Mobilize Official Trailer #2 (2014)
Pubblicato il 30 lug 2014
Mobilize is a documentary on cell phone radiation and the long-term health effects on the brain and body: http://www.mobilizemovie.com
Tag: telefono cellulare
Mobile devices could harm kids
12 ottobre 2015 – “in-cyprus.com”
[Il Comitato Nazionale di Cipro per l’Ambiente e la Salute del Bambino (ECH) dice di preferir peccare di eccesso di cautela piuttosto che rischiare seri danni a feti e bambini, e avverte il pubblico che l’uso di dispositivi mobili potrebbe essere potenzialmente dannoso per questi soggetti ancor più che per gli adulti.]
The Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Child Health (ECH) says it wants to err on the side of caution, warning the public that using mobile devices could be potentially harmful to children.
According to World Health Organisation, electromagnetic radiation transmitted from mobile and hand-held devices, such as smartphones, tablets and Wi-Fi gadgets, are considered to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on a WHO decision in 2011.
But Stella Michaelidou, President of the ECH, takes it a step further suggesting that more studies keep pointing to other possible harmful effects and society should respond by taking precautions.
“Documentation of other potential and more serious biological side effects are on the tip of an emerging iceberg,” she said.
Michaelidou cited studies that point to a lower safety threshold than the officially accepted, referring to the acceptable index for transmission of radio frequencies known as the ICNIRP index (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection).
She said multiple and frequent exposure to this kind of radiation, which falls below the acceptable levels of thermal effects, pose a health risk to a developing embryo.
Michaelidou also said that children who use their mobile phone more frequently face a higher risk at having a weaker memory, attention deficit disorder, and similar issues.
The official also admitted that a big segment of the scientific community does not agree with the elevated risk, which suggests that current safety levels are adequate.
The WHO does not have information of additional side effects than the ones made known officially. However, the orgnisation agrees that “potential harmful effects, when discovered, would be far greater and more serious for an embryo or young child compared to adults”.
Michaelidou insists that precaution is the best method to protect children from any potential health hazards.
Fonte:
Tinnitus and cell phones: the role of electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation
[Il seguente studio ha evidenziato che le emissioni dei telefoni cellulari provocano dimostrati effetti termogenici e potenziali effetti biologici e genotossici.
Alcuni individui sono più sensibili all’esposizione a questi campi elettromagnetici in alta frequenza (Elettrosensibili), e, quindi, presentano più precocemente i sintomi.
Può esserci un processo patofisiologico comune tra Elettrosensibilità e tinnito.
Si conclude che esistono già prove ragionevoli per suggerire cautela nell’utilizzo dei telefoni cellulari, al fine di evitare danni uditivi nonchè l’insorgenza o il peggioramento del tinnito.]
1808-8694/© 2015 Associac¸ão Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.
All rights reserved.
By:
Luisa Nascimento Medeiros (a,b), Tanit Ganz Sanchez (b,c)
(a) Department of Otolaryngology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
(b) Association for Interdisciplinary Research and Divulgation of Tinnitus, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
(c) Faculdade de Medicina, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
ARTICLE INFO
Article history
Received: 20 December 2014
Accepted: 17 April 2015
Keywords
Cellular phone
Electromagnetic radiation
Tinnitus
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition and its prevalence has increased on the pastdecades. The worldwide progressive increase of the use of cell phones has exposed the peripheral auditory pathways to a higher dose of electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation (EMRFR).
Some tinnitus patients report that the abusive use of mobiles, especially when repeated in thesame ear, might worsen ipsilateral tinnitus.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the available evidence about the possible causal association between tinnitus and exposure to electromagnetic waves.
Methods: A literature review was performed searching for the following keywords: tinnitus,electromagnetic field, mobile phones, radio frequency, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
We selected 165 articles that were considered clinically relevant in at least one of the subjects.
Results: EMRFR can penetrate exposed tissues and safety exposure levels have been established. These waves provoke proved thermogenic effects and potential biological and genotoxic effects. Some individuals are more sensitive to electromagnetic exposure (electrosensitivity),and thus, present earlier symptoms. There may be a common pathophysiology between this electrosensitivity and tinnitus.
Conclusion: There are already reasonable evidences to suggest caution for using mobile phones to prevent auditory damage and the onset or worsening of tinnitus.
Fonte:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1808869415001639#item1
Versione PDF integrale scaricabile al seguente link:
Mobilfunk: Brustkrebs, Impotenz und verkrüppelte Tiere
[Le terribili condizioni di vita degli abitanti di Volturino (FG) a causa dello spaventoso inquinamento elettromagnetico generato da una moltitudine di ripetitori siti in prossimità del paese, raccontate nel servizio di una tv tedesca.]
Caricato il 06 mar 2011
Bürgerinitiative in Italien in dem verstrahltesten Dorf Voltorino
Weitere Details zum Thema Mobilfunk unter http://www.ulrichweiner.de
Is cell phone radiation actually dangerous? We asked an expert
21 Aprile 2015 – “www.digitaltrends.com”, by Simon Hill
“It’s looking increasingly likely that cellular phones (mostly smartphones these days) are harmful in terms of cancer risk, particularly to the head and neck,” says Joel M. Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley. “A lot of scientists have come round to the view that radiofrequency radiation is probably carcinogenic because of new research that has emerged since 2011.”
That was the year the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” A panel of 31 expert scientists from 14 different countries concluded radiofrequency radiation, which is emitted by cell phones and other wireless communication devices should be placed in Group 2B alongside a fairly long list of other substances that includes lead, coffee, nickel, and gasoline.
But is it really so dangerous? Despite the passionate views espoused by many experts, others are confident that the risk is overblown, or at least reluctant to push for sweeping societal changes. So should you be afraid, or gab away as usual? We asked a few experts to find out the truth.
Independent studies are showing danger
Cell phone emissions were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” based on an increased risk of glioma, which is the most common form of brain cancer, but they were also strongly linked with another type of tumor, benign acoustic neuromas. A lot of the available evidence back in 2011 came from a series of studies known as the Interphone studies, which were partly funded by the wireless communications industry.
“I’ve been tracking the research for five years now and the evidence of the effect is growing stronger,” Moskowitz told Digital Trends. “This is perhaps in part because the new studies are independent, not funded by the wireless industry.”
Back in 2006, Henry Lai, a professor at the University of Washington analyzed all available studies on cell phone radiation from 1990 to 2006. He found that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation, but when he divided them into independently funded studies and those funded by the wireless industry he found the split was 70 – 30.
“Even if you accept all the industry studies, you still end up with 50-50,” Lai told Seattle Mag in 2011. “How could 50 percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement ‘hundreds of studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found’ — but this is a very misleading statement.”
Another potentially telling revelation is that the industry can’t get product liability insurance for mobile devices. Some people within the insurance industry feel that there’s a real risk of a wave of lawsuits related to brain tumors and other conditions caused by cell phones over the next couple of decades. Insurance giant the Swiss Re Group included “unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields” in its Emerging Risk Insights report.
“Governments are flying blind on this, they’re either ignorant or they’re in denial,” Moskowitz says. “In part it’s ignorance, but in part they’re getting pressure from an industry that dwarfs big tobacco. It’s just too profitable, about a sixth of your cell phone bill in the U.S. goes to government in fees or taxes.”
Do we all have our heads in the sand? This is a controversial topic and it’s hard to get definitive answers. We decided to speak to Dr. Kurt Straif, Head of the World Health Organization program that classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” back in 2011. And in Straif’s eyes, the situation is far muddier.
“We don’t know for sure if it’s causing cancer or not.”
“We’ve done almost 1,000 different agent assessments,” Dr. Straif told Digital Trends, “and this is probably the most heated controversy in terms of strong believers — scientists in the field that say we already know it’s causing cancer to the other extreme that says every additional cent spent on research is wasted because we know it can never cause cancer.”
The IARC Monographs program Straif headed up was formed with the backing of the World Health Organization and the United Nations, at the request of member states looking to identify substances and circumstances that are known to cause cancer in humans, and to make that information available for cancer prevention.
An independent advisory group suggests topics and the Monographs group decides what to pursue. It gathers all the published research, identifies the best experts in the world for each topic, and they draft working papers, and then there is an 8 day meeting to classify each possible carcinogen and create a volume of Monographs.
“The Monographs are the most authoritative program in cancer-hazard identification, running for the longest time, looking at all types of environmental exposure, but also known for being the strongest program in terms of a very strict policy to exclude conflicts of interest,” Straif explains. “Scientists with a link to industry, or on the other hand, scientists with a very strong link to advocacy groups, would not be eligible to serve on the working group.”
He points out that, though the Interphone study was partly funded by industry, there was a very strict firewall in place overseen by the Union for International Cancer Control.
“I did not sense any strong orchestrated efforts by industry to influence the outcome of the 2011 meeting,” he told us.
We can safely say that the IARC group is impartial. It’s no stranger to controversy and it does not bend to big business. Take for example the recent classification of glyphosate — the main chemical in the pesticide Roundup — as “probably carcinogenic,” a move that incurred the wrath of Monsanto, the pesticide’s maker. Glyphosate is in group 2A, which is still one step down from Group 1, “carcinogenic to humans.” Radiofrequency EMF radiation was placed in Group 2B, largely based on cell phone studies. So what does the “possibly carcinogenic” classification actually mean?
“It means that there is scientific evidence, in this case limited evidence from the human studies, that it could cause cancer in humans,” says Straif. “There is also limited evidence from animal studies, and there is weak mechanistic data. These three things together result in the evaluation of possibly carcinogenic.”
There is currently no firm plan to reassess radiofrequency EMF radiation, but Dr. Straif says it is on the radar, and if important new evidence was to emerge, the IARC Monographs group could make it a priority.
“Knowing about the studies that have been published since 2011, I think that the epidemiological evidence is still limited,” says Straif, making it clear that this is his personal opinion and not that of the IARC group. “It has not changed in the one or the other direction. There are lots of different scientific groups out there. Some think with the new publications that the human evidence is now sufficient to result in a Group 1 classification as a known human carcinogen. I don’t think these studies would change the current overall evaluation of 2B.”
Articolo originale al seguente link:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/can-cell-phones-cause-brain-cancer/
Elettrosmog e disturbi cognitivi
[Video in Inglese con sottotitoli in Italiano non corretto ma comunque comprensibili.]
Pubblicato il 02 giu 2012
Intervista alla dott.ssa Adamantia F. Fragopoulou dell’Università di Atene sui suoi ultimi studi in merito agli effetti dei Campi Elettromagnetici.
La scienziata spiega come siano stati riscontrati disturbi nella memoria spaziale, di riconoscimento e di lavoro nei topi esposti alle microonde di cellulari, Wi-Fi, telefoni cordless e altre fonti di Elettrosmog.
La stessa scienziata consiglia di avere prudenza con queste tecnologie per evitare problemi di salute (disturbi di memoria, disturbi del sonno, cefalea, ecc. fino a danni organici seri come il cancro).
Viene anche segnalata la situazione di criticità per professioni a rischio come piloti di aereo e controllori aerei, che costituisce un pericolo nell’ambito delle operazioni aeree.
Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations
[Storica e fondamentale review che acclara il legame tra esposizione alle radiazioni emesse dalle stazioni radio-base di telefonia mobile e gli effetti biologico/sanitari sulla popolazione esposta, sino ad un raggio di 500 metri.
Elettrosensibilità e neoplasie sono le patologie correlate.]
INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH 2010;16:263–267
By:
VINI G. KHURANA, LENNART HARDELL, JORIS EVERAERT, ALICJA BORTKIEWICZ, MICHAEL CARLBERG, MIKKO AHONEN
Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching PubMed, we identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies of longterm mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more definitively understand its health impact. Key words: base stations; electromagnetic field (EMF); epidemiology; health effects; mobile phone; radiofrequency (RF); electromagnetic radiation.
INTRODUCTION
Mobile phone base stations are now found ubiquitously in communities worldwide. They are frequently found near or on shops, homes, schools, daycare centers, and hospitals (Figure 1). The radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation from these base stations is regarded as being low power; however, their output is continuous. (1) This raises the question as to whether the health of people residing or working in close proximity to base stations is at any risk.
METHODS
By searching PubMed and using keywords such as base station, mast, electromagnetic field (EMF), radiofrequency (RF), epidemiology, health effects, mobile phone, and cell phone, and by searching the references of primary sources, we were able to find only 10 human population studies from seven countries that examined the health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of the studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral symptoms via population-based questionnaires; the other three retrospectively explored the association between base station proximity and cancer via medical records. A meta-analysis based on this literature is not possible due to differences in study design, statistical measures/risk estimates, exposure categories, and endpoints/outcomes. The 10 studies are therefore summarized in chronological order (Table 1).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We found epidemiological studies pertaining to the health effects of mobile phone base station RF emissions to be quite consistent in pointing to a possible adverse health impact. Eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. The studies by Navarro et al., (2) Santini et al., (3) Gadzicka et al., (4) and Hutter et al. (5) reported differences in the distance-dependent prevalence of symptoms such as headache, impaired concentration, and irritability, while Abdel-Rassoul et al. (6) also found lower cognitive performance in individuals living ≤ 10 meters from base stations compared with the more distant control group. The studies by Eger et al. (7) and Wolf and Wolf (8) reported increased incidence of cancer in persons living for several years < 400 meters from base stations. By contrast, the large retrospective study by Meyer et al. (9) found no increased incidence of cancer near base stations in Bavaria. Blettner et al. (10) reported in Phase 1 of their study that more health problems were found closer to base stations, but in Phase 2 (11) concluded that measured EMF emissions were not related to adverse health effects (Table 1).
Each of the 10 studies reviewed by us had various strengths and limitations as summarized in Table 1. Pertaining to those base station studies in which EMF measurements were not carried out, (3,4,7,9) it should be noted that distance is not the most suitable classifier for exposure to RF-EMF. Antennae numbers and configurations, as well as the absorption and reflection of their fields by houses, trees, or other geographic hindrances may influence the exposure level. Further, self-estimation of distance to nearest base station is not the best predictor of exposure since the location of the closest base station is not always known. Such exposure misclassification inevitably biases any association towards null. Multiple testing might also produce spurious results if not adjusted for, (3,5) as might failure to adjust for participant age and gender. (7) Latency is also an important consideration in the context of cancer incidence following or during a putative environmental exposure. In this regard, the study by Meyer et al. (9) found no association between mobile phone base station exposure and cancer incidence, but had a relatively limited observation period of only two years. On the other hand, the studies by Eger et al. (7) and Wolf and Wolf8 found a significant association between mobile phone base station exposure and increased cancer incidence, although the approximate five-year latency between base station exposure and cancer diagnosis Other problems in several population-based questionnaires are the potential for bias, especially selection (8) and participation (2,3,5,6,11) biases, and self-reporting of outcomes in combination with the exposure assessment methods used. For example, regarding limitations in exposure assessment, in a large two-phase base station study from Germany,(12,13) of the Phase 1 participants (n = 30,047), only 1326 (4.4%) participated with a single “spot” EMF measurement recorded in the bedroom for Phase 2. Further, health effect contributions from all relevant EMF sources and other non-EMF environmental sources need to be taken into account. (12) We acknowledgethat participant concern instead of exposure could be the triggering factor of adverse health effects, however this “nocebo effect” does not appear to fully explain the findings. (4,5) Further, the biological relevance of the overall adverse findings (Table 1) is supported by the fact that some of the symptoms in these base-station studies have also been reported among mobile phone users, such as headaches, concentration difficulties, and sleep disorders. (13,14) Finally, none of the studies that found adverse health effects of base stations reported RF exposures above accepted international guidelines, the implication being that if such findings continue to be reproduced, current exposure standards are inadequate in protecting human populations. (15)
CONCLUSIONS
Despite variations in the design, size and quality of these studies as summarized in Table 1, it is the consistency of the base-station epidemiological literature from several countries that we find striking. In particular, the increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations found in 80% of the available studies. It should be pointed out that the overall findings of health problems associated with base stations might be based on methodological weaknesses, especially since exposure to RF electromagnetic radiation was not always measured.
There are some proposed mechanisms via which low-intensity EMF might affect animal and human health, (16,17) but full comprehensive mechanisms still remain to be determined. (18,19) Despite this, the accumulating epidemiological literature pertaining to the health effects of mobile phones (13,20) and their base stations (Table 1) suggests that previous exposure standards based on the thermal effects of EMF should no longer be regarded as tenable. In August 2007, an international working group of scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals (the BioInitiative Working Group) released its report on EMF and health. (21) It raised evidence-based concerns about the safety of existing public limits that regulate how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cellular phones, base stations, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The BioInitiative Report (21) provided detailed scientific information on health impacts when people were exposed to electromagnetic radiation hundreds or even thousands of times below limits currently established by the FCC and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in Europe (ICNIRP). The authors reviewed more than 2000 scientific studies and reviews, and have concluded that: (1) the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health; and (2) from a public health policy standpoint, new public safety limits and limits on further deployment of risky technologies are warranted based on the total weight of evidence. (21) A precautionary limit of 1 mW/m2 (0.1 microW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m) was suggested in Section 17 of the BioInitiative Report to be adopted for outdoor, cumulative RF exposure. (21) This limit is a cautious approximation based on the results of several human RF-EMF studies in which no substantial adverse effects on well being were found at low exposures akin to power densities of less than 0.5 – 1 mW/m2.2,5,22–26 RF-EMF exposure at distances > 500 m from the types of mobile phone base stations reviewed herein should fall below the precautionary limit of 0.614 V/m.
References
(1) Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Cell phones and brain tumors: A review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol. 2009;72:205-214.
(2) Navarro EA, Segura J, Portolés M, Gómez-Perretta C. The microwave syndrome: A preliminary study in Spain. Electromag Biol Med. 2003;22:161–169.
(3) Santini R, Santini P, Le Ruz P, Danze JM, Seigne M. Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations. Electromag Biol Med. 2003;22:41-49.
(4) Gadzicka E, Bortkiewicz A, Zmyslony M, Szymczak W, Szyjkowska A. Assessment of subjective complaints reported by
people living near mobile phone base stations [Abstract]. Biuletyn PTZE Warszawa. 2006;14:23-26.
(5) Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in
subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:307-313.
(6) Abdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A, Farahat F, El-Batanouny M, Salem E. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology. 2007;28:434-440.
(7) Eger H, Hagen KU, Lucas B, Vogel P, Voit H. Einfluss der raumlichen nahe von mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die krebsinzidenz. [The influence of being physically near to a cell phone transmission mast on the incidence of cancer]. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft. 2004;17:326-332.
(8) Wolf R, Wolf D. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station. Int J Cancer Prev. 2004;1:123-128.
(9) Meyer M, Gartig-Daugs A, Radespiel-Troger M. Cellular telephone relay stations and cancer incidence. Umweltmed Forsch Prax. 2006;11:89-97.
(10) Blettner M, Schlehofer B, Breckenkamp J, Kowall B, Schmiedel S, Reis U, Potthoff P, Schüz J, Berg-Beckhoff G. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: Phase 1 of a populationbased, cross-sectional study in Germany. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66:118-123.
(11) Berg-Beckhoff G, Blettner M, Kowall B, Breckenkamp J, Schlehofer B, Schmiedel S, Bornkessel C, Reis U, Potthoff P, Schüz J. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: Phase 2 of a cross-sectional study with measured radio
frequency electromagnetic fields. Occup Environ Med. 2009; 66:124-130.
(12) Neubauer G, Feychting M, Hamnerius Y, Kheifets L, Kuster N, Ruiz I, Schüz J, Uberbacher R, Wiart J, Röösli M. Feasibility of future epidemiological studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28:224-230.
(13) Khan MM. Adverse effects of excessive mobile phone us. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2008;21:289-293.
(14) Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Use of wireless telephones and self-reported health symptoms: A population-based study among Swedish adolescents aged 15-19 years. Environ Health 2008;7:18.
(15) Hardell L, Sage C. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmacother. 2008;62:104-109.
(16) Salford LG, Nittby H, Brun A, Grafström G, Malmgren L, Sommarin M, Eberhardt J, Widegren B, Persson BRR. The mammalian brain in the electromagnetic fields designed by man with special reference to blood-brain barrier function, neuronal damage and possible physical mechanisms. Prog Theor Phys Suppl. 2008;173:283-309.
(17) Sheppard AR, Swicord ML, Balzano Q. Quantitative evaluations of mechanisms of radiofrequency interactions with biological molecules and processes. Health Phys. 2008;95:365-396.
(18) Khurana VG. Cell phone and DNA story overlooked studies. Science. 2008;322:1325.
(19) Yang Y, Jin X, Yan C, Tian Y, Tang J, Shen X. Case-only study of interactions between DNA repair genes (hMLH1, APEX1, MGMT, XRCC1 and XPD) and low-frequency electromagnetic fields in childhood acute leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008; 49:2344-2350.
(20) Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson Mild K. Metaanalysis of long-term mobile phone users and the association with brain tumours. Int J Oncol. 2008;32:1097-1103.
(21) Sage C, Carpenter D, eds. BioInitiative Report: A rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF) [Internet]. 2007 [cited April 3, 2009]. Available from: http://www.bioinitiative.org.
(22) Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations – Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiol. 2009;16:123-35.
(23) Henrich S, Ossig A, Schlittmeier S, Hellbrück J. Elektromagnetische Felder einer UMTS-Mobilfunkbasisstation und
mögliche Auswirkungen auf die Befindlichkeit—eine experimentelle Felduntersuchung [Electromagnetic fields of a UMTS
mobile phone base station and possible effects on health – results from an experimental field study]. Umwelt Med Forsch Prax. 2007;12:171-180.
(24) Thomas S, Kühnlein A, Heinrich S, Praml G, Nowak D, von Kries R, Radon K. Personal exposure to mobile phone frequencies and well-being in adults: A cross-sectional study based on dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008;29:463-470.
(25) Zwamborn APM, Vossen SHJA, van Leersum BJAM, Ouwens MA, Makel WN. Effects of global communication system radiofrequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints. Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Physics and Electronics Laboratory: The Hague, Netherlands, 2003.
(26) Regel SJ, Negovetic S, Röösli M, Berdinas V, Schuderer J, Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, Achermann P. UMTS base station like exposure, well being and cognitive performance. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:1270-1275.
Versione PDF integrale scaricabile al seguente link:
Cell Phone Technology Disrupts Brain Activity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOq5SW8hA00
Pubblicato il 15 set 2015
From: https://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica
September 15, 2015 – A new study is claiming that cellphone usage disrupts electrical activity in the brain. RT’s Lindsay France has the details of the potential effects of a mere fifteen minute phone call.
Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/
Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America
PigmineNews.com: http://www.pigminenews.com
PigmineNews on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PigMineNews
PigmineNews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/PigmineNews
PigMine2 on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/PigMine2/videos
FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.
L’uso dei telefoni cellulari è pericoloso per la salute?
16 aprile 2014 – “www.scienzaeconoscenza.it”, a cura di Valerio Pignatta
L’elettrosmog e l’elettrosensibilità: i danni dei telefoni cellulari per la nostra salute
Utilizzare il telefono cellulare per diverso tempo al giorno fa davvero male?
Abitare nei pressi di un elettrodotto è un pericolo per la salute?
Le leggi italiane ci tutelano dall’inquinamento elettromagnetico?
Quali sono i sintomi della sindrome da Elettrosensibilità?
Per rispondere a queste e altre domande abbiamo intervistato Angelo Gino Levis, già professore ordinario di mutagenesi ambientale all’Università di Padova, attualmente esperto di inquinamento elettromagnetico e vice presidente dell’Associazione per la Prevenzione e la Lotta all’Elettrosmog (applelettrosmog.it).
Se dovesse definire la situazione dell’elettrosmog oggi nel nostro paese cosa potrebbe dire? Come siamo messi?
In Italia, tra la fine degli anni ’90 e i primi anni 2000, le leggi – sia nazionali che regionali – sul controllo della nocività dei campi elettromagnetici non-ionizzanti (CEM) erano sufficientemente cautelative. In particolare nelle leggi regionali i limiti di esposizione allora fissati, improntati al Principio di Precauzione che fa parte della nostra Costituzione, erano: 0,2 microTesla (µT) per il campo magnetico prodotto dai CEM a frequenza estremamente bassa (ELF: linee per il trasporto dell’energia elettrica e strumenti elettrici per uso domestico e industriale) e 0,5 Volt/metro (V/m) per il campo elettrico dei CEM a frequenza alta (RF, radiofrequenze: impianti radio-TV) e altissima (MO, microonde: telefoni mobili – cellulari e cordless, radar, forni a microonde).
A partire dal 2003, per la pressione dei gestori delle linee elettriche (elettrodotti) e delle compagnie di telefonia cellulare, queste leggi sono state cancellate o, comunque, rese meno cautelative: i limiti regionali sono stati dichiarati incompatibili con quelli fissati per tutto il territorio nazionale dalla sentenza n.307 del 7.10.03 della Corte Costituzionale, ed i nuovi limiti sono stati fissati dal DPCM 8.7.03 a 3-10-100 µT per i CEM/ELF, a seconda dei tempi di esposizione e della tipologia degli elettrodotti, e a 6-20 V/m per i CEM/RF-MO.
Inoltre le procedure per l’installazione degli impianti che emettono CEM sono state liberalizzate al massimo e, di recente, anche le metodologie di controllo dell’intensità delle esposizioni sono state modificate in modo da permettere un ulteriore innalzamento dei limiti, a scapito della salute.
Lei pensa che l’inconcludenza dei nostri legislatori di fronte alle problematiche legate a questo tipo di inquinamento sia ascrivibile alla mancanza di fonti scientifiche a comprova dei vari danni psicofisici che esso causa alle persone e delle diverse sensibilità degli individui all’esposizione a fonti elettromagnetiche? Oppure questi studi ci sono?
Le conoscenze sugli effetti dannosi dei CEM erano già sufficienti alla fine del secolo scorso per imporre la minimizzazione delle esposizioni e si sono consolidate al punto che l’OMS, tramite l’Agenzia internazionale per la ricerca sul cancro (IARC) di Lione, ha classificato i CEM a bassissima frequenza (ELF), con riferimento specifico alle leucemie infantili nelle esposizioni residenziali ad elettrodotti (2002), ed i CEM a radiofrequenza, con specifico riferimento all’aumento del rischio di contrarre tumori cerebrali e al nervo acustico da parte degli utilizzatori abituali e da lungo tempo di telefoni cellulari (2011) come “possibili agenti cancerogeni per l’uomo”. Ma questa è senza dubbio una sottovalutazione dei dati disponibili che avrebbero richiesto un giudizio di “probabile anziché possibile cancerogenicità”. Sottovalutazione dovuta soprattutto ai conflitti d’interesse che hanno pesato su più del 60% dei partecipanti ai due Gruppi di valutazione della IARC sui CEM. Nonostante queste valutazioni suggeriscano comunque un atteggiamento prudenziale, le nostre Autorità Sanitarie (ministero della Salute, Consiglio superiore di sanità, Istituto superiore di sanità, Commissione oncologica nazionale) hanno continuato a negare l’esistenza di rischi per la salute provocati dai CEM. Solo nell’ottobre 2012 il ministero della Salute ha attivato un sito Internet dove chi ne è informato può trovare alcuni consigli, comunque incompleti e in parte contraddittori, per una autotutela lasciata alla libera scelta degli utilizzatori di telefoni cellulari.
Cosa so può dire sulla telefonia cellulare? Spesso leggiamo informazioni sanitarie in merito molto contrastanti…
Singoli studi epidemiologici e loro rianalisi cumulative finanziate da enti pubblici e basate su metodologie corrette, analisi statistiche dei dati e interpretazioni coerenti, hanno evidenziato un aumento fino al raddoppio del rischio di contrarre tumori maligni al cervello, tumori benigni alle meningi e ai nervi cranici, in particolare all’acustico, e tumori maligni e benigni alle ghiandole salivari, in particolare alla parotide, tra quanti hanno utilizzato abitualmente (più di 40 minuti/giorno) e da o per lungo tempo (più di 10 anni) telefoni mobili (cellulari e/o cordless). Per contro, studi cofinanziati dalle compagnie di telefonia cellulare, basati su protocolli inadeguati ed errori sostanziali, dati insufficienti e interpretazioni incoerenti, sostengono l’apparente innocuità dell’uso dei cellulari. Di conseguenza, l’opinione pubblica, informata in modo contraddittorio tramite la stampa e in maniera del tutto tranquillizzante dai responsabili della salute pubblica (v. sopra), resta confusa e, nel dubbio, per abitudine e comodità è portata a sottovalutare i rischi e a non utilizzare alcune semplici norme di autotutela per ridurre l’esposizione durante l’uso dei cellulari, neppure per quanto riguarda l’uso da parte dei bambini e degli adolescenti, che sono tra i soggetti più a rischio. Comunque qualcosa ha cominciato a muoversi dopo la trasmissione “Report” su RAI3 (novembre 2011) e dopo che nell’ottobre 2012 la suprema Corte di Cassazione italiana ha definitivamente convalidato la sentenza della Corte d’Appello di Brescia che nel 2009 aveva riconosciuto le tesi dei due consulenti di parte ricorrente (un oncologo e il sottoscritto) e del consulente nominato dal Tribunale stesso, basate sui dati epidemiologici di cui sopra e aveva sancito la relazione causale tra uso di cellulari e cordless e sviluppo di un tumore al nervo trigemino in un dirigente d’azienda. Pertanto, avendo classificato questo caso come dovuto ad una malattia professionale, la Corte aveva condannato l’Ente previdenziale (INAIL) a risarcire all’interessato il danno alla salute per una invalidità dell’80%.
C’è di peggio della telefonia in quanto a inquinamento elettromagnetico?
Nonostante i rischi cancerogeni dovuti ai CEM/ELF (elettrodotti, v. sopra) siano documentati nella letteratura e più volte riconosciuti dalla nostra Magistratura Civile di ogni ordine e grado, è oggi praticamente impossibile quantificare tali rischi non essendo nota la numerosità della popolazione esposta. La telefonia mobile, che conta oggi più di 6 miliardi di contratti per i soli cellulari, una parte consistente dei quali riguarda l’uso da parte dei minori che sono tra i maggiori e i più sensibili utilizzatori, rappresenta senza dubbio il settore più a rischio.
Quali sono le patologie caratteristiche di questo tipo di degrado dell’ambiente?
L’inquinamento da CEM (“elettrosmog”) può procurare oltre ad effetti a lungo termine (cancri e tumori, malattie neurodegenerative, danni genetici e funzionali, p. es. agli spermatozoi di chi tiene il cellulare nella tasca dei pantaloni mentre telefona usando gli auricolari), anche danni alla salute a breve e a medio termine che colpiscono alcuni soggetti particolarmente sensibili, dando luogo a sintomatologie dolorose di vario tipo che caratterizzano una sindrome chiamata “Elettrosensibilità”, (ES).
Ci sono soluzioni medico-scientifiche e o socio-ambientali che è possibile realizzare per ovviare a questi problemi di salute? La medicina ufficiale che posizioni ha in merito?
Le “soluzioni” – se così si possono definire – ai danni a lungo termine provocati dai CEM (tumori, cancri, malattie neurodegenerative) sono quelle tradizionali: terapie farmacologiche e radianti, interventi chirurgici, con le conseguenze ed i limiti che queste hanno. Per la ES non sono state trovate finora soluzioni mediche, ma solo socio-ambientali. Dato che molti elettrosensibili sono costretti a lasciare il lavoro e la casa in cui vivono per rifugiarsi in zone meno inquinate dai CEM, in Svezia, dove la ES è riconosciuta come un “handicap”, chi ne è colpito viene favorito nella ricerca di un lavoro e di una casa alternativi. Inoltre sono state create “aree protette”, per esempio mezzi di trasporto e interi quartieri dove sono vietati l’installazione e l’uso di tecnologie ad alta frequenza (ripetitori, cellulari, WiFi ed altro), e anche vere e proprie “aree di rifugio extraurbane”. Purtroppo la medicina ufficiale è poco informata e poco sensibile a questi problemi, e questo rende molto difficile il riconoscimento e l’assistenza a chi è colpito da ES. Tuttavia da qualche tempo alcuni medici in Italia, Francia e Svezia si dedicano alla diagnosi e alla messa a punto di terapie per chi è affetto da ES.
In conclusione, la soluzione ai problemi sanitari creati dall’inquinamento elettromagnetico richiede:
1) una corretta informazione da parte delle Autorità Sanitarie internazionali e nazionali nonché dei medici di base e di specialisti;
2) una informazione capillare sulla indispensabile adozione di adeguate forme volontarie di autotutela; 3) una significativa riduzione dei limiti di esposizione ai CEM per la popolazione generale, per i minori di età e per i lavoratori;
4) lo smascheramento dei conflitti d’interesse.
Per approfondire
Che cos’è l’Elettrosensibilità (ES)
La Elettrosensibilità (ES) consiste in una varietà di disturbi di carattere generale (debolezza, facile esauribilità, sensazione di freddo, malessere indefinito) e che interessano il sistema nervoso (distonia neurovegetativa, disturbi del sonno, perdita della memoria, difficoltà di concentrazione e di apprendimento, depressione, aumento dei tempi di reazione, stress, neurastenia, ansietà, mali di testa, nausea, vertigini, irritabilità), muscolare (crampi, dolori muscolari, astenia, disturbi motori, tremori, rigidità), cardiovascolare (aritmie, disturbi della pressione arteriosa, vasocostrizione dei capillari, ictus cerebrale, vasolabilità cutanea, flebiti e tromboflebiti, cardiopalma), respiratorio (oppressione toracica, respiro corto o irregolare), ormonale e immunitario (riduzione della sintesi di melatonina e di altri ormoni, reazioni autoimmuni, stress ossidativo, ipertiroidismo), scheletrico (dolori e fragilità articolari, ipersensibilità a innesti metallici e a protesi dentarie, artrosi, dolori reumatici), della sfera sessuale, della riproduzione e della gravidanza (perdita della libido, semisterilità, aborti spontanei, minzione frequente, impotenza), del sistema visivo, acustico, olfattivo, digestivo (ipersensibilità alla luce solare, a suoni e ultrasuoni, disturbi uditivi, problemi gastrointestinali) ecc.
Si tratta di sintomi fastidiosi o dolorosi e di veri e propri stati di malattia che tendono ad aggravarsi e a cronicizzare e che comportano, a volte, compromissione o perdita della capacità lavorativa e, in ogni caso, degrado della qualità della vita. Come avviene per molte reazioni a stimoli ambientali mediate dal sistema immunitario – si pensi ad esempio ai fenomeni respiratori provocati da allergie a particolari antigeni, che risentono molto della diversa sensibilità individuale – anche la ES colpisce una particolare frazione della popolazione, sensibile a livelli di esposizione ai CEM anche estremamente bassi, ai quali la maggioranza della popolazione non reagisce. La ES è una patologia in rapida crescita, come dimostrano i dati raccolti soprattutto nei Paesi del Nord-Europa che da tempo censiscono i soggetti che ne sono affetti: l’aumento della popolazione elettrosensibile è esponenziale essendo passato dallo 0,1% nel 1985 al 5% nel 2000 e al 10% nel 2005, con la previsione di poter raggiungere quasi il 50% nel 2020! Negli ultimi anni si sono accumulate molte evidenze sperimentali a supporto della obiettività delle “malattie da elettrosmog” e delle loro possibili basi molecolari, cellulari e funzionali.
Bibliografia e sitografia
European Environment Agency (2013): “Late lessons from early wornings: science, precaution, innovation” (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2).
Bioinitiative, 2 (2013): “A rationale for a biologically-based exposure standards for low-intensity electromagnetic radiation” (www.bioinitiative.org).
Levis, A.G., Gennaro, V., Garbisa, S. (2012): “Business bias as usual: the case of electromagnetic pollution”; in Elsner, W., Frigato, P., Ramazzotti, P. eds: “Social Costs Today. Institutional Analyses of the Present Crises”. Routledge: Frontiers of Political Economy”; Taylor&Francis Group, London and New York: pp 225-268 (www.routledge.com).
Siti Internet
www.applelettrosmog.it
www.elettrosensibili.it
www.microwavenews.com
www.nextup.org
www.europarl.europa.eu
Abbiamo intervistato Angelo Gino Levis
Nato nel 1937, laureato in Biologia nel 1961, Professore Ordinario di Mutagenesi Ambientale nel 1971, membro della Commissione Tossicologica Nazionale (1977-1989), della Commissione Oncologica Nazionale (2007-2008) e del Comitato Scientifico dell’International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE/Italia 2007-2012). Dal pensionamento (1997) si dedica allo studio e alla divulgazione degli effetti nocivi dei CEM. (www.applelettrosmog.it).
Fonte:
http://www.scienzaeconoscenza.it/articolo/telefoni-cellulari-e-salute.php
Does Cell-Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?
24 settembre 2015 – “www.consumerreports.org”, by David Schipper
[L’articolo pone l’accento sulla ormai innegabile esistenza di prove concrete riguardo alla pericolosità dei telefoni mobili, che ancora gli organi preposti alla salvaguardia della salute dei cittadini continuano ad ignorare, non prendendo provvedimenti adeguati come informare la popolazione sui rischi che corre e soprattutto adottare il principio di precauzione.]
As the debate over cell-phone radiation heats up, consumers deserve answers to whether there’s a cancer connection
But not everyone is unconcerned. In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, who in total have written more than 2,000 papers on the topic, called on the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation. They point to growing research—as well as the classification of cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the WHO—suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects.
“I think the overall evidence that wireless radiation might cause adverse health effects is now strong enough that it’s almost unjustifiable for government agencies and scientists not to be alerting the public to the potential hazards,” says David O. Carpenter, M.D., director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York and one of the authors of the recent letter to the U.N. and WHO.
Some countries have taken steps to protect users, at least when it comes to children. For example, France, Russia, the U.K., and Zambia have either banned ads that promote phones’ sale to or use by children, or issued cautions for use by children.
The city council of Berkeley, Calif., has also acted. In May 2015, it approved a “Right to Know” law that requires electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones. CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group, is now tring to block that law from going into effect, as it successfully did after San Francisco passed its own Right to Know law five years ago.
Of course, scientific seesawing like that doesn’t provide a lot of clarity or confidence for the 90 percent of American adults and roughly 80 percent of teens who report having a cell phone. So how concerned should you be about cell-phone radiation? Consumer Reports’ health and safety experts conducted a thorough review of the research and offer some guidance.
What Is Cell-Phone Radiation, Anyway?
Your phone sends radiofrequency, or RF, waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers, and receives RF waves to its antenna from cell towers when you make a call or text or use data. The frequency of a cell phone’s RF waves falls between those emitted by FM radios and those from microwave ovens, all of which are considered “non-ionizing” forms of radiation. That means that—unlike radiation from a nuclear explosion, a CT scan, or a standard X-ray—the radiation from your phone does not carry enough energy to directly break or alter your DNA, which is one way that cancer can occur. (FM radios and microwaves don’t raise alarms, in part because they aren’t held close to your head when in use and because microwave ovens have shielding that offers protection.)
How Could the Radiation From Cell Phones Cause Cancer?
At high power levels, RF waves can heat up water molecules (which is how microwave ovens work). Scientists used to focus their concerns on the possibility that such heating of human tissue, which is mostly water, might damage cells. In fact, the FCC’s test of cell-phone emissions—which was set in 1996 and which all phones must pass before being allowed on the market—is based on that effect.
But most experts now aren’t concerned about that possible tissue heating caused by RF waves. Instead, what’s worrying some scientists are newer lab studies suggesting that exposure to cell-phone radiation can have biological effects without raising temperature.
In 2011, researchers at the National Institutes of Health showed that low-level radiation from an activated cell phone held close to a human head could change the way certain brain cells functioned, even without raising body temperature. The study did not prove that the effect on brain cells was dangerous, only that radiation from cell phones could have a direct effect on human tissue.
RF waves from cell phones have also been shown to produce “stress” proteins in human cells, according to research from Martin Blank, Ph.D., a special lecturer in the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University and another signer of the recent letter to the WHO and U.N. “These proteins are used for protection,” Blank says. “The cell is saying that RF is bad for me and it has to do something about it.”
And just this year, a German study found that RF waves promoted the growth of brain tumors in mice, again at radiation levels supposedly too low to raise body temperature. The U.S. National Toxicology Program is now running an animal study of its own, exposing rats and mice to low-dose radiation. Results are expected in 2016.
What Do Cancer Studies in Human Populations Show?
The research above describes some lab and animal studies that looked at how cell-phone radiation might cause cancer or affect the body in other ways. But we also reviewed studies that investigated whether cell phones increased brain-cancer risk in humans.
We focused on five large population studies, plus follow-ups to those studies, that investigated that question. Together the studies included more than a million people worldwide, comparing cell-phone users with nonusers.
Though some findings were reassuring, others do raise concerns. Specifically, three of the studies—one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries—suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor.
Though those findings are worrisome, none of the studies can prove a connection between cell phones and brain cancer, for several reasons. For one thing, cell-phone use in certain studies was self-reported, so it may not be accurate.
In addition, the findings might be influenced by the fact that the study subjects owned cell phones that were in some cases manufactured two decades ago. The way we use cell phones and the networks they’re operated on have also changed since then. Last, cancer can develop slowly over decades, yet the studies have analyzed data over only about a five- to 20-year span.
Are Today’s Phones Safer?
Cell-phone designs have changed a lot since the studies described above were completed. For example, the antennas—where most of the radiation from cell phones is emitted—are no longer located outside of phones near the top, closest to your brain when you talk, but are inside the phone, and they can be toward the bottom. As a result, the antenna may not be held against your head when you’re on the phone. That’s important because when it comes to cell-phone radiation, every millimeter counts: The strength of exposure drops dramatically as the distance from your body increases.
Perhaps our best protection is that more people today use phones to text instead of talk, and headphones and earbuds are growing in popularity. On the other hand, it’s also true that we use cell phones much more than we used to, so our overall exposure may be greater.
So Should I Stop Using My Cell Phone?
No, Consumer Reports does not think that’s necessary. But we do have some concerns.
“The evidence so far doesn’t prove that cell phones cause cancer, and we definitely need more and better research,” says Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior scientist at Consumer Reports. “But we feel that the research does raise enough questions that taking some common-sense precautions when using your cell phone can make sense.” Specifically, CR recommends these steps:
- Try to keep the phone away from your head and body. That is particularly important when the cellular signal is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate.
- Text or video call when possible.
- When speaking, use the speaker phone on your device or a hands-free headset.
- Don’t stow your phone in your pants or shirt pocket. Instead, carry it in a bag or use a belt clip.
A Call for Clarity
The substantial questions raised regarding cell phones deserve some clear answers:
• The Federal Communications Commission’s cell-phone radiation test is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults, though research suggests that children’s thinner skulls mean they may absorb more radiation.
• Consumer Reports agrees with concerns raised by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Government Accountability Office about the tests, and thinks that new tests should be developed that take into account the potential vulnerability of children.
• We think that cell-phone manufacturers should prominently display advice on steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation.
This article also appeared in the November 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.