Chronological Order (Recent to Earliest)

International Scientists Appeal to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology – (5/2015)  LINK

EMF Scientist.org Press Release

In summary, the International EMF Scientist Appeal calls upon the United Nations, the WHO, and the UN Member States to:

  • address the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods; and
  • urge that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) initiate an assessment of alternatives to current exposure standards and practices that could substantially lower human exposures to non-ionizing radiation.

UNEP is the UN’s “voice for the environment” and is uniquely positioned to take a planetary view of the potential for harm that EMF pollution presents to biology — the evolution, health, well being and very survival of all living organisms world-wide. EMF scientists are giving warnings about clear signs of adverse biological and health problems that are affecting people and nature. Now is the time to ask serious questions about this emerging environmental health crisis.


 

BioInitiative Report (USA) – 2012  LINK

A report by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world* about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields.  It updates the BioInitiative 2007 Report.

Quote:

The science, public health, public policy and global response to the growing health issue of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation in the daily life of billions of people around the world.  Covers brain tumor risks from cell phones, damage to DNA and genes, effects on memory, learning, behavior, attention; sleep disruption and cancer and neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s disease.  Effects on sperm  and miscarriage (fertility and reproduction), effects of wireless on the brain development of the fetus and infant, and effects of wireless classrooms on children and adolescents is addressed. Mechanisms for biological action and public health responses in other countries are discussed.  Therapeutic use of very low intensity EMF and RFR are addressed. [www.bioinitiative.org]


 

International Doctors Appeal – 2012  LINK

Radio-frequency Radiation Poses a Health Risk. Physicians Demand Overdue Precaution.  PDF

More than 1000 physicians signed the “Freiburg Appeal” in 2002. It was translated into many languages. As many as 36,000 people from all over the world support its warning about the dangers of radio-frequency radiation. Today—ten years later—we as physicians and scientists call again on our colleagues and the wider global community, but also on all politicians around the world.


 

World Health Organization (WHO)

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – 2011  PDF

The WHO/International Agency For Research On Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer 1, associated with wireless phone use.


 

Olle Johansson, PhD Announcing Seletun Scientific Statement  LINK

Pointing to Biological Hazards and Risks to the Genetic Code from Unchecked Proliferation of Wireless Technologies

International Scientists Recommend Global Governments Adopt New Exposure Guidelines for Electromagnetic Radiation—Pointing to Biological Hazards and Risks to the Genetic Code from Unchecked Proliferation of Wireless Technologies. In this 18 minute video, Dr. Johansson, from Sweden’s renowned Karolinska Institute, and Chair of the Seletun Scientific Panel, announces a consensus agreement among international scientists on the need to reduce EMF (electromagnetic field) exposures to the population. The paper has just been published in the journal, Reviews on Environmental Health. The Seletun Scientific Panel’s recommendations are extremely important given the unchecked proliferation of wireless radiation over the past decade, such as from cell towers, wireless networks, wireless routers, and cell phones, as well as because of the plans by many ignorant governments to blanket neighborhoods in new, radiation-emitting utility ‘smart’ meters.

To read Press Releases, the Seletun Scientific Statement or get a transcript of Dr. Johansson’s remarks in this video, please go to ElectromagneticHealth.org “News” Section.


 

Sweden recognizes EHS (Johansson, 2009)

Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25: 245-258.

“In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially recognized functional impairment . . . 230,000 to 290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF) sources.”


 

European Parliament EMF Resolution – 2009  PDF

European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields

On April 2, 2009, the European Parliament EMF Resolution of April 2, 2009 with stronger language than was included in earlier EP resolutions (1994 and 1996) recommending application of the Precautionary Principle.  The new Resolution directs its 26 member states to look “..for particular consideration of biological effects when assessing the potential health impact of electromagnetic radiation, especially given that some studies have found the most harmful effects at lowest levels;  calls for active research to address potential health problems by developing solutions that negate or reduce the puslating and amplitude modulation of the frequencies used for transmission.”

Quote:

A. whereas electromagnetic fields (EMFs) exist in nature and have consequently always been present on earth; whereas, however, in recent decades, environmental exposure to man-made sources of EMFs has risen constantly, driven by demand for electricity, increasingly more specialized wireless technologies, and changes in the organization of society; whereas the end effect is that every individual is now being exposed to a complex mixture of electric and magnetic fields of different frequencies, both at home and at work,

B. whereas wireless technology (mobile phones, Wi-Fi/WiMAX, Bluetooth, DECT landline telephones) emits EMFs that may have adverse effects on human health,

C. whereas most European citizens, especially young people aged from 10 to 20, use a mobile phone, an object serving a practical purpose and as a fashion accessory, and whereas there are continuing uncertainties about the possible health risks, particularly to young people whose brains are still developing,

D. whereas the dispute within the scientific community regarding the potential health risks arising from EMFs has intensified since 12 July 1999, when exposure limits for fields in the 0 Hz to 300 GHz range were laid down in Recommendation 1999/519/EC,

E. whereas the fact that the scientific community has reached no definite conclusions has not prevented some national or regional governments, in China, Switzerland, and Russia, as well as in at least nine EU Member States, from setting what are termed “preventive” exposure limits, that is to say, lower than those advocated by the Commission and its independent scientific committee, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (7),

F. whereas actions to limit the exposure of the general public to EMFs should be balanced against improvements to quality of life, in terms of safety and security, brought about by devices transmitting EMFs,

(continued PDF)


 

Porto Alegre (Brazil) Resolution – 2009  PDF

Scientists and doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity and are concerned that exposure to electromagnetic fields may increase the risk of cancer and chronic diseases; that exposure levels established by international agencies (IEEE, ICNIRP, ICES) are obsolete; and that wireless technology places at risk the health of children, teens, pregnant women and others who are vulnerable.

Quote:

This resolution follows several international resolutions agreed to by concerned scientists and medical doctors over the past decade, including resolutions developed by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety [1], based on evidence and consideration on documents such as the BioInitiative Report [2] and a special issue of the journal Pathophysiology on electrical and magnetic fields, published in August 2009 [3].

We agreed that the protection of health, well-being and the environment requires immediate adoption of the Precautionary Principle, which states, “when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it”, until new scientific discoveries are recognized as the only criterion for the establishment or modification of non-ionizing radiation exposure standards;

We recognize that, in Brazil as well as all over the world, where there has been an unprecedented explosion in the availability and use of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields for electrical and wireless communications technologies (mobile and cordless phones, WiFi and WIMAX networks, RFID, etc,), as well as major electrical grid and wireless broadband infrastructure changes, this assessment should inform risk management to take proper steps to protect the public from long-term, low-level exposure to extremely-low frequency as well as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields that have substantially increased in the ambient environment in recent years.  (continued… PDF)


40 International Scientists – 2009  PDF

2009: CellPhones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone. Call for precautionary action endorsed by 40 leading international scientists.


 

London Resolution – 2009  PDF

Quote:

“We, the undersigned, do call on the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA), UK Government and all the health protection agencies and governments world-wide, to take note of the findings and recommendations in the Bioinitiative Report (2007) and its predecessors the Benevento Resolution (2006), the Catania Resolution (2002) and the Salzburg Resolution (2000) to immediately reduce the guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RF) and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) for the following reasons:

  • The overwhelming evidence of adverse non-thermal health effects at exposures many times below the current guidelines.
  • The near 100% penetration of the market in Europe, the USA and many other markets by mobile phones and increasing penetration elsewhere.
  • The vast proliferation of wireless networks and devices beyond those envisaged at the time the current guidelines were set.

We call for the ICNIRP to reconvene as a matter of urgency to reassess the exposure guidelines and to develop and implement biologically based public safety limits reflecting the overall scientific evidence that existing ICNIRP guidelines are not sufficiently protective against health effects from chronic exposures to the rapidly increasing environmental-level ELF-EMF and RF.


 

Benevento (Italy) Resolution (Revised) – 2008  PDF

Quote:

1. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent, and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging potential public health issue.

2. Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission.

3. There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis and interpretation of research findings towards rejection of evidence of possible public health risks.

4. Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.

5. Based on our review of the science, biological effects can occur from exposures to both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) and radiation frequency fields (RF EMF). Epidemiological and in vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates that exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and induce other health problems and both children and adults. Further there is accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating increased brain tumor risk from long-term use of mobile phones, the first RF EMF that has started to be comprehensively studied. Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased risk for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be ignored. Laboratory studies on cancers and other diseases have reported that hypersensitivity to EMF may be due in part to a genetic predisposition. (continued PDF)


 

Venice (Italy) Appeal – 2008  LINK

Scientists recognize biological effects at non-thermal levels, that standards are inadequate, that electro-sensitivity exists and that there is a need to research mechanisms.


 

BioInitiative Report (USA) – 2007  LINK

Reviewed 2000 studies showing biological effects of ELF and RF radiation and calling for biologically based exposure guidelines.


 

Benevento (Italy) Resolution – 2006  PDF

Scientists recognize adverse health effects, recommend precautionary principle, identify funding biased studies, recognize need for wireless-free zones [www.icems.eu]-International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety.


 

Helsinki (Finland) Appeal – 2005

Call for new safety standards, reject International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. [www.emrpolicy.org/headlines/helsinki_appeal_05.pdf]


 

Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA) – 2005  PDF

Doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is increasing and request advice from government on how to treat EHS [www.ideaireland.org].


 

International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) US & Canada  LINK

Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions

Quote:

The International Association of Fire Fighters’ position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004, is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.


World Health Organization – 2004

2004: World Health Organization, Workshop on ElectroSensitivity, Czech Republic, Oct 2004. Scientists recognize electrohypersensitivity and propose calling it “idiopathic syndrome”, which means “no known cause”.

The World Health Organization (WHO, 2004) defines Electrohypersensitivity as . . .

“. . . a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields.”

“ . . . EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.”


 

Freiburger (Germany) Appeal – 2002  PDF

More than 1000 physicians signed the “Freiburg Appeal” in 2002. It was translated into many languages. Physicians requested tougher guidelines for radio frequency exposure, endorsed by hundreds of healthcare practitioners. [www.mastsanity.org/doctors-appeals.html]. Quotes follow:

“Our therapeutic efforts to restore health are becoming increasingly less effective: the unimpeded and continuous penetration of radiation into living and working areas . . . causes uninterrupted stress and prevents the patient’s thorough recovery.

In the face of this disquieting development, we feel obliged to inform the public of our observations . . .

What we experience in the daily reality of our medical practice is anything but hypothetical! We see the rising number of chronically sick patients also as the result of an irresponsible “safety limits policy”, which fails to take the protection of the public . . . as its criteria for action. Instead, it submits to the dictates of a technology already long recognized as dangerous. For us, this is the beginning of a very serious development through which the health of many people is being threatened.

We will no longer be made to wait upon further unreal research results – which in our experience are often influenced by the communications industry, while evidential studies go on being ignored. We find it to be of urgent necessity that we act now!

Above all, we are, as doctors, the advocates for our patients. In the interest of all those concerned, whose basic right to life and freedom from bodily harm is currently being put at stake, we appeal to those in the spheres of politics and public health.”


 

Catania (Italy) Resolution – 2002  PDF

“State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields – Scientific and Legal Issues”

Scientists recognize adverse health effects of EMF at levels below international guidelines. [www.emrpolicy.org/faq/catania.pdf]

Quote:

1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.

2. We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.

3. There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.

4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.

5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.

6. The undersigned scientists agree to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.  (continued PDF)


Salzburg (Austria) Resolution – 2000  PDF

Scientists recommend 0.1 microW/cm2 for radio frequency radiation exposure [www.landsbg.gv.at/celltower]. Guideline in U.S. is 1000 microW/cm2. No long-term guideline exists in the U.S.


 

Health Canada, Safety Code 6 – 1999

“Certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from RF and microwave exposure.” (page 11)


 

Vienna Resolution – 1998  PDF

Quote:

“The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exposures are scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is inadequate to derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in the research efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose assessment.”