Print
See related documents
A. Draft resolution
(open)
Report | Doc. 12608 | 06 May 2011
The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment
Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
Summary
The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have fully beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
One must respect the precautionary principle and revise the current threshold values; waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case in the past with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
A. Draft resolution 
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed
the importance of states’ commitment to preserving the environment
and environmental health, as set out in many charters, conventions,
declarations and protocols since the United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment and the Stockholm Declaration (Stockholm,
1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment
and health, Recommendation
1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution, and more generally, Recommendation 1885 (2009) on
drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human
Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on
access to information, public participation in environmental decision-making
and access to justice – implementation of the Aarhus Convention.
2. The potential health effects of the very low frequency of
electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices
are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of
public debate. According to the World Health Organisation, electromagnetic
fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest
growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation
are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees
of electromagnetic fields, the levels of which will continue to increase
as technology advances.
3. Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world.
This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed
antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radio frequency
signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the
number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation
technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet
access and services, such as wireless local area networks, are also
increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas (airports, schools,
residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and
local wireless networks increases, so does the radio frequency exposure
of the population.
4. While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency
bands have wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine,
other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low
frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in
the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear
to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological
effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body
even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
5. As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of
electromagnetic fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly
recommends that the ALARA or “as low as reasonably achievable” principle
is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the
athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation.
Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applicable when
scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with
sufficient certainty, especially given the context of growing exposure
of the population, including particularly vulnerable groups such
as young people and children, which could lead to extremely high
human and economic costs of inaction if early warnings are neglected.
6. The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of
the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations,
declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances,
there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental
and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing
effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific
and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks
can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case
with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
7. Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic
fields or waves and the potential consequences for the environment
and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as
the licensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals
or genetically modified organisms. It therefore highlights that
the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise
is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced assessment of
potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.
8. In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends
that the member states of the Council of Europe:
8.1. in general terms:
8.1.1. take all reasonable measures
to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio
frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to
children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head
tumours;
8.1.2. reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic
fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on
Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations
and apply “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principles,
covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects
of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;
8.1.3. put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns
on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects
on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children,
teenagers and young people of reproductive age;
8.1.4. pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” persons
suffering from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields
and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation
of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;
8.1.5. in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the
environment and human health, step up research on new types of antennas
and mobile phone and DECT-type devices, and encourage research to
develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are
just as efficient but have less negative effects on the environment
and health;
8.2. concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT phones,
WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX for computers and other wireless devices such
as baby phones:
8.2.1. set preventive
thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all
indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not
exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce
it to 0.2 volts per metre;
8.2.2. undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all
new types of device prior to licensing;
8.2.3. introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves
or electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific
absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any health risks connected
with its use;
8.2.4. raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type
wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances
which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is
left permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed
telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently
emit pulse waves;
8.3. concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1. develop within different ministries
(education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns
aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific
risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and
other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2. ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems
from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities,
medical associations and civil society organisations;
8.4. concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay
antenna base stations:
8.4.1. introduce
town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other
electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings;
8.4.2. apply strict safety standards for sound electric systems
in new dwellings;
8.4.3. reduce threshold values for relay antennas in accordance
with the ALARA principle and install systems for comprehensive and
continuous monitoring of all antennas;
8.4.4. determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX
antennas not solely according to the operators’ interests but in
consultation with local and regional government officials, local
residents and associations of concerned citizens;
8.5. concerning risk assessment and precautions:
8.5.1. make risk assessment more prevention
oriented;
8.5.2. improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating
a standard risk scale, making the indication of the risk level mandatory,
commissioning several risk hypotheses and considering compatibility
with real life conditions;
8.5.3. pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;
8.5.4. formulate a human rights oriented definition of the precautionary
and ALARA principles;
8.5.5. increase public funding of independent research, inter alia through grants from industry and
taxation of products which are the subject of public research studies
to evaluate health risks;
8.5.6. create independent commissions for the allocation of public
funds;
8.5.7. make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;
8.5.8. promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all
stakeholders, including civil society (Aarhus Convention).
B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Huss, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1. Electromagnetic fields, whether emitted by high-voltage
lines, domestic appliances, relay antennas, mobile telephones or
other microwave devices, are increasingly present in our techno-industrial
environment.
2. Obviously, in evolutionary terms, living or working in artificial
electromagnetic extremely low frequency and high frequency fields,
on top of the electromagnetic fields naturally occurring in the
environment, is still a relatively new experience for human beings,
fauna and flora. It goes back no further than fifty years or so,
when intensive industrial and domestic exposure began with radars,
radio waves and televisions and electromagnetic fields generated
by high-voltage lines and household electrical appliances.
3. It was only from the 1990s onwards that the new telephony
and wireless mobile communication technologies began to boom ever
faster Europe-wide and even worldwide thanks to increasingly diverse
and sophisticated applications: mobile telephones, cordless telephones,
WiFi, WLAN (wireless local area network), etc.
4. The term "electromagnetic fields" covers all the fields emitted
by natural and man-made sources. A distinction is drawn between
static fields and alternating fields. In the latter case there is
essentially a differentiation between extremely low frequency (ELF)
fields, such as domestic electricity, and hyper-frequency (HF) fields,
which include mobile telephones. Electrical fields are measured
in volts per metre (v/m), whereas magnetic fields are measured in
terms of current-induced exposure in microteslas (µt). Since very
weak electrical currents are part of human physiology, at the level
of communication between cells for example, the question of the
possible disruptive effects of present levels of artificial exposure
on the human environment and any consequences they might have for
health may legitimately be raised.
5. It should be noted with satisfaction that a major contribution
was made by the technological innovations resulting from electrification
and new radio-telecommunication techniques to economic growth and
the material well-being of the populations of industrialised countries.
Domestic appliances, for example, have greatly helped to lighten
the load from everyday chores in millions of households and played
a not inconsiderable role in the women's liberation movement.
2. Background to the debate
6. Nevertheless, it must be said that, since some of
these new technologies were first introduced, environmental or health
problems have emerged and become a topic of discussion in certain
countries, both in scientific circles and in the field of health
and occupational medicine. From the 1930s onwards, radar waves were
linked to certain "microwave syndromes" among operators and technicians
subjected to intensive and prolonged exposure. The former USSR and
Eastern bloc countries adopted very low preventive thresholds aimed
at protecting operators' health.
7. In the United States and western Europe, discussion of potential
harm to health resulting from electromagnetic fields focused, in
the 1970s and 1980s, essentially on the problem of high- or very
high-voltage lines and protection in the workplace (for those working
on computers, in electrically powered steelworks, etc). As far as
the risks from high-voltage lines are concerned, an American epidemiological
study (Wertheimer and Leeper, 1979) demonstrated a link between
the proximity of high-voltage lines and child leukaemia, corroborated
in 2001 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
which classified these fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans"
(category 2B). At the same time, from the early 1980s onwards, another issue
relating to electromagnetic fields and chemical pollution was raised
at international conferences: discomforts due to office computer
screens, health effects in the form of headaches, fatigue and eye
and skin problems. Regarding the electromagnetic aspect of those
effects, stringent preventive standards (TCO standards) were proposed
at the beginning of the 1990s by the Swedish Confederation of Employees
and then widely adopted.
8. The 1990s saw a boom in mobile telephony and its rapid expansion,
first in the industrialised countries and then increasingly in the
developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
9. Mobile telephony and ever more sophisticated wireless telecommunication
applications have not only been taken on board in professional spheres
but have also quite literally invaded our private life. This affects even
very young children, at home, at school, on transport, etc.
3. Growing concerns in Europe
10. However, for a good ten years or so, Europe's populations
have begun to show increasing concern over the potential health
risks of mobile telephony, with reliable information on these questions
in short supply. In a recent Eurobarometer study (European Commission),
48% of Europeans stated that they were concerned or very concerned
over the potential health risks posed by mobile telephony. The presumption
of risk was noted among 76% of Europeans concerning relay antennas
and 73% concerning the potential effects of mobile telephones, respectively.
11. Such concerns over electromagnetic fields or waves have triggered
the emergence and growth of a multitude of citizens' initiatives
in many countries. These initiatives are mostly directed against
the installation of relay antenna stations, above all close to schools,
nurseries, hospitals or other institutions caring for children or
vulnerable individuals. They also increasingly have challenged other
aspects of wireless telecommunication such as WiFi in schools, for
example.
12. The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and
Regional Affairs organised two hearings with experts on 17 September
2010 and 25 February 2011.
13. At the first hearing of experts, Mr Ralph Baden of the Occupational
Medicine Department of the Ministry of Health of the Grand-Duchy
of Luxembourg spoke generally about the issue of very low frequency
and high frequency electromagnetic fields and waves and the respective
applicable threshold values. He listed the different sources of
those electromagnetic fields outside dwellings: relay antennas,
high-voltage lines, radio stations, television, radars, etc., but
laid special emphasis on the results of measurement readings, on
sources of such fields in homes or public buildings and provided
concrete examples of simple and practical means of reducing exposure
to these "indoor" fields and eliminating certain health problems,
such as headaches, insomnia, coughs, depression, etc.
4. Effects on the environment: plants, insects, animals
14. At the same hearing of experts, Dr Ulrich Warnke
of the Institute of Technical Biology and Bionics in Saarbrücken
described the biological effects of certain microwave frequencies
on plants. Depending on the frequencies, their intensity and modulation
and the length of exposure, scientific studies demonstrated stress reactions
and disruptions of gene expression. Recent studies by the cellular
biology laboratory of Clermont-Ferrand University (2007), for example,
clearly show the effects of mobile telephony microwaves on plant genes,
in particular tomato plants.
15. Other scientific international studies show comparable stress
reactions in certain types of beans, as well as deciduous and coniferous
trees exposed to various frequencies (relay antennas, TETRA frequency).
16. Dr Warnke highlighted the innate magnetic compass used by
certain animals or insects to orient themselves in time and space
and which dictates the internal functioning of their organism, before
going on to demonstrate how extremely weak artificial fields or
waves could adversely affect the sense of direction, navigation
and communication of certain animals or insects: migratory birds,
pigeons, certain kinds of fish (sharks, whales, rays) or certain
insects (ants, butterflies and especially bees). He suggested that
malfunctions induced by artificial electromagnetic waves might be
one of the major causes – besides problems of exposure to chemicals
– of repeated incidents of whales being washed up on beaches or
the death or disappearance of bee colonies (colony collapse disorder)
observed in past years.
17. The great multitude of scientific studies quoted during the
hearing of experts should certainly prompt policymakers to reflect
on their decisions and act accordingly. One final aspect mentioned
during the hearing concerned the potentially pathogenic effects
observed in livestock – calves, cows, horses, geese, etc. – following
the installation of mobile telephone masts nearby: unaccountable
deformities of new-born calves, cataracts, fertility problems.
18. In the face of fast-growing concerns and opposition in many
Council of Europe member states, the response of top executives
of electricity companies and mobile telephone operators is to deny
that their industrial and commercial activities have any adverse
effect on human health. At the hearing in Paris on 25 February 2011,
the official representatives of French and European mobile telephone
operators passionately argued that the official threshold values
applicable in most countries in the world were adequate to protect human
beings from the thermal effects of mobile telephones and that any
biological effects, if these could be demonstrated, would not have
any adverse effects on human health.
19. To back up their argument, the experts quoted the scientific
assessments carried out by associations such as the International
Committee on Non-Ionisation Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a small
private NGO near Munich, or by official organisations: the World
Health Organization, the European Commission and a number of national
protection agencies. It appears that these European and national
organisations or international bodies have based their thinking
on the threshold values and recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP
when that private association was set up near Munich at the beginning
of the 1990s.
20. Yet, at the same hearing, leaders of associations of citizens
and representatives of the NGOs, such as Robin
des toits, laid heavy emphasis on the numerous risks
and harmful biological effects and related health problems which
they believed to be linked to electromagnetic fields or waves from
mobile telephony, relay antennas, high-voltage lines and other artificially
generated electromagnetic fields, even at very low levels that were
well below the officially applicable threshold values.
21. The representative of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen,
an official advisory body to the European Union, stressed the importance
of the precautionary principle written into the European treaties and
accordingly pointed to the need for effective preventive measures
to protect human health and avoid painful health issues or scandals
of the kind already experienced over asbestos, tobacco smoking,
lead and PCBs (polychlorobiphenyls), to name but a few. He presented
a convincing analysis of the scientific assessment methods currently
used and the different levels of evidence to conclude, on the basis
of the "Bioinitiative" scientific report and other more recent studies
by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, that the indices or levels
of proof were sufficient at this stage to prompt action by governments
and international bodies.
22. Finally, another expert specialising in clinical medicine
and oncology confirmed, on the basis of the findings of biological
and clinical analysis of several hundred French patients describing
themselves as "electrosensitive", that a syndrome of intolerance
to electromagnetic fields (SIEMF) does exist and that those people
are not feigning illness or suffering from psychiatric disorders.
5. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields in medicine
23. It has been established since the beginning of the
20th century that electromagnetic fields operating at various frequencies
can have useful and beneficial effects in clinical medicine, whether
for diagnosis or treatment.
24. Scientific developments since the Second World War have revealed
that the human organism does not function solely on the basis of
biological or biochemical cellular reactions but that humans also
function using electromagnetic forces. It is now well known that
nerve cells communicate between one another using electrical impulses.
The most powerful electrical signals detected in humans are those
generated by nervous and muscular activity. In the case of the heart,
which is the most important muscle group in the body, an electrocardiogram
(ECG) diagnoses cardiac function by recording the electrical signals
emitted by it–. Again at the level of diagnosis, electroencephalography
(EEG) allows non-invasive monitoring of the brain's electrical activity.
The EEG has been widely used in the clinical areas of brain disorders,
sleep pattern monitoring and confirmation of clinical death.
6. Therapeutic use of electric currents or electromagnetic waves
25. Without going into detail, the rapporteur wishes
to point out that certain electrical currents or electromagnetic
waves used at certain frequencies may have a perfectly beneficial
effect in medical terms. There are a number of examples illustrating
the therapeutic benefits of electrotherapy: clinical effects of
direct electric currents (electrolysis), clinical effects of external
electrical impulses on the cardiac muscle (defibrillators, pacemakers),
clinical effects of micro-currents generated by pulsed magnetic
fields to improve healing in tissue repair and bone fractures, to
mention only the best known of these non-ionising frequency band
applications.
26. But while electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain
frequency bands have fully beneficial effects, other non-ionising
frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power
lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar,
telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or
less potentially harmful biological effects on plants, insects and
animals as well as the human body even when exposed to levels that
are below the official threshold values.
7. Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and health protection
27. It should be noted that the problem of electromagnetic
fields or waves and the potential consequences for the environment
and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as
the licensing of chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), to mention only the best known examples. It
is certain that one cause of public anxiety and mistrust of the
communication efforts of official safety agencies and governments
lies in the fact that a number of past health crises or scandals,
such those involving asbestos, contaminated blood, PCBs or dioxins,
lead, tobacco smoking and more recently H1N1 flu, were able to happen despite
the work or even with the complicity of national or international
agencies nominally responsible for environmental or health safety.
28. Indeed, it is in this connection that the Committee on the
Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs is currently
working on the question of conflicts of interest and the urgent
need for real independence of scientists involved in the official
agencies tasked with evaluating the risks of products prior to licensing.
29. The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most
curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold
values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and
proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission,
governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are
none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather
close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations
for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic
fields.
30. If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented
themselves with replicating and adopting the safety recommendations
advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:
- in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation;
- and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and health.
31. With regard to the frequently inconclusive if not contradictory
findings of scientific research and studies on the possible risks
of products, medicines or, in this case, electromagnetic fields,
a number of comparative studies do seem to suggest a fairly strong
correlation between the origin of their funding – private or public
– and the findings of risk assessments, a manifestly unacceptable
situation pointing to conflicts of interest which undermine the
integrity, the genuine independence and the objectivity of scientific
research.
32. Concerning the assessment of health risks resulting from mobile
telephone radio frequencies, for example, in 2006 Swiss researchers
from Bern University presented the findings of a systematic analysis
of all research results and concluded that there was a strong correlation
between how the research was funded and the results obtained: 33%
of studies funded by industrial concerns conclude that exposure
to mobile telephone radio frequencies has an effect on our organism.
That figure rises to over 80% in studies carried out with public funding.
33. Accordingly, in this field and in others, one should call
for genuine independence on the part of the expert appraisal agencies
and for independent, multidisciplinary and properly balanced expert
input. There must no longer be situations where whistleblowers are
discriminated against and renowned scientists with critical opinions
are excluded when experts are selected to sit on expert committees
or no longer receive funding for their research.
8. Contending forces and arguments: the dispute over the incidence of biological effects and over threshold values
34. It seems obvious that economic and financial parameters
such as profits and market shares are the prime considerations for
societies dependent on electricity, mobile telephony and telecommunication. Understandably,
in this context more stringent regulations and threshold values
which ostensibly inhibit their business dealings are viewed with
disfavour and forcefully resisted – as could be seen from the irritated
and sometimes emotional statements of a representative of French
mobile telephony at our committee’s hearing for contrastive expert
opinion.
35. The representatives of mobile telephony have for years espoused
the same paradigm and the same line of argument, in which they invoke
the soothing discourse of most international agencies and institutions.
For example, the threshold values of 100 microtesla for low or high
frequency electromagnetic fields and 41/42 volts/metre for the very
high frequencies of mobile telephony on 900 megahertz (MHz) are
claimed to be quite adequate for protecting the public against thermal
effects. At very high levels, the radio frequency fields are plainly
liable to produce harmful thermal effects on the human body, in
the estimation of all parties moreover.
36. Of course there remains the vexing question whether there
are non-thermal or athermic, hence biological, consequences for
the environment and the human body. The operators’ representatives
totally deny the existence of nefarious long-term biological effects
for electromagnetic fields below the threshold values in force.
To illustrate the nature and extent of these threshold values, let
us mention by way of an example Article 5.1 of Directive 2004/40/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 concerning
the minimum standards for protecting workers: “… However, the long-term
effects, including possible carcinogenic effects due to exposure
to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields for
which there is no conclusive scientific evidence establishing a
causal relationship, are not addressed in this Directive. …” (Introduction,
paragraph 4).
37. So the protection of workers is only valid for averting thermal
effects, and only in the short term!
38. Any potentially harmful biological effects are disregarded
by the operators, agencies and official regulations, and to justify
this attitude they abide by the contention that firstly, the ascertainment
of a biological effect need not signify its being of a pathological
character dangerous to the human constitution. Furthermore, they
discern no absolutely conclusive scientific evidence of a cause
and effect relationship between electromagnetic fields and radio
frequencies and long-term pathological consequences of their non-thermal
or athermic effects. And to emphasise these statements they invoke
numerous scientific publications said to indicate no significant
biological effect.
39. The operators’ arguments on the whole can be summed up as
follows:
- the threshold values recommended by the ICNIRP are values ensuring health security;
- child mobile phone users are no more sensitive than adults;
- there are no significant biological effects apart from thermal effects;
- if there were any possibly harmful biological effects, moreover, there would be no scientifically acceptable mechanism of action to account for them.
9. Scientific studies and arguments pursued by associations and NGOs, by groupings of scientists, by the European Environment Agency and by the European Parliament
40. Serious scientific and medical studies revealing
biological effects of a pathological nature have existed since the
1930s concerning radio frequencies and microwaves from radar installations.
Studies in the late 1970s also pointed out the harmful effects of
protracted exposure to the low or very low frequency electromagnetic
fields of electrical transmission lines or computer screens. .The
WHO’s IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified
these fields as “possibly carcinogenic” for humans (Group 2B) in 2001.
41. The rapporteur recalls the proven positive biological effects
of certain medical applications (electrotherapies) of electromagnetic
fields and microwaves at very low intensity. If there are such beneficial effects
in certain frequency bands, then adverse biological effects on the
human body should be just as much in the realm of plausibility or
possibility.
42. Scientific studies concerning the negative effects of certain
microwave frequencies on plants, insects and wildlife or farm animals
are disturbing in more than one respect and the scientific studies
disclosing potentially pathogenic biological effects on the human
body are also important and not to be merely brushed aside.
43. These studies are very numerous indeed: the 2007 “Bioinitiative”
report analysed over 2 000 of them, and more were added by an important
monograph published in 2010 by the Ramazzini Institute, the national institute
for study and control of cancer and environmental diseases in Bologna,
Italy.
44. A significant number of top scientists and researchers have
banded together in a dedicated international body entitled ICEMS,
“International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety”, in order
to carry out independent research and recommend that the precautionary
principle be applied in the matter. In 2006 (Benevento Resolution)
and 2008 (Venice Resolution), these scientists published instructive
resolutions calling for the adoption of far tougher new safety standards
and rules.
45. Scientific studies disclose athermic or biological effects
of electromagnetic fields or waves on cells, the nervous system,
genetics, etc., which essentially fall into three categories: biological
effects influencing the metabolism, sleep, the electrocardiogram
profile; effects observed in experimentation on animals or in cell cultures
(in vitro); effects emerging from epidemiological studies on prolonged
use of mobile telephones or on living near high voltage power lines
or base stations of relay antennas.
46. The term “biological effect” is used to refer to a physiological,
biochemical or behavioural change brought about in a tissue or a
cell in response to an external stimulus. Not every biological effect
necessarily poses a serious threat to health; it may simply show
the normal response of the cell, tissue or organism to that stimulus.
47. A medical or pathological biological effect, on the other
hand, is an effect that may imperil the organism’s normal functioning
by causing more or less severe symptoms or pathologies. Precisely,
a growing number of scientific studies made by teams of high-level
academic researchers demonstrate the existence of potentially or
definitely pathological biological effects.
48. The rapporteur acknowledges that it is not possible within
the compass of this report to analyse and summarise the findings
of all these studies. A synopsis of the greater number of them (some
2 000) was produced in the “Bioinitiative” report, a report drawn
up by 14 scientists of international standing who concurred, regarding
mobile telephony and other radio frequencies, as to abnormally high
incidence of brain tumours and acoustic neuroma, effects on the
nervous system and cerebral functions, and effects on genes, cell
stress proteins and the immune system. In this context, it has been
observed for instance that radio frequency exposure can cause inflammatory
and allergic reactions and impair the immune function even at levels
well below the norms of exposure for the public.
49. A major programme of research into the specific features of
these effects such as genotoxicity of waves (REFLEX programme),
funded by the European Commission and involving 12 European research
teams, was launched and the results were made public in December
2004. The conclusions of the report were disturbing on several counts
as the results bore out genotoxic effects of mobile telephone waves,
and in particular greater frequency of chromosomal deletions and
breakup of DNA molecules in different types of cultivated human
and animal cells. In addition, stress protein synthesis was greatly
increased and gene expression was modified in various types of cells.
50. Concerning the Interphone study, the biggest epidemiological
survey was carried out on mobile phone users and their exposure
to glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma and tumours of the parotid
gland after protracted use of their mobile telephones. The partial
early results published on 18 May 2010 by IARC more than ten years
after the commencement of the study pointed to profound disagreement
between the different teams of researchers (16 teams from 13 countries)
over the interpretation of these results. The study co-ordinator,
Ms Elisabeth Cardis, summed up a kind of compromise by saying that
the study did not reveal an increased risk, but one could not conclude
that there was no risk because there were sufficient results suggesting
a possible risk. Indeed, some results show that lasting intensive
use very significantly increases the risks of glioma (40% and even
96% looking at ipsilateral use, that is to say where the glioma
has appeared at the side of the head to which the telephone was
held) and the meningioma risks (15%; 45% for ipsilateral use).
51. The rapporteur feels that one of this epidemiological study’s
principal weaknesses lies in the fact that the period of mobile
phone use analysed, extending until the early years of the 21st
century, is probably too short at less than 10 years to reach conclusive
results given the period of latency and growth of cerebral tumours.
In fact, ionising radiation (radioactivity) is recognised as a cause
of brain cancer, but cases due to radioactivity rarely become apparent
before 10 or 20 years of exposure.
52. The Interphone study, performed solely on adults, nevertheless
raises serious speculation as to what will happen, after 15 or 20
years of intensive use, to the young adults, teenagers or even children
who are currently the biggest users and in whom absorption of the
radiation is still greater and more problematic.
53. The rapporteur would like to emphasise another side of the
potential risks: while attention is focused at present on the radiation
from mobile phones, and while he appeals for the wisest possible
use of this device, by children and young people especially, it
is inescapable that for some years there have been many other sources
of electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies.
54. Whether outside or inside offices and dwellings, we are now
exposed to a whole variety of electromagnetic frequencies on top
of the chemical pollutants in the air that we breathe or accumulated
in the food chain. Outdoors or indoors, we encounter the electromagnetic
fields or the radio frequencies of the (nearby) electric power lines
and of the base stations of GSM, UMTS and WiFi relay antennas or
of, for example, radio or radar stations. Besides these, inside
offices or private residences there is very often the radiation
of cordless telephones (DECT), baby phones and other devices of
wireless technology.
55. What is more, industrialists seek a further expansion of mobile
telephony infrastructures for hosting the fourth generation (4G)
facility with the intention of delivering a secure, comprehensive
broadband mobile system for the cordless modems of laptop computers,
“smart” mobile phones and other portable backup devices for broadband
mobile Internet access, games services, etc.
56. In Israel, the ministries concerned (environment, health,
communication) fall back on the application of the precautionary
principle, opposing the introduction of these new infrastructures
on the grounds that the effects of the irradiations should be verified
before authorising new systems.
57. A question that always strongly arouses the European populations
is the problem of where base stations and relay antennas are sited.
In parallel to certain local or regional studies (mainly Swiss and
German), describing the advent of health problems in farm animals
after the installation of mobile telephone relay antennas near some
farms, describing unaccountable problems of infertility, deformity,
cataracts, etc., certain local or regional epidemiological studies,
carried out by groups of scientists and doctors, have succeeded
in also showing certain disease symptoms in residents of districts
or villages near relay antennas installed a few months or years
ago. These local studies were carried out in France, Germany, Switzerland,
Austria, etc.
58. According to these epidemiological and also partly clinical
studies, symptoms of sleeping disorders, headaches, blood pressure
problems, dizziness, skin trouble and allergies appeared or increased
some time after relay antennas were commissioned or their beams
intensified. by raising the number or the power of the antennas.
The scientific value of such local studies is regularly queried
by the operators and very often the security and regulatory bodies
too, and so a most recent study released early in 2011 in a German
medical publication (Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 1/2011) is nonetheless
worthwhile and revealing, although the number of participants in
the study (60 persons) remains quite small. These persons, from
the locality of Rimbach in Bavaria, underwent analysis before a
new relay antenna base station came into service in January 2004,
then afterwards in July 2004, January 2005 and July 2005. In this
study, as in similar epidemiological studies, the symptoms that
increased or became aggravated after the station began operating
were sleep disorders, headaches, allergies, dizziness, and concentration
problems.
59. Doctors and scientists measured and determined significant
changes in concentrations of stress-related and other hormones in
urine samples. There was a significant increase of adrenalin and
noradrenalin over several months and a significant reduction of
dopamine and phenylethylamine (PEA), changes indicating a state
of chronic stress which, according to the authors of the study,
caused the aforesaid heightened symptoms. The authors correlate
the lowered PEA levels with impaired attention and hyperactivity
in children, disorders which significantly increased in Germany
from 1990 to 2004.
60. Here, too, the rapporteur stresses that some people may be
more sensitive than others to electromagnetic radiation or waves.
The research performed, for instance, by Professor Dominique Belpomme, President
of the Association for Research on Treatments Against Cancer (ARTAC),
on more than 200 people describing themselves as “electrosensitive”
succeeded, with corroborative results of clinical and biological analyses,
in proving that there was such a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic
fields across the whole spectrum of frequencies. According to these
results, not only proximity to the sources of electromagnetic emissions
was influential, but also the time of exposure and often concomitant
exposure to chemicals or to (heavy) metals present in human tissues.
In this context, Sweden has granted sufferers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity
the status of persons with reduced capacity so that they receive
suitable protection.
61. In connection with the proven or potential risks of electromagnetic
fields, it should also be noted that after a Lloyd’s report, insurance
companies tended to withhold coverage for risks linked with electromagnetic
fields under civil liability policies, in the same way as, for example,
genetically modified organisms or asbestos, which is hardly reassuring
given the potential risks that stem from these electromagnetic fields.
62. Finally, the rapporteur wonders whether it might not be expedient
and innovative to try and develop new wireless communication technologies,
equally powerful but more energy-efficient and above all less problematic
in terms of the environment and health than the present microwave-based
wireless communication. Systems such as optical or optoelectronic
communication technologies employing visible and infrared light
are reportedly being developed in the United States and Japan and
could largely replace the present technologies. Should such changes
in transmission and communication systems prove realistic, it would
then be a case of technological and economic innovations not to
be missed or obstructed.
10. Conclusions
63. The potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic
fields on the environment and human health have not yet been fully
elucidated and a number of scientific uncertainties continue to
exist in that regard. Nevertheless, anxieties and fears over the
health hazards posed by the waves remain in wide sectors of the
population, as do the demands voiced by high-level scientists, by
groupings of doctors and by the associations of concerned citizens
which abound in many Council of Europe member states.
64. The precautionary principle and the right to a healthy environment,
particularly on behalf of children and future generations, must
be key factors in all economic, technological and social development
of society. In that regard, the Parliamentary Assembly has decided
on several previous occasions (see Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment
and health: better prevention of environment-related health hazards
and Recommendation 1959
(2011) on preventive health care policies in the Council
of Europe member states) that coherent, effective preventive measures
must be taken to protect the environment and human health.
65. After analysing the scientific studies available to date,
and also following the hearings for expert opinions organised in
the context of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and
Local and Regional Affairs, there is sufficient evidence of potentially
harmful effects of electromagnetic fields on fauna, flora and human health
to react and to guard against potentially serious environmental
and health hazards.
66. That was moreover already the case in 1999 and 2009 when the
European Parliament overwhelmingly passed resolutions upholding
the precautionary principle and efficient preventive actions vis-à-vis
the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields, in particular by
substantially lowering the exposure thresholds for workers and the
general public according to the ALARA principle, by restoring genuine
independence of research in that field, and through a policy of
enhanced information and transparency towards the anxious populations
(see European Parliament Resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns
associated with electromagnetic fields, 2008/2211 INI).
67. Lastly, the Assembly could endorse the analyses and warnings
issued first in September 2007, then in September 2009, by the European
Environment Agency (EEA), concerning the health hazards of electromagnetic
fields, mobile telephony and not least mobile phones. According
to the EEA, there are sufficient signs or levels of scientific evidence
of harmful biological effects to invoke the application of the precautionary
principle and of effective, urgent preventive measures.