According to the World Health Organization (WHO):
As societies industrialize and the technological revolution continues, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and diversity of electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. These sources include video display units (VDUs) associated with computers, mobile phones and their base stations. While these devices have made our life richer, safer and easier, they have been accompanied by concerns about possible health risks due to their EMF emissions.
For some time a number of individuals have reported a variety of health problems that they relate to exposure to EMF. While some individuals report mild symptoms and react by avoiding the fields as best they can, others are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle. This reputed sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS.
Other sources of this type of radiation include power lines and WiFi technology.
The WHO fact sheet quoted above also describes Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity in detail, and is based on the combined research of a WHO Workshop on the subject (Prague, Czech Republic, 2004), an international conference on EMF and non-specific health symptoms (COST244bis, 1998), a European Commission report (Bergqvist and Vogel, 1997), and recent reviews of the literature.
However, many of the facts cited seem to be countered by a growing number of publications and scientists. For example, they argue that EMFs are simply a “perceived” problem, and the sensitivities are psychological rather than physical. They state that “well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.” They also state it’s possible “these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.” In conclusion, they suggest that “treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person’s perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home.”
These arguments are reminiscent of those surrounding Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, because for decades a plethora of publications and scientists were showing what it can do to the human body, yet it wasn’t until recently that the World Health Organization admitted that it is carcinogenic. Why does it take so long for new evidence to be considered? Why do they state that substances are safe in the face of such staunch opposition from so many professionals, and why do we assume things are safe until proven otherwise? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Are we seeing the same thing with electromagnetic radiation?
If It’s Not A Concern, They Why…
If it’s not as much of a concern as many feel it to be, then why are more than 200 scientists from more than 40 countries petitioning the United Nations about this issue? The information above provided from the WHO is more than a decade old, and in 2015 this group of scientists urged the United Nations and its organization to encourage precautionary measures and conduct an environmental assessment. They also asked for the WHO to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women, and for the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to assess the potential impact of EMF exposure on all living organisms.
Why are there more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern on this topic? According to the appeal sent to Antonio Guterres (among others), Secretary-General of the United Nations:
Numerous scientific publications have found that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below international exposure guidelines adopted by most industrialized nations. There is discrepancy in how this matter is considered at the WHO, however. While WHO accepted its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s recommendation that classifies both ELF/EMF and RF/EMF as Group 2B “Possible Carcinogens,” it also, in direct contrast to these warnings, recommends the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) guidelines for exposure standards. These guidelines, developed by a self-selected 2 independent industry group, have long been criticized as not protective given the science now established.
“Independent Industry Group”
The importance of highlighting industry’s role in this matter shouldn’t be ignored, since modern day science is, unfortunately, plagued by industry corruption and scientific fraud. Not long ago, however, the Berkeley City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance to require cellphone retailers in Berkeley, California, to provide consumers with information regarding the dangers associated with the wireless industry and, more specifically, on cell phone radiation.
The ordinance was created with the help of Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard University, the California Brain Tumor Association, and Robert Post, the Dean of Yale Law School, who believes, along with hundreds of other scientists, that the research is sound.
The concerns raised by all of these scientists also had at least 12 elementary and middle schools in Ontario and B.C. impose bans on wireless internet by not installing it or removing it completely from their classrooms. You can read more about that here.
Hearing From the Creator of the Initiative
The initiative was started by Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University, who has joined a group of scientists from around the world making an international appeal to the United Nations regarding the dangers associated with the use of various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cells phones and WiFi.
“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,”said Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, in a video message.
“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation.”
Below is a video of him speaking about this issue.
Do You Have Electromagnetic Sensitivity? What Can You Do About It?
For starters, the best think you can do is not to worry, because this is how powerful the mind-body connection really is.
It’s also important to mention that children’s brains absorb much more radiation than those of adults. According to Mary Redmayne, Ph.D,. a professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine at Australia’s Monash University:
There is much high-quality research showing bio-physiological effects from permitted electromagnetic exposures; these findings are not nullified by research which fails to find effects. To claim that the ‘weight of evidence’ does not support these effects (even if it were true) is misleading. To infer that this means no precautions are needed is illogical and non-scientific.
It would help parents and policy makers if consensus among advisory organisations and scientists could be reached acknowledging that assurance of safety of chronic low-dose radiofrequency exposure cannot be guaranteed and is related to ill-health in some people. Therefore, minimising exposure, especially children’s, is sensible. This should be treated like other daily health precautions and warnings such as those about diet.
A publication from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, titled “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields Up To 300 GHZ,” cites an abundance of scientific research regarding these non-natural fields and their affect on human biology.
Here are the IARC’s Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.
The symptoms can differ a lot between sufferers, but will normally include some of the following: sleep disturbance, tiredness, depression, headaches, restlessness, irritability, concentration problems, forgetfulness, learning difficulties, frequent infections, blood pressure changes, limb and joint pains, numbness or tingling sensations, tinnitus, hearing loss, impaired balance, giddiness and eye problems. There have been reports of cardiovascular problems such as tachycardia, though these are relatively rare.
Many of the symptoms reported resemble those of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).
Some steps you can take are:
- Don’t let your child use a cell phone.
- Keep your cell phone use to a minimum.
- Reduce or eliminate your use of other wireless devices.
- Limit cell phone use to areas with excellent reception.
- Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body, and do not sleep with it under your pillow or near your head.
- Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone.
- Respect others; many are highly sensitive to EMF. Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others’ cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used.
- Walk barefoot on the earth
- Worry less. The power of consciousness with regards to our health is huge. This has been demonstrated by recent findings within quantum physics, the placebo effect, and many other interesting phenomena, like neuro-plasticity. This could explain why some people who have such unhealthy lifestyles, but don’t worry and enjoy themselves still live longer. The human body is great at adapting — all we have to do is help it out a little bit.
Below is a great lecture from Dr. Scott Eberle, who trained as a family physician, worked for nearly two decades as an AIDS specialist, and continues as a hospice medical director. After an episode of carbon monoxide poisoning in 2010, he began having symptoms that, in retrospect, signalled the initial onset of this type of sensitivity. In 2013, his health plummeted until he finally figured out the cause.
“What’s the Diagnosis, Doctor?” was published in Sonoma Medicine in 2104. “An Underworld Journey: Learning to Cope With Electromagnetic Sensitivity” was published by Ecopsychology in 2017. See also: “So You Think You Might Be Electrosensitive “and “Guidelines for Making a Home Radiowave Safe.” Read more from Dr. Eberle here.
Devices You Can Get to Help Protect You, Backed by Science
As a result of this growing issue that’s gaining more attention, scientists and researchers are now teaming up to find ways to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic radiation. One example would be the devices manufactured by Earth-Calm. They have been tested in the lab by multiple scientists, with full reports and results available on the website.
I just wanted to provide an example, and let people know that there are several companies developing these products. I recommend doing the research, reading the studies and results, as well as contacting the scientists who are conducting these studies.
2,000+ Peer-Reviewed Studies
The truth is, there are more, but these 2,000 come from the 200+ scientists who are petitioning the UN about this issue, as mentioned above. Below is the list. Feel free to look them up and contact them for more information.
Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., UNESCO Chair – Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, Armenia
Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Env.Health Educator/Researcher, Advisor, Environmental Health Trust; Doctors for Safer Schools, Australia
Dr. Peter French BSc, MSc, MBA, PhD, FRSM, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Australia
Dr. Bruce Hocking, MD, MBBS, FAFOEM (RACP), FRACGP, FARPS, specialist in occupational medicine; Victoria, Australia
Dr. Gautam (Vini) Khurana, Ph.D., F.R.A.C.S., Director, C.N.S. Neurosurgery, Australia
Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D., Australia
Dr. Elena Pirogova, Ph.D., Biomed Eng., B. Eng (Hon) Chem. Eng., Engineering & Health College; RMIT University, Australia
Dr. Mary Redmayne, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia
Dr. Charles Teo, BM, BS, MBBS, Member of the Order of Australia, Director, Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia
Dr. Michael Kundi, MD, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria
Dr. Bernhard Pollner, MD, Pollner Research, Austria
Prof. Dr. Hugo W. Rüdiger, MD, Austria
Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain
Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium