References related to EMF's

" Since radiofrequency EMFs have higher energy than do

power line frequencies, one might expect that they would be even more likely to

cause disease."  WHO Bioinitiative Report, 2007

Most studies on EMF's have been on power lines, and only recently have people begun to consider the potential risks of Radio Frequency (RF) Wave Radiation and other forms of EMF's. RF antenna's put off much higher energy than power lines, therefore it can be expected that they pose a much more significant risk:

"Of even greater concern,
given the clear evidence for elevated risk of childhood leukemia upon exposure to
50/60 Hz EMFs, is the relative lack of a comparable body of information on the
effects of radiofrequency EMFs on the health of children. A recent study of
South Korean children (1,928 with leukemia, 956 with brain cancer and 3,082
controls) living near to AM radio transmitters reports an OR of 2.15 (95% CI =
1.19-2.11) for risk of leukemia in children living within 2 km of the nearest AM
transmitter as compared to those living more than 20 km from it (Ha et al., 2007)." WHO Bioinitiatives Report, 2007


What About the Cell Towers in Neighborhoods? 
It is worrisome that the installation of antennas go up in neighborhood locations, near schools, churches and homes. These wireless antennas expose people to involuntary, chronic RFR. Low levels of RFR, which have been shown to be bioactive, are associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Unfortunatly, local agencies are prevented from considering RFR health and safety issues in siting/zoning. The FCC is in charge of RFR; the current FCC standard is 1000 µW/cm2. But some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the 0.01 to 100 µW/cm2 range (far lower). Other countries limit public exposure to 0.1 µW/cm2 in recognition of bioeffects and potential adverse health effects of nonthermal RFR exposure (Salzburg).

What Are Scientists and Public Policy Researchers Saying About RFR? 
The Vienna Resolution (October 1998) provided a consensus statement signed by 16 of the world's leading bioelectromagnetics researchers. It says there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposures are established. It also says that existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. That means, no safe exposure can be established. It also urges that there be public participation in making decisions about setting limits and advises that technical information be made available for comparison of EMF exposure in communication devices so that users can make informed decisions for prudent avoidance of EMF.

The Salzburg Resolution (June 2000) was adopted at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting and would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than 0.1 microwatt/centimeter squared. This would reduce public exposure below 0.1 µW/cm2 in all places. It is a limit that takes into account nonthermal RF bioeffects and reported health effects.


Henry Lai
Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory,
Department of Bioengineering,
School of Medicine and College of Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA 
"Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RFR), a form of energy between 10 KHz-300 GHz in the electromagnetic spectrum, is used in wireless communication and emitted from antennae of mobile telephones (handys) and from cellular masts. RFR can penetrate into organic tissues and be absorbed and converted into heat. One familiar application of this energy is the microwave ovens used in cooking."
"Exposure to RFR from mobile telephones is of a short-term, repeated nature at a relatively high intensity, whereas exposure to RFR emitted from cell masts is of long duration but at a very low intensity"
"For those who have questions on the possible health effects of exposure to radiation from cell masts, there are studies that show biological effects at very low intensities. The following are some examples: Kwee and Raskmark [1997] reported changes in cell proliferation (division) at SARs of 0.000021- 0.0021 W/kg; Magnras and Xenos [1997] reported a decrease in reproductive functions in mice exposed to RFR intensities of 160-1053 nW/square cm (the SAR was not calculated); Ray and Behari [1990] reported a decrease in eating and drinking behavior in rats exposed to 0.0317 W/kg; Dutta et al. [1989] reported changes in calcium metabolism in cells exposed to RFR at 0.05-0.005 W/kg; and Phillips et al. [1998] observed DNA damage at 0.024-0.0024 W/kg. Most of the above studies investigated the effect of a single episode of RFR exposure. As regards exposure to cell mast radiation, chronic exposure becomes an important factor. Intensity and exposure duration do interact to produce an effect. We [Lai and Carino, In press] found with extremely low frequency magnetic fields that 'lower intensity, longer duration exposure' can produce the same effect as from a 'higher intensity, shorter duration exposure'. A field of a certain intensity, that exerts no effect after 45 min of exposure, can elicit an effect when the exposure is prolonged to 90 min. Thus, as described earlier, the interaction of exposure parameters, the duration of exposure, whether the effect is cumulative, involvement of compensatory responses, and the time of break down of homeostasis after long-term exposure, play important roles in determining the possible health consequence of exposure to radiation emitted from cell masts." 
"It is difficult to deny that RFR at low intensity can affect the nervous system."

Henry Lai
Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory,
Department of Bioengineering,
School of Medicine and College of Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Health effects associated with mobile base stations
in communities: the need for health studies
Dr. Neil Cherry : 8 June 2000  Environmental Management and Design Division 
P.O. Box 84 ,
 Lincoln University , Canterbury, New Zealand , email:

In 1995 a New Zealand Environment Court (as the Planning Tribunal) decided to set a public exposure limit of 2m W/cm2 for from a BellSouth GSM cell site. This was based on evidence of biological effects, including calcium ion efflux, enhanced ODC activity and EEG change down to 2.9m W/cm2. There was also epidemiological evidence of childhood leukaemia at 2.4m W/cm2. The primary expert witness for BellSouth was WHO staff member Dr Michael Repacholi from Australia. He stated that there was no evidence of adverse effects below the international guideline of SAR = 0.08W/kg because the only effect of RF/MW was tissue heating. The Court's decision rejected this position and set the exposure level of 1% of the standard. The decision also stated that this should be revised with new evidence. Subsequently two Australian studies were carried out to assure the public that both cell phones and cell sites were safe. Both of these studies, Hocking et al. (1996) and Repacholi et al. (1997), showed that leukaemia/lymphoma was more than doubled for people and mice.

It is now clear that the results of both of these were quite predicable from earlier human and rodent studies. This includes studies that are claimed by ICNIRP, WHO and Dr Repacholi (both in reviews and in the Environment Court) to show that there were no adverse effects. To this day cell phone companies and some government bodies, such as the U.K independent expert committee, chaired by Sir William Stewart, that included Dr Repacholi,still claims that there is no evidence that cell phone radiation is harmful. There is a large and growing body of published scientific studies that show that this is not true. This includes Dr Repacholi's own research. Over forty cell phone radiation studies are cited here. They show that cell phone radiation mimics the biological and epidemiological studies for EMR over the past 4 decades. This includes DNA strand breakage, chromosome aberrations, increased oncogene activity in cells, reduced melatonin, altered brain activity, altered blood pressure and increased brain cancer. (for full research article, see Information files section of our website)

Meta-Analysis: Studies of Childhood Leukemia and EMF

Greenland et al., (2000) reported a significantly elevated risk of 1.68 [95% CI 1.23-2.31]

based on pooled results from 12 studies using a time-weighted average of exposure

greater than 3 mG (0.3 μT). This is a 68% increased risk of childhood leukemia.

Ahlbom et al., (2000) reported a doubling of risk based on a meta-analysis of nine (9)

studies. The results reported an elevated risk of 2.0 [95% CI 1.27-3.13] for EMF

exposures equal to or greater than 4 mG (0.4 μT) as compared to less than 1 mG (0.1 μT)

In 2002, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) designated EMF as a

“possible human carcinogen” or Group 2B Carcinogen based on consistent

epidemiological evidence. The exposure levels at which increased risks of childhood

leukemia are reported in individual studies range from above 1.4 mG or 0.14 μT (Green

et al., 1999).

for younger children to age six (6) to 4 mG (0.4 μT). Many individual studies with

cutpoints of 2 mG or 3 mG (0.2-0.3 μT)) report increased risks. Plausible biological

mechanisms exist that may reasonably account for a causal relationship between EMF

exposure and childhood leukemia.


Recurrence of Childhood Leukemia and Poorer Survival Rates with Continued
EMF Exposure
Foliart reported more than a four-fold (450% increased risk) of adverse outcome (poorer
survival rate) for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who were
recovering in EMF environments of 3 mG (0.3 μT) and above (OR 4.5, CI 1.5-13.8).
Svendsen reported a poorer survival rate of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia
(ALL) in children exposed to 2 mG (0.2 μT) and above. These children were three times
more likely (300% increased risk) to die than children recovering in fields of less than 1
mG (OR 3.0, CI 0.9.8). Children recovering in EMF environments between 1- 2 mG
(0.1-0.2 μT) also had poorer survival rates, where the increased risk was 280% (OR 2.8,
CI 1.2-6.2).


Higher Lifetime Cancer Risks with Childhood EMF Exposure
Lowenthal (2007) reported that children raised for the first five years in home
environments exposed to EMF within 300 meters of a high voltage power line have a
five-fold (a 500 percent increased risk of developing some kinds of cancers sometime in
later life. For children from newborn to 15 years of age; it is a three-fold risk of
developing cancer later in life (Lowenthal et al., 2007). There is suggestive evidence for
a link between adult leukemia and EMF exposure.


Childhood Brain Tumors

There is suggestive evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to EMF

exposure. The meta-analysis by Wartenberg et al., (1998) reported increased risks for

childhood brain tumors. Risks are quite similar whether based on calculated EMF fields

(OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.8 – 2.3] or based on measured EMF fields (OR = 1.4, 95% CI =

0.8 – 2.4).


Brain Tumors in Electrical Workers and in Electrical Occupations (Meta-analysis)

A significant excess risk for adult brain tumors in electrical workers and those adults with

occupational EMF exposure was reported (Kheifets et al., 1995). This is about the same

size risk for lung cancer and second hand smoke (US DHHS, 2006). A total of 29 studies

with populations from 12 countries were included in this meta-analysis. The relative risk

was reported as 1.16 (CI = 1.08 – 1.24) or a 16% increased risk for all brain tumors. For

gliomas, the risk estimate was reported to be 1.39 (1.07 – 1.82) or a 39% increased risk

for those in electrical occupations. A second meta-analysis published by Kheifets et al.,

((2001) added results of 9 new studies published after 1995. It reported a new pooled

estimate (OR = 1.16, 1.08 – 1.01) that showed little change in the risk estimate overall

from 1995.


Alzheimer’s Disease and ALS
Evidence for a relationship between exposure and the neurodegenerative diseases,
Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is strong and relatively consistent.
While not every publication shows a statistically significant relationship between
exposure and disease, ORs of 2.3 (95% CI = 1.0-5.1 in Qio et al., 2004), of 2.3 (95% CI =
1.6-3.3 in Feychting et al., 2003) and of 4.0 (95% CI = 1.4-11.7 in Hakansson et al.,
2003) for Alzheimer’s Disease.
Hakansson et al., report more than a doubling of risk for ALS 2.2 (95% CI = 1.0-4.7).
Savitz et al., (1998) reports more than a tripling of risk for ALS (3.1, CI = 1.0 – 9.8).


A meta-analysis by Erren (2001) on EMF and breast cancer reported pooled relative risks
based on studies of both men and women. A total of 38 publications were reviewed;
there were 23 studies on men; 25 studies on women; and 10 studies on both men and
women. The pooled relative risk for women exposed to EMF was 1.12 (CI 1.09 – 1.15)
or a 12% increased risk, Erren observed that variations between the contributing results
are not easily attributable to chance (P = 0.0365). For men and breast cancer, he reported
a fairly homogeneous increased risk (a pooled relative risk of 1.37 [CI 1.11 – 1.71]).
This analysis is well conducted. The results were stratified according to measured or
assumed intensity of exposure to EMF; and the estimate of risk for the most heavily
exposed group was extracted. Independent estimates of RRs were grouped according to
gender, type of study (case-control and cohort), country where the study was conducted
and method used to assess exposure. Pooled estimates of RRs and their 95% confidence
intervals (CI) referring to various combinations of these factors were calculated
according to appropriate statistical methods (Greenland, 1987). Misclassification
possibilities were thoroughly assessed, and whether the results were sole endpoints or
there were multiple endpoints in each study did not affect the RRs.
Erren qualifies his findings by discussing that latencies for cancers can be 20 to 30 years,
Further, he notes that studies of total EMF exposures from both home, travel and
workplace are rarely available, and these EMF sources are ubiquitous. Both could result
in underestimation of risks. Another way in which risks might be masked is by variations
in age of study participants. Forssen and colleagues (2000) reported no increased RRs
for breast cancer in women of all ages when they combined residential and occupational
EMF exposures (RR = 0.9, CI 0.3 – 2.7). However, when risks for the women younger
than 50 years of age were separated out and calculated, the RR increased to 7.3 (CI 0.7 –
78.3) although with wide confidence intervals based on only four cases. Erren notes
“When possibly relevant exposures to EMF in the whole environment are assessed only
partially, errors in the categorization of exposure status are likely to occur. If such
misclassification is random and thus similar in subrgroups being compared
(nondifferential), then the error will tend to introduce bias towards the null. Substantial
random misclassification of exposures would then tend to generate spurious reports of
‘little or no effect’. Note for example that estimates of smoking-associated lung cancer
risks in the early 1950’s could have been seriously distorted if exposure assessment had
not considered smoking either at work or at home.”
“Collectively, the data are consistent with the idea that exposures to EMF, as defined,
are associated with some increase in breast cancer risks, albeit the excess risk is small.”
Erren (2001)

ELF and Toxic Chemical Exposures
There is also the issue of what weight to give the evidence for synergistic effects of toxic
chemical exposure and EMF exposure. Juuilainen et al., (2006) reported that the
combined effects of toxic agents and ELF magnetic fields together enhances damage as
compared to the toxic exposure alone. In a meta-analysis of 65 studies; overall results
showed 91% of the in vivo studies and 68% of the in vitro studies had worse outcomes
(were positive for changes indicating synergistic damage) with ELF exposure in
combination with toxic agents. The percentage of the 65 studies with positive effects
was highest when the EMF exposure preceded the other exposure. The radical pair
mechanism (oxidative damage due to free radicals) is cited as a good candidate to explain
these results. Reconsideration of exposure limits for ELF is warranted based on this






The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.

The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.

Running title: Cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station.


Significant concern has been raised about possible health effects from exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, especially after the rapid introduction of mobile telecommunications systems. Parents are especially concerned with the possibility that children might develop cancer after exposure to the RF emissions from mobile telephone base stations erected in or near schools. The few epidemiologic studies that did report on cancer incidence in relation to RF radiation have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, and thus emphasize the need for more studies that should investigate cohorts with high RF exposure for changes in cancer incidence. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is an increased cancer incidence in populations, living in a small area, and exposed to RF radiation from a cell-phone transmitter station.

This is an epidemiologic assessment, to determine whether the incidence of cancer cases among individuals exposed to a cell-phone transmitter station is different from that expected in Israel, in Netanya, or as compared to people who lived in a nearby area. Participants are people (n=622) living in the area near a cell-phone transmitter station for 3-7 years who were patients of one health clinic (of DW). The exposure began 1 year before the start of the study when the station first came into service. A second cohort of individuals (n=1222) who get their medical services in a clinic located nearby with very closely matched, environment, workplace and occupational characteristics was used for comparison.

In the area of exposure (area A) eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of only one year. This rate of cancers was compared both with the rate of 31 cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 2/1222 rate recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netanya. Cancer incidence of women in area A was thus significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of area B and the whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area A than in the entire population. 3

The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station.


The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone

Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer

Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit

Published in

Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft 17,4 2004, as:

‘Einfluss der räumlichen Nähe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz

Following the call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency
for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the
risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to
cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors.
The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the
years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1,000 patients
were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is
intended to continue the project in the form of a register.
The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly
higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres
from the cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients
living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier.
In the years 1999-2004, ie after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk
of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation
compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.