EMF Effects on the Young
There is an EU Precautionary Principle that states "citizens should be protected where there is reasonable evidence to suggest it is necessary even if not conclusive". There is more than sufficient evidence to prove that EM radiation adversely affects people and especially foetuses, babies, children and adolescents. Despite this, the SAR scale of assessing the dangers of EM radiation has not been changed to reflect the fact that EM radiation does not have to cause a thermal effect in order to have a biological effect.
However, two countries, France1 and Russia2, have current laws to minimise Wi-Fi exposure to children in schools. These two countries have the world’s longest research history on health effect of microwaves, both over 100 years. National policies such as these aren't lightly made or enforced without sound reason backed up by trusted Scientists.
Much of the research has focused on the effects of mobile phones, but there is also significant research on chronic exposure to the microwave frequencies used for Wi-Fi, Smart meters and others. The problem which has not been adequately researched is the cumulative effect of 24/7 exposure to multiple pulsed microwave radiation from many different sources together. We wouldn't consider for a second the idea of continual exposure to car exhaust fumes yet they and EMF radiation are both classed as a Class 2b "possible carcinogen".
An evaluation of the scientific evidence on the brain tumour risk was made in May 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO). IARC is independently financed and has its own governing and scientific councils. The working group reached the conclusion that RF radiation from devices that emit non-ionizing RF radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz-300 GHz, is a Group 2B, i.e. a 'possible', human carcinogen.3,4
Later studies have corroborated these findings and have thus strengthened the evidence 5-8. Several laboratory studies have indicated mechanisms of action for RF radiation carcinogenesis such as on DNA repair, oxidative stress, down regulation of mRNA and DNA damage with single strand breaks 9-13
The IARC cancer classification includes all sources of RF radiation. The exposure from mobile phone base stations, Wi-Fi access points, smart phones, laptops and tablets can be long-term, sometimes around the clock, both at home and at school. For children this risk may be accentuated because of a cumulative effect during a long lifetime use14. Developing and immature cells can also be more sensitive to exposure to RF radiation9.
Research has identified that foetuses in utero are most susceptible to the effects of EM radiation and is most likely linked to a genetic predisposition to certain effects. The fact that EM radiation increases the permeability of the Blood Brain Barrier and also tight junctions in the digestive tract and lungs has led to EM radiation being implicated as a factor in Autism, IBS, autoimmune diseases and asthma. The following is a suggested mechanism whereby amalgum fillings in a prenant mother's teeth releases mercury which passes through the placenta to the developing foetus brain with possible consequences being autism, ADD and behavioural problems.
- Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:624–626. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4. [PubMed]
- International Agency for Research on Cancer . Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. WHO Press; Lyon, France: 2013. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 102. [PubMed]
- Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Hansson Mild K. Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int J Oncol. 2013;43:1833–1845. [PubMed]
- Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology. 2013;20:85–110. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.11.001. [PubMed]
- Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo JS, Loiseau H, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71:514–522. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101754. [PubMed]
- Carlberg M, Hardell L. Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints form 1965 on association or causation. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:9218486. doi: 10.1155/2017/9218486. [PubMed]
Markovà E, Malmgren LO, Belyaev IY. Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118:394–399. [PubMed]
Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Banerjee BD, Tripathi AK, Ahmed R, Abegaonkar MP. Low intensity microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain. Neurotoxicology. 2015;51:158–165. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2015.10.009. [PubMed]
Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Erdal ME, Erdal N, Ay OI, Ay ME, Yilmaz SG, Tasdelen B, Yegin K. Effects of 2.4 GHz radio-frequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015;91:555–561. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2015.1028599. [PubMed]
Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 2016;35:186–202. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557. [PubMed]
Akdag MZ, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Karabulut D, Caner Y, Adalier N. Does prolonged radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various tissues of rats? J Chem Neuroanat. 2016;75:116–122. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2016.01.003. [PubMed]
- Hedendahl L, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to the medical profession. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30:209–215. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0012. [PubMed]