Statements from Governments and Expert Panels

L’Académie nationale de Médecine rappelle les données scientifiques suivantes :
‘On ne connaît aucun mécanisme par lequel les champs électromagnétiques dans cette gamme d’énergie et de fréquence pourraient avoir un effet négatif sur la santé. L’OMS  et le Scenihr  se sont prononcés unanimement sur l’absence de risque de ces antennes.’

‘A ce jour, aucun système sensoriel humain permettant de percevoir ce type de champ n’a été identifié. C’est pourquoi la quasi-totalité des études sur l’électro-hypersensibilité ont montré que les sujets concernés, bien que manifestant des troubles variés en présence de dispositifs émetteurs de champs électromagnétiques, sont incapables de reconnaître si ces dispositifs sont actifs ou non.’

‘L’angoisse ou la phobie en présence d’émetteurs de champs électromagnétiques peuvent être réelles et justifier une prise en charge adaptée. Mais l’Académie déplore que ces troubles, pouvant entraîner de graves handicaps sociaux, soient utilisés à des fins contestables au détriment des intéressés. En revanche, elles rappellent que les téléphones mobiles, et donc les antennes, permettent de sauver chaque année des centaines de vies humaines.’

(Unofficial translation)
‘There is no known mechanism by which electromagnetic fields in this energy and frequency range could have a negative effect on health. WHO and SCENIHR were unanimous on the absence of risk from these antennas.’’

‘To date, no human sensory system able to detect this type of field has been identified. That is why almost all studies on electrical hypersensitivity have shown that subjects, although experiencing various symptoms in presence of sources of electromagnetic fields are unable to tell if these devices are active or not.’’

‘It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans. However, as the widespread duration of exposure of humans to RF fields from mobile phones is shorter than the induction time of some cancers, further studies are required to identify whether considerably longer-term (well beyond 10 years) human exposure to such phones might pose some cancer risk.’ (p. 4)

Therefore, the conclusion that scientific studies have failed to provide support for an effect of RF fields on self-reported symptoms still holds. Scientific studies have indicated that a nocebo effect (an adverse non-specific effect that is caused by expectation or belief that something is harmful) may play a role in symptom formation. As in the previous opinion, there is no evidence supporting that individuals, including those attributing symptoms to RF exposure, are able to detect RF fields.’ (p. 4)

‘There is some evidence that RF fields can influence EEG patterns and sleep in humans. However, the health relevance is uncertain and mechanistic explanation is lacking. Further investigation of these effects is needed. Other studies on functions/aspects of the nervous system, like cognitive functions, sensory functions, structural stability, and cellular responses show no or no consistent effects. (p. 4)

‘Radiofrequency radiation emitted by mobile telephones has been investigated in a number of studies. there is some evidence that long-term and heavy use of mobile/cellular phones may be asso-ciated with moderate increased risks of gliomas, parotid gland tumours, and acoustic neuromas; however, evidence is conflicting and a role of bias in these studies cannot be ruled out.’ (p. 171)

Do cell phones pose a health hazard?

Many people are concerned that cell phone radiation will cause cancer or other serious health hazards. The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems. Cell phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy (RF). Over the past 15 years, scientists have conducted hundreds of studies looking at the biological effects of the radiofrequency energy emitted by cell phones. While some researchers have reported biological changes associated with RF energy, these studies have failed to be replicated. The majority of studies published have failed to show an association between exposure to radiofrequency from a cell phone and health problems.

Children and Cell Phones

The scientific evidence does not show a danger to any users of cell phones from RF exposure, including children and teenagers. The steps adults can take to reduce RF exposure apply to children and teenagers as well.

• Reduce the amount of time spent on the cell phone
• Use speaker mode or a headset to place more distance between the head and the cell phone.

Some groups sponsored by other national governments have advised that children be discouraged from using cell phones at all. For example, The Stewart Report from the United Kingdom made such a recommendation in December 2000. In this report a group of independent experts noted that no evidence exists that using a cell phone causes brain tumors or other ill effects. Their recommendation to limit cell phone use by children was strictly precautionary; it was not based on scientific evidence that any health hazard exists.

…With radiofrequency fields, information is being transferred by modulation. Some experimental studies found indications that certain biological effects may occur upon exposure to a modulated signal, but not, or to a lesser extent, with exposure to an unmodulated signal. As yet, there is no sufficient scientific evidence to confirm this. It is not known whether such effects may lead to health effects. The suggestion that some of the observed biological effects may lead to reduced wellbeing, disease, or even death lacks scientific basis. (p. 3)

In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields. (p. 4)

"The few studies that have been published on health risks among populations living near transmitters have had major methodological shortcomings. However, the exposure to the general population that results from transmitters is very weak and one would not expect such exposure to produce a health risk as discussed in the previous report. Indeed, one would assume that if RF exposure at low levels is associated with a health risk it would be considerably easier to detect it in studies of mobile phone users, or highly exposed occupational groups. The overall conclusion is that exposure from transmitters is unlikely to be a health risk." (p. 54)

"Since the adoption of the 2001 opinion extensive research has been conducted regarding possible health effects of exposure to low intensity RF fields, including epidemiologic, in vivo, and in vitro research. In conclusion, no health effect has been consistently demonstrated at exposure levels below the limits of ICNIRP (International Committee on Non Ionising Radiation Protection) established in 1998. However, the data base for evaluation remains limited especially for long-term low-level exposure." (p. 4)

"Scientific studies have failed to provide support for a relation between RF exposure, lower than the reference values in the present ICNIRP guidelines and self-reported symptoms (sometimes referred to as electromagnetic hypersensitivity). Available studies suggest that self-reported symptoms are not correlated to an acute exposure to RF fields, but the limited number of studies does not allow any firm conclusion." (p.28)

"…there seems not to be a need to modify the present guidelines to account for the risk of cancer or other long-term adverse effects not scientifically established." (p. 266)

"ICNIRP continuously checks the validity of its recommendations by monitoring both the advancement of research on biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, and the development of emerging technologies that may involve the introduction of new sources and new modalities of exposure. While there seems not to be an urgent need to change basic restrictions and reference levels, an update of the scientific rationale that includes the most recent research findings is appropriate."

"Comprehensive systems of protection have been developed at the international level, and adopted in a large number of countries. They are conservative, flexible, and based on solid science, so providing adequate protection against all known health effects of EMF."

"In response to the concerns of the public, and given some uncertainties that still exist in some areas of scientific knowledge, consideration of precautionary measures could be warranted in some cases. A basic requirement is that these measures are adopted in such a way as not to undermine the credibility of the international standards, and consequently the trust in health authorities and in science."

"So far no adverse short or long-term health effects have been found from exposure to the RF signals produced by mobile phones and base station transmitters." (p. 3)

"There are no data available to suggest that the use of mobile phones by children is a health hazard." (p. 3)

"The ICNIRP guidelines provides adequate protection for the public from any EMF sources." (p. 4)

"So far no adverse short or long-term health effects have been found from exposure to the RF signals produced by mobile phones and base station transmitters." (p. 3)

"There are no data available to suggest that the use of mobile phones by children is a health hazard." (p. 3)

"The ICNIRP guidelines provides adequate protection for the public from any EMF sources." (p. 4)

UMTS: "Until more time has elapsed, we must rely on information about long-term effects from research on exposure to other sources, such as radio and television transmitters. In the 2005 Annual Update, the Health Council provided a comprehensive overview of that research and concluded that at the basis of current scientific knowledge no long-term effects can be identified as a result of prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.21 There is no reason to suppose that the situation is any different with regard to UMTS."

DECT: "Based on these data and on the lack of any evidence of a mechanism that might explain increased effectiveness of pulsed fields 8, the conclusion to be drawn is that there are no indications and that it is unlikely that DECT signals have an adverse impact on health upon exposure below the limit values."

Q: "Is it safe to use held-held mobile phones?"
A: "Many studies have concluded that there is no evidence that mobile phones bring hazards to health when used under normal operating conditions."

Q: "Is it safe to live close to radiofrequency transmitters?"
A: "Operators of radio stations are required to ensure that the levels of electromagnetic radiation of their radio transmitters including those on rooftops in residential areas are within the limits stipulated in the Code of Practice. Despite densely-packed transmitters on some rooftops in residential areas, therefore, the buildings are absolutely safe to live in."

Mobile phone: "The balance of current research evidence suggests that exposures to the radiofrequency energy produced by cellphones do not cause health problems provided they comply with international guidelines. Reviews of all the research have not found clear, consistent evidence of any adverse effects."

Base station: "Measurements carried out by the National Radiation Laboratory around several dozen cellsites have shown that maximum exposures are typically about 1 or 2% of the exposure limit recommended in New Zealand and international exposure standards. In most areas they are less than that. No health effects are anticipated at such low exposures."

"There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless telephone usage can lead to cancer or other problems such as headaches, dizziness, or memory loss. Many domestic and international organizations, however, are sponsoring research and investigating claims of possible health effects related to the use of wireless telephones. The federal government monitors the results of this ongoing research, and the FDA is participating in an industry-funded research project to further investigate possible biological effects of wireless telephone usage."

"…the balance of scientific evidence to date does not indicate that harmful effects occur in humans due to low-level exposure to electromagnetic fields ("EMF")." (p. 1)

"There is no firm evidence to date that RF emissions from cell phones cause ill health. Only you can decide if you can live with the possibility of an unknown risk from cell phone use. If you are concerned, you can reduce your risk by limiting the length of your cell phone calls and using "hands-free" devices that keep cell phones away from your head and body. Also, because of the risk of traffic accidents, do not use your cell phone while driving."

"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."

Mobile phone: "The weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that using a mobile phone causes harmful health effects. Although there have been studies reporting biological effects at low levels, there has been no indication that such effects might constitute a human health hazard, even with long-term exposure...The general consensus of scientific opinion is that, provided mobile phones do not exceed the limits of recognised standards, there will be no harmful effects." (p. 8)

Base station: "The weight of national and international expert opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that there are adverse health effects resulting from the emissions of mobile phone towers or base stations." (p. 9)

"Recently published studies on mobile phone use and cancer risk do not change the earlier overall assessment of the available evidence from epidemiological studies. In particular an extended follow up of a cohort study from Denmark does not alter the conclusions. Currently available evidence suggests that for adult brain tumours there is no association with mobile phone use for at least up to, say, ten years of use. For longer latency the majority of the evidence also speaks against an association, but the data are still sparse. The same conclusion holds for short-term use and acoustic neuroma. However, for long-term use and acoustic neuroma there is a concern, and more information is required." (p. 5)

Base station: "The overall conclusion is that exposure from transmitters is unlikely to be a health risk." (p. 36)

"EHS [Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity] is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.."

"The European Cancer Prevention Organization states that, in 2005 there is insufficient contemporary proof with regard to increased cancer risk to change mobile phoning habits. Continued independent surveillance is needed."

"The scientific studies examined in the risk dialogue do not support suspicions that mobile telephony has harmful effects on health."

"In the last 10 years, hundreds of new research studies have been done to more directly study possible effects of cell phone use. Although some studies have raised concerns, the scientific research, when taken together, does not indicate a significant association between cell phone use and health effects." (p. 1)

"The Health Council therefore sees no reason to recommend limiting the use of mobile phones by children." (p. 142)

"In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research."

"Overall, AGNIR concluded that, in aggregate, the research published since the IEGMP report does not give cause for concern and that the weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels" (p. 8).

Q: "What about children using mobile phones?"
A: "The scientific evidence does not show a danger to users of wireless phones, including children and teenagers."

"With regard to the risk of cancer, we can accept that with the levels of power used in mobile telephony, radiation does not have an effect on our cells’ genes (it is not ‘genotoxic’). Work carried out on animals using long-term exposure does not indicate a risk of cancer; it shows neither an actual ‘initiator’ effect nor a promoter’ effect for cancers caused by carcinogenic agents." (p.4)

"At present, the scientific data available does not indicate that children are particularly susceptible to radiation caused by telephones nor do they have a higher exposure in comparison to adults." (p. 5)

"The weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that exposure to low level RF EME causes adverse health effects."

"Up to the present time, all international and national committees that have evaluated this whole body of evidence have reached the same conclusions: that there are no established health effects from EMF exposures below the international guidelines limits." (p. 12)

"Research into the effects of radio waves on the human body has been conducted for more than 50 years in countries around the world, including Japan. Based on voluminous findings from those studies, exposure guidelines including the Japanese guideline of the ‘Radio Radiation Protection Guidelines for Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields’ has been developed with a safety margin enough to protect human health from adverse effects of radio waves." (summary point 1, p. 3)

"The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population..." (p. 3).

"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines…This does not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury, but it is potentially important information and we consider the implications.." (p.3)