Literature Review – Transmitters and Health

What are the health risks of transmitters? How is this issue addressed by the WHO (World Health Organisation)?

I looked at chronic, 24/7 exposure. So, I reviewed research papers focusing on:

-    Mobile phone base stations (cell towers) + TETRA

-    AM / FM Radio + Analog /digital TV masts + Radar

This review is available at:

http://www.uta.fi/~mikko.ahonen/riski-extra.htm

I listed research papers with both positive and negative findings. I also included occupational exposure data and nature related data.

(Photo: Ferihegy airport, Budapest, Hungary, July 2009. An observation: two children very close to antennas.)

Increased leukemia and lymphoma rates come up regularly in FM / AM Radio + Television transmitter research papers (8 out of 10 papers). Mobile phone base stations are a newer phenomenon and the symptoms and illnesses seem to be more versatile ranging from sleep problems to neurological illnesses and breast cancer ( 10 out of 13 papers indicated increased risk ). It is difficult to compare these papers with each other, because not every paper has radiation power density measurements included.

After all these findings, the WHO officially announces:

“Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.“ .

Definitely, WHO International EMF Project folks are playing with the word ‘evidence’.

I noticed this same phenomenon when I read Valberg, Deventer & Repacholi’s paper “Workgroup Report: Base Stations and Wireless Networks—Radiofrequency (RF) Exposures and Health Consequences”. When they argumented that there is no health risk in base stations, they just referenced a military originating paper.  Why is that source especially worth referencing when the health risks are discussed in the WHO? Additionally, Valberg et al. (2007) paper is full of odd citations. Definitely, the WHO  does not have an open review process [1],[2],[3 ],[4],[5]  .

I have discussed with the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Authority Finland (STUK) representatives (including engineer Tommi Toivonen) about siting of base stations. He wrote to me:

“The safety distance is one meter in the main beam and tens of centimetres at side / side lobes”.

OK, his safety distance was based on SAR-values and temperature changes.

But, what about other changes in human physiology: brain wave changes measured in EEG, stress response as heat shock proteins, blood pressure changes, hearth rate changes, blood-brain barrier functionality changes? Officially STUK denies this: “There are different theories and assumptions about the biological effects and health risks associated with relatively weak electromagnetic fields, but there is no scientifically-convincing proof which would support the idea of setting lower limits.”

The riskiest places to live/work are in the main beam or just under those antennas (see the picture). Already in 2007 Israel and Taiwan removed thousands of antennas from such risky places [1],[2]. International Association of Firefighters has not allowed the installation on antennas on top of fire stations in the USA [1].

With another STUK representative I discussed about base stations on the roofs of primary schools. I asked why the STUK has allowed service providers/telcos to install base stations close to schools. That STUK representative wrote to me: “There is no evidence so far on the health effects due to long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation”. I wonder what evidence he was talking about??  Have these radiation ‘protection’ authorities looked at research papers and epidemiological data? Have they considered anecdotal evidence and doctor initiatitives (appeals)? Do they know history?

My News (incl. anecdotal evidence) -section might also interest some of you.

If a research paper is missing, please, let me know. I will update my review occasionally.

Glad to read your comments about this topic!