ministry of public health, montevideo 5 march 2009 electromagnetic fields and health: effects,...
TRANSCRIPT
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND HEALTH:ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND HEALTH:
EFFECTS, PERCEPTION, PROTECTIONEFFECTS, PERCEPTION, PROTECTION
Paolo Vecchia
National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy
Chairman of ICNIRP
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ONTHE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ONNON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTIONNON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION
ICNIRP is an independent scientific organization that:
• provides guidance and advice on the health hazards of non-
ionizing radiation
• develops international guidelines on limiting exposure to non-
ionizing radiation that are independent and science based
• provides science based guidance and recommendations on
protection from non-ionizing radiation exposure
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ICNIRP’S PARTNERSICNIRP’S PARTNERS
WHO
ILO
WMO
CIE
ICOH
IEC
IRPA
EC
ICNIRP
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ICNIRP Statement
GENERAL APROACH TO PROTECTIONAGAINST NON-IONIZING RADIATION
Health Physics 82:540-548 (2002)www.icnirp.org
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
STEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENTSTEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENTOF GUIDELINESOF GUIDELINES
Critical review of the literature
Identification of health and biological effects relevant for health
Identification of the critical effect
Establishment of basic restrictions
Derivation of reference levels
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
APPROACH TO HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTAPPROACH TO HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Any single observation or study may indicate the possibility of a health risk
related to a specific exposure.
However, risk assessment requires information:
● From studies that meet quality criteria
● From the totality of science
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
The evaluation process used by ICNIRP consists of three steps:
● Evaluating single studies in terms of their relevance
● Reviewing all the information for each health effect
● Combining the outcomes into an overall evaluation
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Biological modelsDosimetry
Biological modelsDosimetry
animalsanimals
cellscells
epidemiologyepidemiology
humanshumans
RANKING OF EVIDENCERANKING OF EVIDENCE
EVIDENCEEVIDENCE≠≠
PROOFPROOF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTBIOLOGICAL EFFECT≠≠
HEALTH EFFECTHEALTH EFFECT
ASSOCIATIONASSOCIATION≠≠
CAUSALITYCAUSALITY
Courtesy of B. Veyret
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ESTABLISHED EFFECTSESTABLISHED EFFECTS
Effects are considered as established based on:
Quality of the studies (peer review)
Consistency
Replicability
Cause-effect relationship (for epidemiology)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE CRITICAL EFFECTTHE CRITICAL EFFECT
If several effects occur, it may be possible to rank them
according to the exposure level at which each effect becomes
relevant.
The critical effect is the established adverse health effect that
is relevant at the lowest level of exposure
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ESTABLISHED EFFECTS FOR ELF FIELDSESTABLISHED EFFECTS FOR ELF FIELDS
Induction of internal electric fields and currents
Stimulation of electrically excitable tissues
The effects are related to the internal electric field
(V/m) or the internal current density (A/m2)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ESTABLISHED EFFECTS FOR RF FIELDSESTABLISHED EFFECTS FOR RF FIELDS
Absorption of electromagnetic energy
Increase of body temperature (general or local)
Thermal effects
Thermal effects are related to SAR, i.e. to to the energy
absorbed per unit time and per unit body mass (W/kg)
What about non-thermal, long-term effects?
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREREVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
All published studies are taken into consideration
The evidence is weighted based upon:
• Scientific quality
• Replicability
• Consistency
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
IARC 2002 ICNIRP 2003 WHO 2007
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON CHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIACHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIA
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
POOLED ANALYSIS - AHLBOM ET AL.POOLED ANALYSIS - AHLBOM ET AL.
3247 cases, 10400 controls
“The 99.2% of children residing in homes with exposure levels <
0.4 T had estimates compatible with no increased risk, while
the 0.8% of children with exposures > 0.4 T had a relative risk
estimate of approximately 2, which is unlikely to be due to
random variability.”
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
CRITERIA FOR CAUSALITYCRITERIA FOR CAUSALITY
A cause-effect relationship is recognised if the statistical association is supported
by the following (Hill’s criteria):
• Strength of the association
• Consistency, with reference to replicability
• Specificity
• Time directionality
• Biological gradient
• Biological plausibility
• Coherence, with reference to the natural history of the illness
• Experimental confirmation
• Analogy
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
WHICH SUPPORT FOR EPIDEMIOLOGY?WHICH SUPPORT FOR EPIDEMIOLOGY?
Ahlbom et al. 2000
“The results of numerous animal experiments and laboratory studies examining
biological effects of magnetic fields have produced no evidence to support an
aetiologic role of magnetic fields in leukaemogenesis. Four lifetime exposure
experiments have produced no evidence that magnetic fields, even at exposure
levels as high as 2000 T, are involved in the development of lymphopoietic
malignancies. Several rodent experiments designed to detect promotional effects of
magnetic fields on the incidence of leukaemia or lymphoma have also been negative.
There are no reproducible laboratory findings demonstrating biological effects of
magnetic fields below 100 T.”
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ANIMAL STUDIESANIMAL STUDIES(LEUKAEMIA AND LYMPHOMA)(LEUKAEMIA AND LYMPHOMA)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
CLASSIFICATION OFCLASSIFICATION OFELF MAGNETIC FIELDS ELF MAGNETIC FIELDS
IARC concluded in 2001 that ELF magnetic fieds are possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) based on limited
epidemiological evidence of childhood leukaemia
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE IARC CLASSIFICATIONTHE IARC CLASSIFICATION
1 The agent is carcinogenic to humans
2A The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans
2B The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans
3 The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans
4 The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
MEANING OF CATEGORIESMEANING OF CATEGORIES
1 Consistent evidence for carcinogenicity
2 Data limited or inconsistent
2A Carcinogenicity is presumed, but non-
carcinogenicity cannot be excluded
2B Non-carcinogenicity is presumed, but
carcinogenicity cannot be excluded
3 Inadequate evidence
4 Consistent evidence against carcinogenicity
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
CRITERIA FOR THE CLASSIFICATONCRITERIA FOR THE CLASSIFICATON
1 Consistent evidence for carcinogenicity
2 Data limited or inconsistent
2A Carcinogenicity is presumed, but non-carcinogenicity
cannot be excluded
2B Non-carcinogenicity is presumed, but
carcinogenicity cannot be excluded
3 Inadequate evidence
4 Consistent evidence against carcinogenicity
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
POSSIBLY OR PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC?POSSIBLY OR PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC?
100
500
0 50
100
Probably carcinogenic
0 10050
0 10050Possibly carcinogenic
On a scale 0 to 100, how do you estimate ELF magnetic fields to be a cause of cancer?
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
WHAT IS IN GROUP 2B? WHAT IS IN GROUP 2B?
● DDT
● Atrazine
● Coffee
What have Governments (and individuals) done about these agents?
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE DIMENSION OF RISKTHE DIMENSION OF RISK
In the absence of any special effect of magnetic fields 2 of the 500 cases of
childhood leukaemia a year would be associated with exposures of 0.4 µT
or more; if there were an effect of magnetic fields, a further 2 cases might
be produced, 1 case every 2 years being possibly due to proximity to
power lines. This would imply an increase in the annual risk of leukaemia in
childhood from about 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 10,000 and would correspond to
an increase in the overall risk of leukaemia to age 15 years from 1 in 1400
to 1 in 700 for the 0.5% of children who were highly exposed.
NRPB (UK), 2002
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Annual cases of leukaemia (bars) and gross consumption of electric energy (line) in Sweden
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 19900
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Cases/year TWh/year
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS?LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS?
A scientific review by WHO, held under the International EMF Project (Munich, November, 1996), concluded that, from the current scientific literature, there is no convincing evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, induces or promotes cancer
Fact Sheet # 183, May 1998
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS?LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS?(WHO 1998)(WHO 1998)
A scientific review by WHO, held under the International EMF Project (Munich, November, 1996), concluded that, from the current scientific literature, there is no convincing evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, induces or promotes cancer
Fact Sheet # 183, May 1998
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS?LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF RF FIELDS?(WHO 2006)(WHO 2006)
Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer.
Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless
networks. Fact Sheet # 304, May 2006
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ALL TUMOURS (JOHANSEN ET AL 2001)ALL TUMOURS (JOHANSEN ET AL 2001)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
EXPOSURES NEAR BASE STATIONSEXPOSURES NEAR BASE STATIONS
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Levels of RF radiation in the proximity of a base station in the UK
EXPOSURE TO BASE STATIONSEXPOSURE TO BASE STATIONS
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
NEW ZEALANDNEW ZEALAND
The National Radiation Laboratory has measured exposures around many operating cellsites.
Maximum exposures in publicly accessible areas around the great majority of sites are less than 1% of the public exposure limit in the Standard.
Exposures are rarely more than a few percent of the limit, and none have been above 10%.
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
COMMON APPROACH COMMON APPROACH OF NORDIC AUTHORITIESOF NORDIC AUTHORITIES
The exposure to the general public from base stations is
extremely low, normally 100 to 10 000 times lower than the
ICNIRP guidelines and very much lower than the exposure
from the handsets.
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE NETHERLANDSTHE NETHERLANDS
The Committee considers the likelihood of health problems
arising in work and residential areas near GSM 900 and DCS
1800 base stations due to exposure to electromagnetic
fields originating from the antennas, extremely small.
The field strengths are always considerably lower than the
health-based exposure limits proposed by the Health
Council and other organizations.
GSM Base Stations, June 2000
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
FRANCEFRANCE
Overall, there is no evidence, at the date, of increase in cancer incidence around high-power emitters and, a fortiori, around base stations
French Senate, 2001
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
SPAINSPAIN
In accordance with previous conclusions, this Board
considers that, at current emission strengths, at the
distances calculated according to criteria of the EU
Recommendation and on the basis of current available
scientific evidence, cell phone antennas do not
represent a public health hazard.
Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA
No adverse health effects are expected from
continuous exposure to radiofrequency radiation
emitted by the antennas on mobile telephone base
station towers
Mobile Telephone Communication Antennas: Are They a
Health hazard? Fact Sheet No. 4
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
NEW ZEALANDNEW ZEALAND
Is it safe to live near a cellsite?
Yes. Measurements carried out by NRL around several
dozen cellsites have shown that maximum exposures are
typically about 1 or 2% of the exposure limit recommended
in New Zealand and international exposure standards. In
most areas they are less than that. No health effects are
anticipated at such low exposures.
www.nrl.moh.govt.nz/faq.html
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
SWEDENSWEDEN
To summarize, mobile telecommunications base stations do not constitute a risk regarding radiation protection.
Radiation from Mobile Telecommunications Base Stations, SSI, 2001
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
NORDIC COUNTRIESNORDIC COUNTRIES(Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Noway, Sweden)(Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Noway, Sweden)
The Nordic authorities agree that there is no scientific
evidence for any adverse health effects from mobile
telecommunication systems, neither from the base
stations nor from the handsets, below the basic
restrictions and reference values recommended by the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP).
Mobile Telephony and Healt: A Common View, 2004
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
SYSTEMS OF PROTECTIONSYSTEMS OF PROTECTION
• Health threshold based systems
Adequate for well established, threshold effects
• Optimization systems
Adequate for no-threshold known hazards
• Precautionary measures
Adequate for suspected, not established hazards
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE TWO-LEVEL SYSTEMTHE TWO-LEVEL SYSTEM
Basic restrictions
in terms of biologically effective quantities
Reference levels
in terms of an external exposure metric
Exposure below reference levels ensures compliance with basic
restrictions, since the relations between them have been developed
under worst-case conditions.
If the reference level is exceeded, the basic restriction is not necessarily
exceeded.
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THRESHOLDS FOR EFFECTSTHRESHOLDS FOR EFFECTS
Guidelines are developed based upon a quantitative relationship
between exposure and adverse effect
If the relationship takes the form of a threshold, it may be
possible to state a level of exposure below which the adverse
effect may be avoided
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
SETTING BASIC RESTRICTIONSSETTING BASIC RESTRICTIONSE
xpos
ure
leve
l Established health effects
Reduction factor
“Safe” exposure
Threshold of effects
Exposure limit
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
BASIC RESTRICTIONSBASIC RESTRICTIONSAND REFERENCE LEVELSAND REFERENCE LEVELS
● Basic restrictions (limits of exposure) are set in terms of the
biologically effective quantity, below the threshold for effects
● Reference levels in terms of measurable quantities are
derived by the basic restrictions assuming conditions of
maximum coupling
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
BASIC LIMITS AND REFERENCE LEVELSBASIC LIMITS AND REFERENCE LEVELSELFELF
Basic limits
workers 10 mA/m2
general public 2 mA/m2
Reference levels – electric field
workers 10 kV/m
general public 5 kV/m
Reference levels – magnetic flux density
workers 500 µT
general public 100 µT
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Basic limits: workers 0.4 W/kg
general public 0.08 W/kg
BASIC LIMITS AND REFERENCE LEVELSBASIC LIMITS AND REFERENCE LEVELSRFRF
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
WHY HARMONISATION?WHY HARMONISATION?
There are many benefits to having harmonised standards for EMF exposures.
• Increased public confidence that governments and scientists agree on health risks
• Reduced debat and fears about EMF
• Health protection for everyone at the same high level
• Avoid confusion in the public mind and stress about health effects from EMF exposure when there are different EMF limits required by different authorities
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE EU RECOMMENDATIONTHE EU RECOMMENDATION
“Provisions by Member States in this area should be based on a
commonly agreed framework, so as to ensure consistency of
protection throughout the Community.”
“The existing variations and gaps in provisions and guidelines
contribute to a sense of confusion and insecurity felt by many
Community citizens and undermines confidence in health
protection authorities.”
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
BASES FOR THE EU RECOMMENDATIONBASES FOR THE EU RECOMMENDATION
• The common framework for standards should be based on the
best scientific knowledge available
• Advice on this regard has been provided by the International
Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
ICNIRP ON LONG-TERM EFFECTSICNIRP ON LONG-TERM EFFECTS
ELF
In the absence of support from laboratory studies, the epidemiological studies are insufficient to allow an exposure guideline to be established.
RF
Although there are deficiencies in the epidemiological work, [...] the studies have yelded no convincing evidence that typical exposure levels lead to adverse reproductive outcomes or an increased cancer risk in exposed individuals.
ICNIRP Guidelines, 1988
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
WHAT IS THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?WHAT IS THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?
The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management that
is applied in circumstances of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the
need to take action in the face of a potentially serious risk without
awaiting the results of scientific research.
EC - DG XXIV, 1998
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
WHEN IS THE PP APPLIED?WHEN IS THE PP APPLIED?
Recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes:
• Identification of potentially negative effects resulting from a
phenomenon, product or procedure
• A scientific evaluation of the risk which because of the
insufficiency of the data, their inconclusive or imprecise
nature, makes it impossible to determine with sufficient
certainty the risk in question
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
HOW IS THE PP APPLIED?HOW IS THE PP APPLIED?
Measures adopted should be:
• Proportional to the desired level of protection
• Not discriminatory in their application
• Consistent with others adopted in similar circumsatnces
• Based on cost/benefit analysis
• Provisional
• Able to assign responsibility for providing the scientific evidence
for a comprehensive risk evaluation
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
IS THE RECOURSE TO THE PP IS THE RECOURSE TO THE PP JUSTIFIED FOR EMF?JUSTIFIED FOR EMF?
A cautionary policy for EMF should be adopted only with great
care and deliberation. The requirements for such a policy as
outlined by the European Commission do not appear to be met
in the case of either power or radio frequency EMF; however
other related policies, such as Prudent Avoidance, may be
justified
WHO, Backgrounder on Cautionary Policies, March 2000
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
MOTIVATION FOR CAUTIONARY MOTIVATION FOR CAUTIONARY MEASURESMEASURES
Are precautionary measures adopted in some countries at either
national or local level motivated by
• Adverse effects on health?
or
• Public anxiety and protest?
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Public protection against EMFRecommendations to Member States
Facing Health issues
• Compulsory standards• Science-based measures
Facing public concern
• Separate voluntary standards• Precautionary measures
WHO RECOMMENDATIONSWHO RECOMMENDATIONS
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
SCIENCE AND CAUTIONARY MEASURESSCIENCE AND CAUTIONARY MEASURES
A principle requirement is that such [precautionary] policies be
adopted only under the condition that scientific assessments of
risk and science-based exposure limits should not be undermined
by the adoption of arbitrary cautionary approaches. That would
occur, for example, if limit values were lowered to levels that bear
no relationship to the established hazards or have inappropriate
arbitrary adjustments to the limit values to account for the extent of
scientific uncertainty.
WHO 2000
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
EFFECTIVENESS OF MEASUREMENTSEFFECTIVENESS OF MEASUREMENTS
Any measure adopted, including precautionary measures, must be
effective for its specific purpose.
• Measures aimed at reducing health risks must be evaluated
based on the health benefit
• Measures aimed setting down public concern must be
evaluated based on the reduction of controversies
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
PRECAUTIONARY LIMITSPRECAUTIONARY LIMITSAND WORRIESAND WORRIES
• Adoption of very restrictive and arbitrary EMF exposure limits
by countries tends to increase public concern rather than
reducing worries and controversies.
• Difference betwen limits tends to create confusion and
mistrust of authorities.
• Choosing exposure limits that cannot be justified, either
scientifically or logically, have already created some mistrust
of the science, and in the authorities.
Cognetti Commission (Italy), 2002
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE VICIOUS CIRCLETHE VICIOUS CIRCLE
Perception
Precaution
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
CAUTIONARY EVALUATION OF DATACAUTIONARY EVALUATION OF DATAAND CAUTIONARY MEASURESAND CAUTIONARY MEASURES
The Precautionary Principle should not be confused with the
need to make a cautious interpretation of scientific data on
established effects.
The latter leads to the use of reduction factors when deriving
guidelines for limiting exposure.
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE FRENCH EXPERIENCETHE FRENCH EXPERIENCE
The group of experts recommend that ‘sensitive’ buildings
(hospitals, day care centers, and schools), located less than 100
metres from a base station, should not be directly in the path of the
transmission beam.
This recommendation is not incompatible with the installation of a
base station antenna on the roofs of buildings in this category, as
the incident beam has little or no effect on the area immediately
below it ("fountain" effect).
Zmirou Report, 2001
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
EXPECTED EFFECTS ON RISK PERCEPTIONEXPECTED EFFECTS ON RISK PERCEPTION
The group of experts feel that, if operators apply these measures,
public fears, especially those of parents concerned by their
children's exposure in school, will be allayed, especially keeping in
mind that, in view of the exposure levels observed, the group of
experts does not back the hypothesis that there is a health risk for
populations living in the vicinity of base stations.
Zmirou Report, 2001
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
OBSERVED EFFECTS ON RISK PERCEPTIONOBSERVED EFFECTS ON RISK PERCEPTION
The recommendation of the 2001 Report, aiming at reassuring,
resulted in the opposite effect.
Therefore, the expert group does not maintain the need for this
concept of “sensitive site” for base stations.
Such conclusion specially applies to schools, where the risk
perception is the highest.
AFSSE 2003
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
WHERE IS THIS ANTENNA?WHERE IS THIS ANTENNA?
In Stockholm
Inside the Karolinska Hospital
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
AND THIS ANTENNA?AND THIS ANTENNA?
On the roof
of WHO Headquarters
In Geneva
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
CONCLUSIONS ON HYPERSENSITIVITYCONCLUSIONS ON HYPERSENSITIVITY
• The majority of studies indicate that “hypersensitive” individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than others.
• Controlled double-blind studies have shown that symptoms are not correlated with EMF exposure.
• Symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about believed EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.
• Hypersensitivity should not be used as a medical diagnosis since there is presently no scientific basis to link symptoms to EMF exposure.
• The term “hypersensitivity” should be dismissed.
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
RISKS IN PERSPECTIVERISKS IN PERSPECTIVE
Susceptibility towards EMF is very high because alleged risks concern:
• A pathology particularly dread such as cancer
• A category particularly protected such as children
What is the relevance of EMF in the general context of cancer and in
the general context of children’s health?
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
2003, 351 pages
Electromagnetic fields
Some studies have shown a risk of childhood leukaemia with exposure to high level residential extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, but causality has not been established
(p. 243)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
2002, 222 pages
Electromagnetic fields
Assuming that the association is causal, the number of cases in excess would be in the order of 1%. […]
Whether or not this is to be considered acceptable (keeping in mind that the association is not proven) is an ethical matter, requiring a thorough and transparent discussion among different stakeholders.
(p. 89)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
BALANCING RISKS AND BENEFITSBALANCING RISKS AND BENEFITS
Actions on limiting the exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields should be balanced with the other
health, safety and security benefits that devices emitting
electromagnetic fields bring to the quality of life, in such
areas as telecommunications, energy and public security.
EU Recommendation, 1999
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
BALANCING RISKS AND BENEFITSBALANCING RISKS AND BENEFITS
Key issues for the European region
2. European population development, economic growth and health status improvement are strongly dependent on clean, reliable and affordable
6. Health impacts from the lack of continuous and affordable energy available are broad, ranging from increased winter mortality, air pollution related morbidity and mortality to higher risks of psychological stress
17. The exposure of local populations to power lines is minimal.
WHO Workshop “Energy and Health” - Rome, 30-31 May 2005 (Draft)
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009
THE FINAL GOAL OF THE FINAL GOAL OF PROTECTION POLICIESPROTECTION POLICIES
To develop a policy that realizes the
protection of human health in its broadest
sense …
Ministry of Public Health, Montevideo5 March 2009