What Does the Research Tell Us About the Risk of Electromagnetic

Radiation (EMR) ?

Database Design Simple Classification of Peer-Reviewed Paper Outcomes ORSAA Database

Main research sources : EMF – Portal and PubMed

• ARPANSA Classification – Added some extra fields ( Animal studies,

Prospective design and Meta – Analysis)

• Exposure Categories and details of experiments.

• Effects of RF Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)

• Statistical Summaries from Epidemiological Studies

• Bradford Hill Criteria on Causation (Epidemiological ) Target Research

.

Number of scientific papers(1070 Aug 2016) that are in each category

Number of papers that are in each category from ARPANSA references.

We included ARPANSA data so not be accused of “cherry picking”

Epidemiological Studies Epidemiological studies can be divided into short-term less than 4 years & long-term studies.

Approximately 130 different types of brain cancers

Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) (temporal and adjacent lobes)

Epidemiological Studies by Author The most troubling problem was indicators of possible bias shown by some researchers when

reporting their results as shown below. Only two researchers reported in both the effects and no

effects categories.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or Subjective Symptoms for Individuals

Reviewing the data in table shows “no effect” are almost exclusively provocation studies. The majority of provocation studies are typically acute short-term exposure studies.

Conclusions • Thermal effects are evident at high-power and non-thermal effects are present at low-power.

This division is an exercise in semantics not science. These biological effects at low-power and different frequencies are real and we need to know how do we minimise the biological effect and possible health impact .

• The epidemiological case-studies with mobile and cordless phone exposure show strongest evidence for effect when it comes to brain cancer types Glioblastoma Multiforme and meningioma, particularly amongst the heavy users (more than one hour per day) while no association or risk is found amongst casual users.

• There is enough evidence to take a precautionary approach with respect to these wireless devices and to use them in a safe manner.

ORSAA Recommendations

• Safe use of mobile phones.

• Regulatory stand point there is an inconsistency in how ionising and non-ionising radiation is managed from a radiation protection stance.

• A precautionary approach in setting radiation dose limits.

• ACMA is responsible for implementing the Radiocommunications Act (1992) is not only the promoter of wireless spectrum usage but also the health regulator. ACMA admits they are not a Health regulator but they have the responsibility. This must change as the ACMA are unable to fulfill their Health Regulator role.

• What happens when you pretend Mobile Phones are toys and there is no risk

associated with their use.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2967047/Spending-six-hours-day-mobile-gave-

brain-tumour-claims-business-executive-43-s-given-just-three-years-live.html

• Radiocommunications Act (1992)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ra1992218/s162.html

• Oxidative Stress/ ROS/

Super Oxides/Free Radicals Lipid Peroxidation

• Altered Enzyme Activity/Protein Damage/Altered Protein Levels

• Biochemical changes • Cell Irregularities/ Cell

Damage/Morphological changes

• DNA Damage/ Mutagenic/Genotoxic