For more information on
Building Biology

Call (03) 5664 2469

Electromagnetic Field Concerns

"From fertilization to final heart beat, we are electrical beings.

Death is even defined as the end of electrical activity in the brain.

We have evolved within a narrow range of physical parameters (temperature, pressure, gravity), but more than any other aspect of nature we have changed the electromagnetic spectrum immersing ourselves in a sea of manmade EMF's that only a century ago were unknown to life."

John D MacArthur

"I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with ELF (Extra Low Frequency) Electromagnetic fields. Clearly there is something here."

Martin Helper, US EPA Director Analysis & Support

"We will proceed on the assumption that there is a connection between exposure to lower frequency magnetic fields and cancer, in particular, childhood cancer."

Swedish National Board of Industrial & Technical Development

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences considered that electrical and magnetic fields of the type associated with household wiring should be regarded as a "Possible Human Carcinogen."(NIEHS Report. 1998). Until recently other than by receiving an electric shock, electricity and its associated electromagnetic fields were thought to be harmless to Biological Life.

Public concern and questions about EMF exposure have increased in recent years as a result of media coverage of research and studies into the potential biological effects from EMF's.

Sensitive individuals have come to believe that they suffer from adverse health depending on the level and type of EMF exposure they receive. These health sufferers became the first to raise concerns that this wonder of the 20^th Century may not be as benign or user friendly as was first believed.

"Electromagnetic sensibility, the ability to perceive electric and electromagnetic exposure, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), developing health symptoms due to exposure to environmental electromagnetic fields, needs to be distinguished. Increased electrosensibility is a necessary, however, not a sufficient condition for electromagnetic hypersensitivity."

Leitgeb, Schroettner. 2003

Consequent studies and Safety Standards revision by governments as well as the continuing research and study of the biological effects of Extra Low Frequency Electrical use have almost continually shown that there is a need for concern.

Electromagnetic Sensitivity symptoms are very similar to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, with a few differences separating the two. MCS sufferers often have a heightened electrical perception and some level of electrical hypersensitivity. The symptoms of MCS and ES, especially those symptoms associated with the central nervous system, seem to be virtually identical.

Both disorders have the general characteristics of affected central nervous system and immune system. With a suppressed immune system, come more colds, coughs, longer illnesses, depression, fatigue, and a higher chance of infectious disease and cancer.

The later half of the 20^th Century has seen almost the entire planet touched by some form of man made electrical interference, never before experienced by human evolution. It is almost impossible to escape the effects of our telecommunications network particularly now that we have satellites beaming their signals all over the entire planet. Often those with reactions to EMF's will also have allergic responses to some chemicals and environmental pollutants that hamper their attempts to seek a cure. This for the Electrically Sensitive generally means they will suffer a never-ending adverse health effect, for the rest of us, we had better hope we don't become afflicted

There is no point in becoming enraged or despondent about EMF's, we have a situation where they and their sources exists and will be here for potentially a very long time to come. What we must do is learn how to live with and use electricity responsibly. To be honest, man made electricity usage is still so new, there are many people alive today that have lived around half their lives without it and not because of any economic reason, it is simply that electricity in the form that we use today has not been around for very long despite what our governments and vested interest industries would like us to believe. The quietly raging debate about the possibility and types of health concerns that appear connected to our everyday use of a historically new energy technology has not gone away and seems as if it will continue well into the 21^st Century. It now could well be that there are more studies and research indicating adverse health impacts from our electricity use than there are to indicate a connection between smoking and lung cancer.

For those who find their electricity saturated world uncomfortable to live in?

Well that's not going to be a problem providing their numbers remain small enough.

The question has become how to maximise financial benefits to business, government and the wider community without creating a health scare and subsequent demands for expensive protective measures and public compensation. The inability to prove or disprove a mechanism for possible harm and at what exposure levels for much of the EMF exposure we have added to our environment has been seen as an innocent until proven guilty opportunity by regulators and industry until our science can discover more about how the human body and the world we live in operates.

The chemical idea for the basis of life is near 100 yrs old, our understanding of many things has changed since then. There seems to be a combination of chemical and electromagnetic influences on biological life, just as there is an uneasy relationship between the living environment and our electricity production and distribution.

All of this leads to the thought, that if there turns out to be a health problem how can it be avoided if possible. Many people will accept some level of risk here, most do everyday, most would like also to avoid excessive risk and that's why the EMF debate will continue.

"There is now a very large volume of scientific findings based on experiments at the cellular level and from studies with animals and people which clearly establish that low frequency magnetic fields can interact with, and produce changes in, biological systems. While most of this work is of very high quality, the results are complex. Current (1998) scientific understanding does not yet allow us to interpret the evidence in a single coherent framework. Even more frustrating, it does not yet allow us to draw definite conclusions about questions of possible risk or to offer clear science-based advice on strategies to minimize or avoid potential risk.

From the results of the studies, the central nervous system effects including circadian effects in animals and the possibility of cancer promotion appear most worthy of concern with respect to public health effects.

Central Nervous System Effects: As a system that uses low frequency fields for its intercellular communication and function, the brain and central nervous system are natural candidates for interaction with fields.

Cancer Promotion: The following points summarize the key experimental results that are consistent with a possible association between exposure to ELF fields and the occurrence of cancer.

ELF fields are not known to cause any chromosomal damage, and, hence, are not likely initiators of cancer.
Some cellular level experiments indicate that the cell membrane is the site of the interaction between ELF fields and the cell. The membrane site responsible for this action has also been shown to be a receptor for chemical cancer promoters.
ELF fields have been shown to increase ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) activity.
All known cancer promoters stimulate ODC. However, the converse is not true.
Many agents that stimulate ODC activity are not cancer promoters.
Alterations in protein synthesis, in immunological and hormone status, and in metabolic competence via circadian shifts can all contribute to the progress of initiated cancer. To the extent that Elf fields play a role in those; they might have an effect on tumour growth or indeed tumour inhibition. The increase in ODC activity noted above is indicative of growth enhancement rather than inhibition.
Pineal melatonin depression has been associated with cancer growth, and the administration of melatonin has been found to slow the growth of cancer. ELF fields depress pineal melatonin levels in animals.
Functions of gap junctions are disrupted by ELF fields. Similar disruptions
are produced by other known chemical (cancer) promoters.
Epidemiologic studies of ELF exposures and cancer show a weak association between ELF field exposure and nervous system cancer and leukaemia.

While the above arguments are consistent with the hypothesis that ELF fields may play a role in cancer or tumour development, non of these constitutes proof or even a strong indication that it does."

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment 1989.

Regarding the possibility of health effects Professor Ross Adey (of the Loma Linda University Medical School in California in 1992, previously a Director of the NASA Space Biology Institute, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology UCLA, founder of UCLA Brain Research Institute, and a member of the Academy of Science Committee studying the Biological Effects of the Military Seafarer Extra Low Frequency Communications System) said in 1992 -

" As far as science itself goes, I think that there are four major areas about which there can be little doubt as to the significants of the findings:

The effects on the Immune System. A reduction in the ability of the circulating white blood cells to kill tumour cells. This has been shown in cell culture work and partially corroborated in animal studies.
Effects on Foetal Development. There is evidence not only from abnormalities but also in psychosexual development. Epidemiological work has shown that miscarriages may be linked to electric blanket use and some electrical home heating.
The area of control and regulation of cell growth, including tumour formation.
The effects on the Central Nervous System and the brain in ways which effect very powerful hormonal mechanisms, which in turn have connections to cancer and cancer related problems.

"I think that the British authorities reaction is a living dinosaur attitude, that it absolutely avoids confronting the evidence as it now exists. The NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board) however is doing work of the highest merit in its scientific content, and it indicates that there is reason for concern."

Professor Ross Adey, Speaking Out, BBC Radio Scotland 10 January 1992

From Australia's own Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

"The attitude of physical scientists is, generally, to disregard reports of effects for which a known physical mechanism cannot be readily attributed. However, the mechanisms are inadequate to explain all of the observed biological responses.

Radiation biologists have reported a number of changes in various biological systems following exposure to EMR that produces insignificant or undetectable, temperature increase.

These effects range from alteration of ion concentration in cells, increased rate of DNA synthesis to enhancement of the rate of tumour growth in experimental animals. The effects have been reported over a range of frequencies from ELF to RF.

Mechanisms for many of these biological effects have not been identified or proposed and this lack of scientific explanation has, not surprisingly, led to a reluctance to accept the effects as "real".

There is no doubt that the interpretation of bioeffects data has been clouded by a pre-occupation with thermally mediated processes. In fact, development of the ANSI/IEEE standard is based only on well established thermal effects, and ignores the more subtle non-thermal processes that are more difficult to interpret and apply to human health.

It is evident that, at least in the world of EMR, science has become a business, as evidenced by the growing number of environmental and epidemiological consultants. This is prevalent in the USA but also exists in the UK. The danger with this approach is that there is a tendency to adjust the research to fit the needs of the industry providing the funding.

The scientific value of many of the science entrepreneurs may be questioned, as first principles of "where can I do my best science" are replaced by "where can I get funded"."

CSIRO Biological Effects & Safety of EMR. Barnett Report June 1994.

Stewart Fist www.electric-words.com

Below is an example of the basic position of our Australian federal government toward the concerns of Electromagnetic Fields being able to have any potential to adversely affect human health.

This from ARPANSA (the Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency) the Ionising Radiation government body supposed to disseminate information to the public and deal with their concerns about Non Ionising Radiation exposures is typical of what is frequently found in government and industry responses to public concerns regarding their exposure.

The emphases are mine.

"In cellular studies, cells are exposed to magnetic fields and then examined to see whether changes occur to their normal growth pattern. These experiments demonstrate that these fields do not bring about the changes in cells normally associated with the start of cancer. Animal studies on rats and mice have not shown that magnetic fields increase the risk of cancer. Studies have not convincingly demonstrated that magnetic fields reduce or alter melatonin levels in humans. Melatonin is thought by some to be a natural cancer suppressor. There is, however, weak evidence of an association with childhood leukaemia from modern epidemiological studies. These studies compare the exposure to magnetic fields of people who have cancer and other diseases with similar people who do not have these diseases. The scientific evidence does not firmly establish that exposure to 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields found around the home, the office or near power lines is a hazard to human health. In view of the epidemiological studies, however, the possibility remains that intense and prolonged exposures to magnetic fields may increase the risk of leukaemia in children.

The evidence does not allow health authorities to decide whether there is a specific magnetic field level above which continuous exposure is dangerous or compromises human health. "

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 2001

www.arpansa.gov.au/is_electricity.htm

From between 1979 and 2001 there have been well over 40 studies indicating impacts on biological health from electromagnetic fields similar to those found associated with our building power supply.

The main impacts on biological health appear to be

The suppression of melatonin production in the pineal gland.
An impact on calcium ions within cells.
Changes in heart beat.
An affect the immune system.
An impact on enzyme activity in cells.

These studies could be taken to indicate that these fields do bring about changes in cells, that animal studies on rats and mice have shown that magnetic fields are linked to an increase in the risk of cancer, and that exposure to 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields found around the home, the office or near power lines is a potential hazard to human health. So why the hesitation of health authorities to decide whether there is a specific magnetic field level above which continuous exposure is dangerous or compromises human health.

Alternating current electromagnetic fields exist only where there is man made electricity. Direct Current electromagnetic fields are found throughout nature. They are the electrical phenomena that we and other species on this planet have evolved with. DC fields can adversely affect our health over a short time span, just ask anyone who has been struck by lightning; but they do not cause the health effects that are of a concern from an Alternating Current electromagnetic field.

Being a Building Biologist means to consider how the building and the environment can have a health impact on the occupants, and there is an increasing body of information indicating a concern regarding EMF exposure. Building Biologists must consider this concern even though the answers, health impacts and science are still developing. New research and findings will continue to come forward and as a result the information contained on this web site will continue to change to reflect the new information as it comes to my notice.

Note- Although most of the above has been based on 50Hz ELF Electromagnetic Fields, the information is relevant to the higher non ionising frequencies as well, including radio, microwave, and telecommunication frequencies including Mobile Phones.