave radiation
escapes when the door is closed, making the level of the RF radiation outside the
oven quite safe. However, leakage from a worn or dam-aged gasket around the
oven’s door can allow radiation leakage which can create an unsafe condition.

Foods cooked in a microwave oven suffer no lasting effects. No conclusive

evidence exists of any chemical changes in microwave-prepared food beyond
those effects caused by heating, as in a normal oven.

2.11 Microwave Communication Links

Microwave communication links operate in frequency bands between 1 GHz

and 60 GHz. As mentioned previously, heat will be generated in living tissue
exposed to RF frequencies, including microwave radiation. The human eye is
particularly susceptible to damage from microwave energy. In extensive, but
controversial, research on the ocular effects of microwaves on animals, lens
cataracts have been produced after exposure to very high frequencies.

Microwave links used for communications employ highly focused beams of

energy sent through space directly between antennas usually placed high on
special towers. This practice makes it unlikely that anyone can inadvertently
come directly in the path of this type of energy.

2.12 Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRI is based on the magnetic properties of atoms. Magnetic resonance

technology is based on the absorption and emission of energy in the radio
frequency from various body tissues. MRIs use a powerful magnet to produce a
magnetic field approximately 10,000 times stronger than the natural
background magnetic field produced by the earth, and generate a variable RF
radiation in the 1 MHz to 100 MHz range. A very small percent-age of hydrogen
atoms within a human body will align with the static magnetic field. When
focused, radio wave pulses are transmitted toward the aligned hydrogen atoms
in tissues of interest, where they will reflect a weak signal. Images are created
through the reception and analysis of the reflected weak radio signals. These
slight differences in the signal received from various body tissues enable the MRI
to produce images of extraordinary resolution that differentiate organs, and
potentially contrast benign and malignant tissue.

Although power deposition in the patient can be substantial, no side effects or

after effects are experienced, since MRI does not utilize ionizing radiation.
However, hazards of improperly applied MRI therapy do exist that can cause
severe injuries or even death. These hazards are primarily the result of:

• Strong magnetic fields from MRIs causing interference with

implanted electronic devices such as pacemakers.

• RF burns resulting from induced currents in conductors

accidentally placed on the patient's skin surface (e.g., leads from
electro-cardio-graphs and other monitoring devices).

Optical Effects (Ultraviolet, Visible and Infrared Light) Sources of

optical radiation exposure include:

• Sunlight

• Heat lamps

• Lasers

• Other incandescent sources

Intense optical radiation will cause electron excitation. This means that electrons
in tissue near the body’s surface can absorb energy from intense optical
sources, thereby causing heating and even burning.

2.13 Visible light spectrum

Optical radiations are not very penetrating; therefore, the eye and the skin are
the organs of greatest concern. The immediate effects can be retinal injury to the
eye as well as abnormal redness and burning of the skin due to solar radiation
(sunburn). Delayed effects include cataract formation, retinal degeneration,
accelerated aging, and skin cancer.

2.14 Effects of Infrared (IR)

Infrared (IR) is an energy field similar to visible light but with a longer
wavelength. This radiation, typically emitted by heat lamps, molten metal or
glass, fireplace embers and other “hot” objects, is invisible to the human eye.
The thermal effects, characteristic of the IR region, extend into the spectrum of
visible light. However, while visible light energy is emitted by objects only at a
high temperature, infrared energy is emitted by all objects at ordinary
temperatures. Some studies have shown that infrared energy can have positive
effects on human cells in that it can help to rebuild connective tissue. Infrared
radiation has no correlation with ultraviolet radiation and applied in moderation,
has no damaging effect on human health.

2.15 Effects of Ultraviolet (UV)

The main effect of Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is photochemical; this effect is also
the case, but to a lesser degree, with visible light. Everyone is exposed on a
daily basis to the UV radiation contained in sunlight. The harmful effects of UV
exposure depend on the level of exposure, the duration of expo-sure and
differences in the susceptibility of individuals to UV light. UV radiation has both
positive and negative effects. The positive effects of UV radiation include warmth,
photosynthesis in plants, and vitamin D synthesis in the human body. However,
overexposure to UV radiation has adverse health effects. In addition to the
immediate effect of sunburn, overexposure to UV radiation can cause skin
cancer, eye damage, immune system suppression, and premature aging.
Children are highly susceptible to harmful UV radiation. Because of its greater
bio-logical effects, some references consider UV to be ionizing radiation.
2.16 X-rays, Gamma Rays and Other Nuclear/Cosmic Rays

The adverse effects of large doses of ionizing radiation were seen shortly after the
discovery of radioactivity and X-rays in the 1890s. In 1902, skin cancers were
reported in scientists who were studying radioactivity. The role of radiation in
causing leukemia in humans (primarily in physicians and radiologists) was first
reported in 1944.

2.17 X-rays and CT Scan

Due to the extremely high frequencies and energies of these forms of EMR, they
have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds in living tissue. The well-known
biological effects of X-rays are associated with the ionization of molecules. The
many types of X-ray devices include:

• Radiographic systems (dental, podia-try, veterinary, medical,

chiropractic)

• Fluoroscopic imaging systems; (hospitals, radiologists)

• Cancer therapy

• CT Scan (Computed Tomography)

• Mammography

• Cabinet X-ray systems for security (baggage inspection at airports)

• Industrial radiography (pipe welds, circuit board analysis)

• Bone Density Scans for detection of osteoporosis

• Other medical and research applications

A CT scan is essentially a sophisticated type of X-ray that can take cross section
images of the body. These scans provide excellent bone detail by shooting
multiple X-ray beams through the body to create a computer-generated image.
Whole-body scans require higher doses of the X-ray radiation to make these
images. As is the case with other forms of ionizing radiation, X-rays, over the
long term can modify genetic material in cells and cause mutations leading to
cancer.

It is important to realize that the amount of X-ray radiation used in most

diagnostic procedures is so small that the risk is extremely low. Multiple X-Ray
examinations do not appear to increase risk, and no limits have been placed on
the number of medically necessary X-ray examinations a person may undergo.
However, it is always safe to assume that the same kind of effects that occur at
high doses of radiation could occur at low doses; therefore, it is better to try to
reduce exposure as much as possible. Patients should, if possible, minimize
their exposure to X-rays, especially to CT scans which should not be performed
on women who may be pregnant.

2.18 Gamma Rays

Everybody is basically aware of the high degree of danger associated with

atomic radiation. Gamma rays, as well as Alpha and Beta particles emitted from
radioactive material and nuclear reactions, are forms of ionizing radiation;
these rays and particles can cause chemical or physical damage when they
deposit energy in living tissue.

Health effects resulting from expo-sure to radiation vary from no effect at all to
death, and can cause disorders such as leukemia or bone, breast, and lung
cancer. In addition, the children of pregnant women who were exposed to high
doses of radiation have shown an increased risk of birth defects. These effects
have been observed in various studies of medical radiologists, uranium miners,
radium workers, radiotherapy patients, and the people exposed to radiation from
Chernobyl and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Categories of Electromagnetic Fields

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are characterized by their frequency or their

corresponding wavelength. We are constantly surrounded by electromagnetic
radiations that are invisible to the human eyes. Electromagnetic radiation can
range from high frequency which referred to ionizing radiation to low frequency
also referred to non-ionizing radiation.24 However, the fields from different
frequencies interacts with the body in different ways, while the ionizing
radiations are known to be hazardous the non- ionizing radiations are presumed
to be too weak to pose threat to public health.

Figure 7: High Frequency Magnetic Fields

24
Grasso L, (1998) Virginia Journal of Law and Technology Cellular Telephones and the
Potential Hazards of RF Radiation: Responses to the Fear and Controversy
High frequencies magnetic fields are classified under ionizing radiations. They
exist as X-rays, Gamma rays, and other forms of nuclear radiations. 25 These
category of radiation carries so much energy per quantum which can be lethal
to human body.

3.1 Low frequency Magnetic Fields

The low frequency magnetic fields are classified under the non-ionizing
radiations and electromagnetic radiations emitted from our cellular phone falls
under these category26. The levels of radiofrequency that individuals are
regularly exposed to when using handset is pressured lower than those expected
to pose danger through heating. The heating effects of these device forms the
underlying effects for most guidelines. Researchers are also investigating
possible effects below the threshold level for body heating as a result of long-
term exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

3.2 Extremely low frequency (ELF) fields

ELF fields induce electric fields and currents in tissues that can result in
involuntary nerve and muscle stimulation, but only at very high field strengths.
These acute effects form the basis of international guidelines that limit exposure.
However, fields found in our environment are so low that no acute effects result
from them, except for small electric shocks that can occur from touching large
conductive objects charged by these fields.
No adverse health effects have been established below the limits suggested by
international guidelines.

25
Extract from Electromagnetic fields, WHO Publication: Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones

26
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 2009, Vol. 15, No. 1, 3–
33
3.3 Effects of EMF Radiation Associated with Base Station and
Using Mobile Phone

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) publication in October

201427, cellular phones are now an integral part of modern telecommunication
with an estimated 6.9 billion subscription globally. Given this vast number of
cell phone clients, it is critical to examine, comprehend and screen for potential
public health hazards.

The International Commission on Non –Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)

and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)28 indicates that
strong exposure to EMF can cause harmful health effects. However, the ICNIRP
in cooperation with the WHO developed guidelines for limiting exposure to time-
varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields.29

While a few research findings has concluded that exposure to radio frequencies
(RF) radiations from cellular phones has adverse effects, other findings propose
that cellular phones are safe. This highly debated topic on the impact of new
technologies on public health often place policy makers with difficult choices of
intense of protecting the public without the risk of driving useful product out of
the market.

Studies shows that EMF emission from mobile phones, base stations usually
complies with the set limitation of exposure for the general public. However most
high level exposure are often occupational exposure occur with results from

27
Philips J, Singh N, lai H. (2009). Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage Pathophysiology. 16 (2-3), 79-88
28
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard for safety levels with
respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std
C95.1, 2005.

29
ICNIRP Guidelines, Health physics 74(4):494-522; 1998
technical activities in close vicinity with antenna of base station Belyaev,
(2005)30.

3.4 Exposure Levels

Mobile phones are low-powered radiofrequency transmitters, operating at

frequencies between 450 and 2700 MHz with peak powers in the range of 0.1 to
2 watts. The handset only transmits power when it is turned on. The power (and
hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with increasing
distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30–40 cm away from
their body – for example when text messaging, accessing the Internet, or using a
“hands free” device – will therefore have a much lower exposure to radiofrequency
fields than someone holding the handset against their head.

In addition to using "hands-free" devices, which keep mobile phones away from
the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by limiting the
number and length of calls. Using the phone in areas of good reception also
decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power. The use
of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not been
shown to be effective.

Mobile phones are often prohibited in hospitals and on airplanes, as the

radiofrequency signals may interfere with certain electro-medical devices and
navigation systems.

30
Belyaev I. (2005). Nonthermal biological effects of microwaves: current knowledge, further perspective, and
urgent needs. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24,375-403.
3.5 Are there any health effects?

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to
assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse
health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use31.

Figure 8: Areas of Fit of Terminal Equipment

3.5.1 Short –Term Effects

Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency

energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of
the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in
negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body.

A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on

brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure
in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of

31
Akan Z, Aksu B, Tulunay A, ,Bilsel S, Inhan-Garip A. (2010). Extremely Low –
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Affect the Immune Response of Monocyte_derived Macrophages to Pathogens.
Bioelectromagnetics 31:603-612.
adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below
those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide
support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and
self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.32

3.5.2 Long- Term Effects

Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from

radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain
tumors and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not
detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumor, and
since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological
studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within
shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no
increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields33.

Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are

ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies
examining a number of health endpoints in adults.

The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone,

coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was
designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and
head and neck cancers in adults.

The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating

countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone
use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of
glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone

32
Extract from Electromagnetic fields, WHO Publication: Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones

33
Moore K., Roberts JL., 1998. Measurement of lipid peroxidation. Free Radical Research
28:659-671.
use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater
duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the
strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.

Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic

fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a
causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding
cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. While an increased risk of brain
tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of
data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further
research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent
popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a
potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has also promoted further research
of this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children
and adolescents are underway34.

3.5.3 Exposure Limit Guidelines

In the United States, federal, state and local authorities require that all
equipment and facilities emitting electromagnetic radiation comply with their
exposure guidelines. These guidelines are designed to protect both occupational
workers and the general public with a very large mar-gin of safety. These limits
have been endorsed by federal health and safety agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, etc. These
standards limit exposure to levels many times below those levels generally
accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects.

Radiofrequency exposure limits for mobile phone users are given in terms of
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) – the rate of radiofrequency energy absorption per

34
Kula B, Sobczak A, Kuska R. (2000). Effects of static and ELF magnetic fields on free –radical processes in rat liver
and kidney. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 19 (1), 99-105.
unit mass of the body. Currently, two international bodies 35 36 have developed
exposure guidelines for workers and for the general public, except patients
undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment. These guidelines are based on a
detailed assessment of the available scientific evidence.

3.6 Relationship between the Human Body and Electromagnetic

Fields

The human body grounds electromagnetic radiation in the environment because

of the electrical conductivity of our body. It is attracted to us. All living systems
are based on electromagnetic energy. Every cell in your body is generating an
electromagnetic field, every plant, every rock, the planet itself, the whole universe
is made up of energy. It is true that man-made electromagnetic radiation is not
the only source of random photons in the environment, but the problem is these
frequencies which we have never encountered before are a whole different
spectrum of frequencies than the living system uses.37

3.7 World Health Organization Response on EMF

In response to public and governmental concern, WHO established the

International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project in 2006 to assess the
scientific evidence of possible adverse health effects from electromagnetic
fields.38 WHO conducted a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes

35
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Statement on the
"Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagetic fields
(up to 300 GHz)", 2009.
36
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard for safety levels
with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,
IEEE Std C95.1, 2005.

37
The negative effects of electromagnetic fields by: Hall, Joe
38
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/IAC_2006_Progress_Report.pdf
from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2016. In addition, and as noted above,
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized
agency, reviewed the carcinogenic potential of radiofrequency fields, as from
mobile phones in May 2011.

WHO also identifies and promotes research priorities for radiofrequency fields
and health to fill gaps in knowledge through its research agendas. WHO develops
public information materials and promotes dialogue among scientists,
governments, industry and the public to raise the level of understanding about
potential adverse health risks of mobile phones.
 CHAPTER 4

4.0 WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO) RESEARCHES AND

OTHER SCIENTIFIC RESULTS

The use of electricity and electronic devices has become an integral part of
everyday life. Whenever electricity flows, both electric and magnetic fields exist
close to the lines that carry electricity, and close to appliances. Since the late
1970s, questions have been raised whether exposure to these extremely low
frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) produces adverse health
consequences. Since then, much research has been done, successfully resolving
important issues and narrowing the focus of future research39. In 1996, the
World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Electromagnetic
Fields Project to investigate potential health risks associated with technologies
emitting EMF. A WHO Task Group recently concluded a review of the health
implications of ELF fields (WHO, 2007). This Fact Sheet is based on the findings
of that Task Group and updates recent reviews on the health effects of ELF EMF
published in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
established under the auspices of WHO, and by the International Commission
on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 2003. ELF field sources and
residential exposures Electric and magnetic fields exist wherever electric current
flows - in power lines and cables, residential wiring and electrical appliances40.

Electric fields arise from electric charges, are measured in volts per metre (V/m)
and are shielded by common materials, such as wood and metal. Magnetic fields
arise from the motion of electric charges (i.e. a current), are expressed in tesla
(T), or more commonly in millitesla (mT) or microtesla (µT). In some countries

39
WHO - World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields. Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238.
Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007
40
ICNIRP - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Exposure to static and low frequency
electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (0-100 kHz). Bernhardt JH et al., eds.
Oberschleissheim, International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, 2003 (ICNIRP 13/2003).
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

another unit called the gauss, (G), is commonly used (10,000 G = 1 T). 41 These
fields are not shielded by most common materials, and pass easily through them.
Both types of fields are strongest close to the source and diminish with distance.
Most electric power operates at a frequency of 50 or 60 cycles per second, or
hertz (Hz). Close to certain appliances, the magnetic field values can be of the
order of a few hundred microtesla (µT). Underneath power lines, magnetic fields
can be about 20 µT and electric fields can be several thousand volts per meter.
However, average residential power-frequency magnetic fields in homes are
much lower - about 0.07 µT in Europe and 0.11 µT in North America. Mean
values of the electric field in the home are up to several tens of volts per meter.

In October 2005, WHO convened a Task Group of scientific experts to assess any
risks to health that might exist from exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields
in the frequency range >0 to 100,000 Hz (100 kHz). While IARC examined the
evidence regarding cancer in 2002, this Task Group reviewed evidence for a
number of health effects, and updated the evidence regarding cancer. The
conclusions and recommendations of the Task Group are presented in a WHO
Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) monograph (WHO, 2007). Following a
standard health risk assessment process, the Task Group concluded that there
are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally
encountered by members of the public. Thus the remainder of this fact sheet
addresses predominantly the effects of exposure to ELF magnetic fields. Short-
term effects42.

There are established biological effects from acute exposure at high levels (well
above 100 µT) that are explained by recognized biophysical mechanisms.
External ELF magnetic fields induce electric fields and currents in the body

41
IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to
electromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz. New York, NY, IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2002
(IEEE Std C95.6-2002).
42
WHO - World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields. Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238.
Geneva, World Health Organization, 2007.

40
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

which, at very high field strengths, cause nerve and muscle stimulation and
changes in nerve cell excitability in the central nervous system.

4.1 Potential long-term effects

Much of the scientific research examining long-term risks from ELF magnetic
field exposure has focused on childhood leukaemia. In 2002, IARC published a
monograph classifying ELF magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to
humans". This classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited
evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for
carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples include coffee and
welding fumes). This classification was based on pooled analyses of
epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a two-fold increase
in childhood leukaemia associated with average exposure to residential power-
frequency magnetic field above 0.3 to 0.4 µT.43

The Task Group concluded that additional studies since then do not alter the
status of this classification. However, the epidemiological evidence is weakened
by methodological problems, such as potential selection bias. In addition, there
are no accepted biophysical mechanisms that would suggest that low-level
exposures are involved in cancer development. Thus, if there were any effects
from exposures to these low-level fields, it would have to be through a biological
mechanism that is as yet unknown. Additionally, animal studies have been
largely negative.

Thus, on balance, the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong

enough to be considered causal. Childhood leukaemia is a comparatively rare
disease with a total annual number of new cases estimated to be 49,000
worldwide in 2000. Average magnetic field exposures above 0.3 µT in homes are
rare: it is estimated that only between 1% and 4% of children live in such

43
Cooke R, Laing S, Swerdlow AJ. (2010 Nov. 23). A case- control study of risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile
phone use. Br. J. Cancer. ;103 (11) :1729-35.

41
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

conditions. If the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia

is causal, the number of cases worldwide that might be attributable to magnetic
field exposure is estimated to range from 100 to 2400 cases per year, based on
values for the year 2000, representing 0.2 to 4.95% of the total incidence for
that year. Thus, if ELF magnetic fields actually do increase the risk of the
disease, when considered in a global context, the impact on public health of ELF
EMF exposure would be limited.

A number of other adverse health effects have been studied for possible
association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These include other childhood
cancers, cancers in adults, depression, suicide, cardiovascular disorders,
reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological
modifications, neuro behavioral effects and neurodegenerative disease. The WHO
Task Group concluded that scientific evidence supporting an association
between ELF magnetic field exposure and all of these health effects is much
weaker than for childhood leukaemia. In some instances (i.e. for cardiovascular
disease or breast cancer) the evidence suggests that these fields do not cause
them.44

4.2 International exposure guidelines

Health effects related to short-term, high-level exposure have been established

and form the basis of two international exposure limit guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998;
IEEE, 2002). At present, these bodies consider the scientific evidence related to
possible health effects from long-term, low -level exposure to ELF fields
insufficient to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits. WHO's
guidance For high-level short-term exposures to EMF, adverse health effects
have been scientifically established (ICNIRP, 2003). International exposure
guidelines designed to protect workers and the public from these effects should
be adopted by policy makers. EMF protection programs should include exposure

44
Cooke R, Laing S, Swerdlow AJ. (2010 Nov. 23). A case- control study of risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile
phone use. Br. J. Cancer. ;103 (11) :1729-35.

42
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

measurements from sources where exposures might be expected to exceed

limit values. 45

During recent years there has been increasing scientific evidence for, and public
concern on potential health risks from power-frequency fields (extremely low
frequency electromagnetic fields; ELF) and from radiofrequency/micro- wave
radiation emissions (RF) from wireless communications and data transmission.
So far, guidelines for exposure to microwaves have been based on thermal
(heating) effects. Non-thermal (low-intensity) effects have not been considered for
regulation of exposure.

Recently a more comprehensive report was published online that documents

considerable scientific evidence for bioeffects and adverse health impacts at
exposure levels far below current public safety standards. 46

Everyone is exposed to two types of electromagnetic fields:

(EMFs): (a) ELF fields from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines,
and (b) RF radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless
phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers. In
this report we will use the term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields
in general, and the terms ELF and RF when referring to the specific type of
exposure. They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they
do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around
atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as ionizing radiation.

4.3. Mobile phone use and evidence for brain tumors and acoustic
neuroma

We made a review including 18 studies, two cohort studies and 16 case-control

studies. Most studies have published data with rather short latency period and

45
ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure
to time varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.
46
BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF
and RF). http://www. bioinitiative.org

43
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

limited information on long-term users. Thus, a meta-analysis of the risk for

acoustic neuroma, glioma and meningioma was performed for mobile phone
use with a latency period of 10 years or more47. Overall OR ¼ 1.3, 95% CI ¼
0.6e2.8 was obtained increasing to OR ¼ 2.4, 95% CI ¼ 1.1e5.3 for ipsilateral
mobile phone use. For glioma OR ¼ 1.2, 95% CI ¼ 0.8e1.9 was calculated.
Ipsilateral use yielded OR ¼ 2.0, 95% CI ¼ 1.2e3.4. In total OR ¼ 1.3, 95% CI ¼
0.9e1.8 was found for meningioma increasing to OR ¼ 1.7, 95% CI ¼ 0.99e3.1
for ipsilateral use.

Only two studies have been published since then. Both were on acoustic
neuroma48 49. They were small and included no cases with a latency period of at
least 10 years. Furthermore, most ORs were <1.0 in these two studies indicating
serious methodological problems. The final results on this topic from the
Interphone study led by the International Agency or Research on Cancer (IARC)
are expected during 2008.

No other studies than from the Hardell group has published results for use of
cordless phones (DECT)50 51. Cordless phones are an important source of
exposure to radiofrequency microwaves and they are usually used for a longer
time period on daily basis as compared with mobile phones. Thus, to exclude
such use, as was done in e.g. the Interphone studies, could lead to an
underestimation of the risk for brain tumours from use of wireless phones.

47
Hardell L, Carlberg M, So¨derqvist F, Hansson Mild K, Morgan LL. Long-term use of cellular phones and brain
tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years. Occup Environ Med 2007;64: 626e32.
doi:10.1136/oem.2006.029751.
48
Klaeboe L, Blaasaas KG, Tynes T. Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours. Eur J Cancer
Prev 2007;16:158e64
49
Schlehofer B, Schlafer K, Blettner M, Berg G, Bo¨hler F, Hettinger I, et al. Environmental risk factors for sporadic
acoustic neuroma (Interphone Study Group, Germany). Eur J Cancer 2007;43(11):1741e7.
doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.05.008
50
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two casecontrol studies on the use of cellular and
cordless telephones and the risk of benign tumours diagnosed during 1997e2003. Int J Oncol 2006;28:509e18
51
Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M. Pooled analysis of two casecontrol studies on use of cellular and cordless
telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997e2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health
2006;79:630e9.

44
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

In summary our review yielded a consistent pattern of an increased risk for

acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years mobile phone use. We conclude that
current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not
safe for long-term exposure and needs to be revised.

4.4. RF fields other than from mobile phones and epidemiological

evidence for brain tumours

It is concluded that only few studies of long-term exposure to low levels of RF

fields and brain tumours exist, all of which have methodological shortcomings
including lack of quantitative exposure assessment. Given the crude exposure
categories and the likelihood of a bias towards the null hypothesis of no
association, the body of evidence is consistent with a moderately elevated risk.
Occupational studies indicate that long-term exposure at workplaces may be
associated with an elevated brain tumor risk.

Although in some occupations (especially in military jobs) current exposure

guidelines may have sometimes been reached or exceeded, overall the evidence
suggests that long-term exposure to levels generally lying below current guideline
levels still carry the risk of increasing the incidence of brain tumours.

Despite a rather low population attributable risk (likely below 4%), still more
than 1000 cases per year in the US can be attributed to RF exposure at
workplaces alone.

4.5. Evidence for childhood cancers and leukemia

The only endpoint studied so far in sufficient detail is childhood leukemia.

Brain and nervous system tumors were also studied in some detail but due to
the diversity of these tumours no conclusions can be drawn. Childhood
leukemia is the most frequent childhood malignancy that peaks in the age group
of 2 to about 5 years. This peak seems to have been newly evolved in the early
quarter of the

45
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

20th century and may be due to electrification52. This assumption is supported

by the absence of this peak or it being much less pronounced in developing
countries.

An overview of existing evidence from epidemiological studies indicates that there

is a continuous increase of risk with increasing levels of average magnetic field
exposure.

Risk estimates reach statistical significance at levels of 3e 4 mG (0.3e0.4

microTesla or mT). The overall odds ratio in nine studies was 2.1, 95% confidence
limit 1.3e3.3. A low number of children are exposed at these or higher levels.

The balance of evidence suggests that childhood leukaemia is associated with

exposure to power-frequency ELFs either during pregnancy or early life.
Considering only average MF flux densities the population attributable risk is
low to moderate. However, there is a possibility that other exposure metrics are
much stronger related to childhood leukaemia and may account for a substantial
proportion of cases, perhaps up to 80% of all cases. The population attributable
fraction ranges between 1 and 4%53 assuming only exposures above 3e4 mG
(0.3e0.4 mT) are relevant.

Other childhood cancers except leukaemia have not been studied in sufficient
detail to allow conclusions about the existence and magnitude of the risk.

The International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)

and Institute of Electric and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) guideline levels
are designed to protect from short-term immediate effects only, but not chronic
exposures. Long-term effects such as cancer are evoked by exposure several
orders of magnitudes below current guideline levels. The BioInitiative Report
concludes that the evidence for increased risk of childhood leukaemia with

52
Milham S, Ossiander EM. Historical evidence that residential electrification caused the emergence of the
childhood leukemia peak. Med Hypotheses 2001;56:290e5.
53
Kheifets L, Afifi AA, Shimkhada R. Public health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields.
Environ Health Perspect 2006;114(10):1532e7

46
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

chronic exposure to ELFs is sufficient to warrant revision of ELF public safety

limits54.

4.6. Breast cancer

There is evidence from multiple areas of scientific investigations that ELF is

related to breast cancer. Over the last two decades there have been numerous
epidemiological studies on breast cancer in both men and women, although
this relationship remains controversial. Many of these studies, however, report
that ELF exposures are related to increased risk of breast cancer55.

The evidence from studies on women in workplaces suggests that ELF is a risk
factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG (1.0 mT)
and higher.

Laboratory studies that examine human breast cancer cells have shown that
ELF exposure between 6mG and 12 mG (0.6e1.2 mT) can interfere with protective
effects of melatonin for the growth of these breast cancer cells. For a decade,
there has been evidence that human breast cancer cells grow faster if exposed
to ELF at low environmental levels. This is thought to be because ELF exposure
can reduce melatonin levels in the body.

Laboratory studies of animals that have breast cancer tumours have been shown
to have more tumours and larger tumours when exposed to ELF and a chemical
tumour promoter at the same time. These studies taken together indicate that
ELF is a likely risk factor for breast cancer, and that ELF levels of importance
are no higher than many people are exposed to at home and at work. A

54
Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health. (19 July 2010) Scientific Committee On
Emerging And Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)
55
Heikkinen P, Kosma VM, Alhonen L, Huuskonen H, Komulainen H, Kumlin T, et al. Effects of mobile phone
radiation on UV-induced skin tumourigenesis in ornithine decarboxylase transgenic and non-transgenic mice. Int J
Radiat Biol 2003; 79:221-33.

47
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

reasonable suspicion of risk exists and is sufficient evidence on which to

recommend new ELF limits; and to warrant preventative action56.

Given the very high lifetime risks for developing breast cancer in women, and the
critical importance of prevention, ELF exposures should be reduced for all people
who are in high ELF environments for prolonged periods of time. Reducing ELF
exposure would be particularly important for people who have breast cancer. The
recovery environment should have low ELF levels given the evidence for poorer
survival rates as shown for subjects with another malignant disease, childhood
leukaemia patients in ELF fields over 2 mG or 3 mG (0.2 or 0.3 mT).

Preventative action for those who may be at higher risk for breast cancer is also
warranted, particularly for those taking tamoxifen during their anti-cancer
treatment, since in addition to reducing the effectiveness of melatonin, ELF
exposure may also reduce the effectiveness of tamoxifen at these same low
exposure levels. There is no excuse for ignoring the substantial body of
evidence we already have that supports an association between breast cancer
and ELF exposure; waiting for conclusive evidence is untenable given the
enormous costs and societal and personal burdens caused by this disease.

4.7. Changes in the nervous system and brain function

Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been studied in connection with

Alzheimer’s disease, motor neuron disease and Parkinson’s disease. There is
evidence that high level of amyloid beta is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease,
and exposure to ELF can increase this substance in the brain. There is
considerable evidence that melatonin can protect the brain against damage
leading to Alzheimer’s disease, and also strong evidence that exposure to ELF
can reduce melatonin levels57.

56
Hepworth SJ, Schoemaker MJ, Muir KR, Swerdlow AJ, van Tongeren MJ, McKinney PA. Mobile phone use and risk
of glioma in adults: case-control study. BMJ 2006; 332:883-7.
57
Kula B, Sobczak A, Kuska R. (2000). Effects of static and ELF magnetic fields on free – radical
processes in rat liver and kidney. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 19 (1), 99-105.

48
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Thus it is hypothesized that one of the body’s main protections against

developing Alzheimer’s disease (melatonin) is less available to the body when
people are exposed to ELF. Prolonged exposure to ELF fields could alter calcium
(Ca2þ) levels in neurons and induce oxidative stress. Concern has also been
raised that humans with epileptic disorders could be more susceptible to RF
exposure.

Laboratory studies show that the nervous system of both humans and animals
is sensitive to both ELF and RF. Measurable changes in brain function and
behaviour occur at levels associated with new technologies including cell
phone use. Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change brainwave
activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram (W/Kg) specific absorption
rate (SAR) in comparison to the US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg (in 1 g of tissue)
and ICNIRP allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg (in 10 g of tissue). Cell phone radiation
can affect memory and learning. Changes in the way in which the brain and
nervous system react depend very much on the specific exposures. Most
studies only look at short-term effects, so the long-term consequences of
exposures are not established, but existing scientific documentation of effects
is sufficient to warrant preventative action with reduction in exposures,
particularly for vulnerable groups such as children58.

Factors that determine effects can depend on head shape and size, the location,
size and shape of internal brain structures, thinness of the head and face,
hydration of tissues, thickness of various tissues, dielectric constant of the
tissues and son. Age of the individual and state of health also appear to be
important variables. There is large variability in the results of ELF and RF
testing, which would be expected to be based on the large variability of factors
that can influence test results. However, it is clearly demonstrated that under

58
European Environmental Agency. Highlights: European Environmental Agency website by Dr. Jacqueline
McGlade, Director. Statement of September 17, 2007. www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human

49
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

some conditions of exposure, the brain and nervous system functions of

humans are altered.

The consequence of long-term or prolonged exposures has not been thoroughly

studied in either adults or in children. The consequence of prolonged
exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late
adolescence, is unknown at this time, but there are credible, published studies
reporting bioeffects and adverse health impacts with exposures at very low levels
(far below public safety standards). This could have serious implications to
adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both
ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory,
learning, and control over behavior.

4.8. Evidence for effects on gene and protein expression

The effects of RF EMF on global gene and protein expression have been
investigated in different biological systems and most of the studies were
focused on the mobile phone utilization frequency (800e2000 MHz) at a
relatively low exposure density (average SAR near 2.0 W/Kg). Some studies
reported negative results of RF EMF exposure on gene expression. Based on
current available literature, it is justified to conclude that EMF exposure can
change gene and/or protein expression in certain types of cells, even at
intensities lower than ICNIRP recommended values. However, the biological
consequences of most of the changed genes/proteins as based on early studies
from proteomics and transcriptomics are still unclear, and need to be further
explored. Thus, it is not the time point yet to assess the health impact of EMF
based on the gene and protein expression data. The IEEE and WHO databases
do not include the majority of ELF studies; they do include the majority of the
RF studies.

Currently, the state of proteomics and transcriptomic is in its infancy, with only
a few dozen studies reporting results, some positive and some negative. The
EMF research community should pay equal attention to the negative reports as

50
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY
to the

51
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

positive ones. Not only the positive findings need to be replicated, the negative
ones need to be critically assessed and replicated too.

4.9. Evidence for genotoxic effects e DNA damage

From this literature survey, about 50% of the studies reported effects. Not every
study, however, would be expected to document effects, given the wide range of
exposure conditions and varying sensitivity of assays. One can conclude that
under certain conditions of exposure, radiofrequency radiation is genotoxic. Data
available are mainly applicable only to cell phone radiation exposure. Other than
the study by Phillips et al.59, there are very few published studies of RF radiation
at levels that one can experience in the vicinity of base stations and RF-
transmission towers.

During cell phone use, a relatively constant mass of tissue in the brain is exposed
to the radiation at relatively high intensity (peak SAR of 4e8 W/Kg). Several
studies reported DNA damage at lower intensity than 4 W/Kg. The IEEE has
revised its recommended standard for localized tissue exposure, changing it from
1.6 W/Kg over 1 g of tissue to 2 W/Kg over 10 g of tissue, although the Federal
Communications Commission has not adopted this change. Since distribution
of radiofrequency energy is non-homogenous inside tissue, this change allows a
higher peak level of exposure. Furthermore, since critical genetic mutations in
one single cell are sufficient to lead to cancer and there are millions of cells in a
gram of tissue, it is inconceivable that the base of SAR standard was changed by
IEEE from averaged over 1 gm of tissue to 10 gm.

Factors that may explain the failure of some studies to demonstrate effects, while
others report clear and reproducible effects include (a) which DNA assay is used,
(b) the exposure parameters of the experiment, and (c) which cell lines are
used. Any effect of EMF has to depend on the energy absorbed by a biological
entity

59
European Environmental Agency. Highlights: European Environmental Agency website by Dr. Jacqueline
52
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY
McGlade, Director. Statement of September 17, 2007. www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human

53
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

and on how the energy is delivered in space and time. Frequency, intensity,
exposure duration, and the number of exposure episodes can affect the
response, and these factors can interact with each other to produce different
effects.

The ‘comet assay’, has been used in most of the EMF studies to determine DNA
damage. Different versions of the assay have been developed. These versions
have different detection sensitivities and can be used to measure different
aspects of DNA strand breaks. A comparison of data from experiments using
different versions of the assay may be misleading, and may explain differing
study results since some DNA comet assays are far more sensitive in detecting
DNA damage than other assays.

A plausible biological mechanism to account for carcinogenesis is via free

radical formation inside cells. Free radicals kill cells by damaging
macromolecules, such as DNA, protein and membrane. Furthermore, free
radicals play an essential role in the activation of certain signalling pathways.
Several reports have indicated that EMFs enhance free radical activity in cells
particularly via the Fenton reaction60. The Fenton reaction is a catalytic process
of iron to convert hydrogen peroxides, a product of oxidative respiration in the
mitochondria, into hydroxyl free radical, which is a very potent and toxic free
radical. Any exposure, including prolonged low-intensity ELF and RF exposures
that result in increased free radical production may be considered a plausible
biological mechanism for carcinogenesis.

4.10. Evidence for stress response

Studies of the stress response in different cells under various conditions have
enabled us to characterize the molecular mechanisms by which cells respond to
EMF and their effects on health risk. That information can now correct

60
Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect
2004;112(6):687e94

54
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

assumptions about biological effects of EMF, and establish a scientific basis for
new safety standards61.

It is generally agreed that EMF safety standards should be based on science, yet
recent EMF research has shown that a basic assumption used to determine EMF
safety is not valid. The safety standard assumes that EMF causes biological
damage only by heating, but cell damage occurs in the absence of heating and
well below the safety limits. This has been shown in many studies, including the
cellular stress response where cells synthesize stress proteins in reaction to
potentially harmful stimuli in the environment, including EMF. The stress
response to both the power-frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency/microwave (RF)
ranges shows the inadequacy of the thermal SAR standard.

The stress response is a natural defense mechanism activated by molecular

damage caused by environmental forces. The response involves activation of
DNA, i.e., stimulating stress genes as well as genes that sense and repair
damage to DNA and proteins. Scientific research has identified specific
segments of DNA that respond to both ELF and RF. It has been possible to move
these specific segments of DNA and transfer the sensitivity to EMF. At high EMF
intensities, the interaction with DNA can lead to DNA strand breaks that could
result in mutation, an initiating step in the development of cancer.62

Scientific research has shown that ELF and RF fields interact with DNA to
stimulate protein synthesis, and at higher intensities to cause DNA damage. The
biological thresholds (field strength, duration) are well below current safety
limits63

61
Milani M, Balerini, M, Ferraro L, Zabeo M, Barberis M, Cannona M, Faleri M. (2001).
Magnetic field effects on human lymphocytes. Electromagnetic field effects on human lymphocytes.
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 20(1), 81-106
62
Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones RA, CampbellBeachler M, Haggren W. DNA damage in Molt-4 T-
lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg
1998;45:103e10.
63
Moriyama E., Salcman M., Broadwell R.D., 1991. Blood-brain barrier alteration after
microwave –induced hyperthermia is purely a thermal effect: I. Tempurature and power measurements. Surg.
Neurol. ,35,177-182.

55
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

To be in line with EMF research, a biologically based standard must replace the
thermal SAR standard, which is fundamentally flawed. EMF research also
indicates a need for protection against the cumulative biological effects
stimulated by EMF across the electromagnetic spectrum.

4.11. Key scientific evidence

Exposure to EMFs has been linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes.

There are other effects not summarized here, see the BioInitiative Report. 64
Health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with ELF and/or RF
include childhood leukaemia, adult brain tumours, childhood brain tumours,
genotoxic effects (DNA damage and micronucleation), neurological effects and
neurodegenerative diseases, immune system deregulation, allergic and
inflammatory responses, breast cancer in men and women, miscarriage and
some cardiovascular effects.

Effects are not specifically segregated for ELF or RF, since many overlapping
exposures occur in daily life, and because this is an artificial division based on
frequencies as defined in physics that have little bearing on the biological effects.
Both ELF and RF, for example have been shown to cause cells to generate stress
proteins, a universal sign of distress in plant, animal and human cells, and to
cause DNA damage and neurological impacts at levels far below current safety
standards.

64
BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF
and RF). http://www. bioinitiative.org

56
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

CHAPTER FIVE

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.0 Public health policy recommendations

There are many historical examples of scientifically based early warnings about
potential health effects from environmental hazards and a long time period until
precautionary and preventive measures were undertaken.65 Vested interests may
thereby counteract necessary public health actions.

The precautionary principle should be used when there is reasonable ground for
concern. Based on the BioInitiative Report66, this criterion is fulfilled regarding
exposure to electromagnetic fields, both extremely low frequency electromagnetic
and radiofrequency fields.

1. ELF limits should be set below those exposure levels that have been
linked in childhood leukaemia studies to increased risk of disease, plus
an additional safety factor. It is no longer acceptable to build new power
lines and electrical facilities that place people in ELF environments that
have been associated with an increased risk of adverse health effects,
levels generally at 2 mG (0.2 mT) and above.

A new, lower planning limit for habitable space adjacent to all new or
upgraded power lines and for all other new construction should be
applied. A lower limit should also be used for existing habitable space
for children and/or women who are pregnant. This recommendation is
based on the assumption that a higher burden of protection is required
for children who cannot protect themselves, and who are at risk for

65
Hardell L, Walker M, Walhjalt B, Friedman LS, Richter ED. Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in
cancer research. Am J Ind Med 2007;50:227e33
66
BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF
and RF). http://www. bioinitiative.org

57
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

childhood leukaemia at rates that are traditionally high enough to

trigger regulatory action.

While it is not realistic to reconstruct all existing electrical distributions

systems in the short-term, steps to reduce exposure from these
existing systems need to be initiated, especially in places where
children spend time, and should be encouraged.

2. A precautionary limit should be adopted for outdoor, cumulative RF

exposure and for cumulative indoor RF fields with considerably lower
limits than existing guidelines. It should reflect the current RF science
and prudent public health response that would reasonably be set for
pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people live, work and go to
school. This level of RF is experienced as whole-body exposure, and can
be a chronic exposure where there is wireless coverage present for voice
and data transmission for cell phones, pagers and personal digital
assistants (PDAs) and other sources of radio- frequency radiation.
Although this RF target level does not preclude further rollout of WI-FI
technologies, wired alternatives to WI-FI should be implemented,
particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected
to elevated RF levels until more is understood about possible health
impacts.

This recommendation should be seen as an interim precautionary limit

that is intended to guide preventative actions. More conservative limits
may be needed in the future.

3. The current guideline for microwave exposure from mobile phones in

Europe is 2 W/Kg for the brain. This is based on thermal effect using
cataract development in animal eyes induced at 100 W/Kg with a
safety factor of 50 for standard setting. There were also
considerations about the relationship between the whole-body Specific
absorption rate (SAR) SAR and local hot spots and local SAR in
relation to whole-body SAR.
58
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Since use of mobile phones is associated with an increased risk for

brain tumours (glioma, acoustic neuroma) after 10 years a new
biologically based guideline should be applied. This new guideline
should be based on non-thermal (low-intensity) effects from microwave
exposure. It should be added that in toxicology normal practice is to
add a safety limit of at least factor 100, which is factor 10 from animal
to human beings and factor 10 for individual variability.67

4. The same standard should be applied to cordless phones as for new

guidelines for mobile phones based on biological effects. This is a
reasonable suggestion to address the condition where occupied interior
space is affected by cordless phones or other RF-emitting devices
installed by the occupants. As with ELF fields also for RF fields
different limits may be needed in the future as science progresses.

5. There is the need for continuous education to consumers and the

general public on the issue of effect of RF on the community. They
need to be enlightened on the range of the electromagnetic
frequencies i.e. low frequencies to high frequencies and the resultant
effects of exposure to the frequencies. Mobile phones and base
stations (BTS) fall under the low frequencies category and have no
adverse effect on health, but X-RAYS on the other hand fall under the
high frequency category and may impact negatively on human health.
The public should be more concerned with exposure to these high
frequencies such as X-rays and radioactive elements/materials.

67
Scinicariello F, De Rosa CT. Genetic heterogeneity and its effect on susceptibility to environmental factors. Eur J
Oncol 2007;12(3): 155e70.

59
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

5.1 Conclusions

Electricity - Studies of workers exposed to strong electric and magnetic fields (60
Hz) from power lines provide no consistent evidence that these fields are
damaging to DNA or that they are capable of causing mutations or cancer.

RF - the most apparent biological effects of RF energy to living cells are due to
heating. While it is not certain that RF radiation generally poses any risks to
human health, some reasons exist for being concerned about human health
effects from the cellular phones themselves. These concerns exist because the
antennas of these phones deliver much of their RF energy to small portions of
the user’s head.

No evidence exists regarding any harmful effects resulting from exposure to

typical levels of RF and EMF radiation. However, everyone should be aware
that exposure to such radiation may not be completely safe at certain power
levels and frequencies. It is always a good idea to avoid unnecessary radiation
exposure whenever possible.

EMR exposure at the highest frequencies (X-Rays, Gamma rays) is a source of

serious biological damage. Health effects from exposure to this form of radiation
vary from no effect at all to death, and can cause diseases such as leukemia or
bone, breast, and lung cancer.

60
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

REFERENCES
1. www.wisegeek.com clear answers to common questions
2. Hardell L, Walker M, Walhjalt B, Friedman LS, Richter ED. Secret ties
to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. Am J Ind Med
2007;50:227e33
3. BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure
standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). http://www.
bioinitiative.org
4. Scinicariello F, De Rosa CT. Genetic heterogeneity and its effect on
susceptibility to environmental factors. Eur J Oncol 2007;12(3): 155e70
5. emfrefugee.blogspot.com/.../nigeria-emf-what-experts-say...base.html
What Experts Say About Base Station Radiation BY CHIMA AKWAJA, 29
JULY 2012
6. Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) 2012 at the Conference of
first West African conference on EMF exposure and health
7. www.wisegeek.com clear answers to common questions
8. www.wisegeek.com clear answers to common questions
9. www.livescience.com/38169-electromagnetism.html
10. Jim Lucas, Live Science| Contributor | March 12, 2015
11. (http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/light.html)
12. Credit: Biro Emoke Shutterstock
13. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone-base
14. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone- base-
stations-radio-waves-and-health/mobile-phone-base-stations-
radio-waves-and-health
15. http://hpa.org.uk/publications/radiation/nprarchive/miscellaneo
usnrpbreports/abstracts/NRPB report NRPB-R321, Exposure to Radio
Waves near Mobile Phone Base Stations
16. Feyyaz Ozdemir and Aysegul Kargi (2011). Electromagnetic Waves and
Human Health, Electromagnetic
17. Waves, Prof. Vitaliy Zhurbenko (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-304-0,
InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/electromagnetic-
waves/electromagnetic-waves-and-human-health
18. “Opinion on Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), Radio
Frequency Fields (RF) and Microwave Radiation on Human Health,”
Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
(CSTEE).
19. Guidance for Industry and FDA—Regulation of Medical Devices, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

61
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

20. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, by John E. Moulder,

Ph.D., Professor of Radiation Oncology.
21. Ali Zamanian and Cy Hardiman Fluor Corporation, Industrial and
Infrastructure Group
22. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, by John E. Moulder,
Ph.D., Professor of Radiation Oncology.
23. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, by John E. Moulder,
Ph.D., Professor of Radiation Oncology.
24. Grasso L, (1998) Virginia Journal of Law and Technology Cellular
Telephones and the Potential Hazards of RF Radiation: Responses to the
Fear and Controversy
25. Extract from Electromagnetic fields, WHO Publication:
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
26. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE)
2009, Vol. 15, No. 1, 3–33
27. Philips J, Singh N, lai H. (2009). Electromagnetic fields and DNA
damage Pathophysiology. 16 (2-3), 79-88
28. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard for
safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1, 2005.

29. ICNIRP Guidelines, Health physics 74(4):494-522; 1998

30. Belyaev I. (2005). Nonthermal biological effects of microwaves: current

knowledge, further perspective, and urgent needs. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine 24,375-403.

31. Akan Z, Aksu B, Tulunay A, ,Bilsel S, Inhan-Garip A. (2010). Extremely

Low –Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Affect the Immune Response of
Monocyte_derived Macrophages to Pathogens. Bioelectromagnetics
31:603-612.
32. Extract from Electromagnetic fields, WHO Publication:
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones

33. Moore K., Roberts JL., 1998. Measurement of lipid peroxidation. Free
Radical Research 28:659-671.

34. Kula B, Sobczak A, Kuska R. (2000). Effects of static and ELF magnetic
fields on free –radical processes in rat liver and kidney. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine 19 (1), 99-105.

35. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

Statement on the "Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric,
magnetic and electromagetic fields (up to 300 GHz)", 2009.

62
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

36. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard for
safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1, 2005.

37. The negative effects of electromagnetic fields by: Hall, Joe

38. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/IAC_2006_Progress_Report.pdf
39. WHO - World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields.
Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2007
40. ICNIRP - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection. Exposure to static and low frequency electromagnetic fields,
biological effects and health consequences (0-100 kHz). Bernhardt JH et
al., eds. Oberschleissheim, International Commission on Non-ionizing
Radiation Protection, 2003 (ICNIRP 13/2003).
41. IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. IEEE standard for safety
levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0- 3
kHz. New York, NY, IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, 2002 (IEEE Std C95.6-2002).

42. WHO - World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields.

Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2007.

43. IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. IEEE standard for safety
levels with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic fields, 0- 3
kHz. New York, NY, IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, 2002 (IEEE Std C95.6-2002).
44. WHO - World Health Organization. Extremely low frequency fields.
Environmental Health Criteria, Vol. 238. Geneva, World Health
Organization, 2007.
45. Cooke R, Laing S, Swerdlow AJ. (2010 Nov. 23). A case- control study of
risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile phone use. Br. J. Cancer. ;103 (11)
:1729-35.
46. Cooke R, Laing S, Swerdlow AJ. (2010 Nov. 23). A case- control study of
risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile phone use. Br. J. Cancer. ;103 (11)
:1729-35.
47. Cooke R, Laing S, Swerdlow AJ. (2010 Nov. 23). A case- control study of
risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile phone use. Br. J. Cancer. ;103 (11)
:1729-35.
48. ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electric, magnetic
and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4), 494-522.

63
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

49. BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure

standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). http://www.
bioinitiative.org
50. Hardell L, Carlberg M, So¨derqvist F, Hansson Mild K, Morgan LL.
Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk
associated with use for 10 years. Occup Environ Med 2007;64: 626e32.
doi:10.1136/oem.2006.029751.
51. Klaeboe L, Blaasaas KG, Tynes T. Use of mobile phones in Norway and
risk of intracranial tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 2007;16:158e64
52. Schlehofer B, Schlafer K, Blettner M, Berg G, Bo¨hler F, Hettinger I, et
al. Environmental risk factors for sporadic acoustic neuroma
(Interphone Study Group, Germany). Eur J Cancer 2007;43(11):1741e7.
doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.05.008
53. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two
casecontrol studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the
risk of benign tumours diagnosed during 1997e2003. Int J Oncol
2006;28:509e18
54. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M. Pooled analysis of two
casecontrol studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the
risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997e2003. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health 2006;79:630e9.
55. Milham S, Ossiander EM. Historical evidence that residential
electrification caused the emergence of the childhood leukemia peak.
Med Hypotheses 2001;56:290e5.
56. Kheifets L, Afifi AA, Shimkhada R. Public health impact of extremely low
frequency electromagnetic fields. Environ Health Perspect
2006;114(10):1532e7
57. Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health. (19
July 2010) Scientific Committee On Emerging And Newly Identified Health
Risks (SCENIHR)
58. Heikkinen P, Kosma VM, Alhonen L, Huuskonen H, Komulainen H,
Kumlin T, et al. Effects of mobile phone radiation on UV-induced skin
tumourigenesis in ornithine decarboxylase transgenic and non-
transgenic mice. Int J Radiat Biol 2003; 79:221-33.
59. Hepworth SJ, Schoemaker MJ, Muir KR, Swerdlow AJ, van Tongeren MJ,
McKinney PA. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-
control study. BMJ 2006; 332:883-7.
60. Kula B, Sobczak A, Kuska R. (2000). Effects of static and ELF magnetic
fields on free – radical processes in rat liver and kidney. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine 19 (1), 99-105.
61. European Environmental Agency. Highlights: European Environmental
Agency website by Dr. Jacqueline McGlade, Director. Statement of
September 17, 2007. www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human
62. European Environmental Agency. Highlights: European Environmental
Agency website by Dr. Jacqueline McGlade, Director. Statement of
September 17, 2007. www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human
64
 ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY (EMF) AND EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY

63. Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells
of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 2004;112(6):687e94
64. Milani M, Balerini, M, Ferraro L, Zabeo M, Barberis M, Cannona M,
Faleri M. (2001).
Magnetic field effects on human lymphocytes. Electromagnetic field effects
on human lymphocytes. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 20(1), 81-
106
65. Phillips JL, Ivaschuk O, Ishida-Jones T, Jones RA, CampbellBeachler M,
Haggren W. DNA damage in Molt-4 T- lymphoblastoid cells exposed
to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochem
Bioenerg 1998;45:103e10.
66. Moriyama E., Salcman M., Broadwell R.D., 1991. Blood-brain barrier
alteration after microwave –induced hyperthermia is purely a
thermal effect: I. Tempurature and power measurements. Surg. Neurol.
,35,177-182.
67. BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure
standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). http://www.
bioinitiative.org
68. Hardell L, Walker M, Walhjalt B, Friedman LS, Richter ED. Secret ties to
industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. Am J Ind Med
2007;50:227e33
69. BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure
standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). http://www.
bioinitiative.org
70. Scinicariello F, De Rosa CT. Genetic heterogeneity and its effect on
susceptibility to environmental factors. Eur J Oncol 2007;12(3): 155e70.

65