MADRID INTERNATIONALSCIENTIFIC DECLARATIONThe undersigned scientists of this Madrid International Scientific Declaration regarding
the present state of research on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) and thelegal implications that arise from it agree and support the following:
1. Exposure to extremely low-frequency and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
generated by electric and wireless devices may have an unavoidable andindisputable effect on public health and, in particular, on the most vulnerable, suchas children, pregnant women, chronically ill patients, as well as the aged. The
above-mentioned electric and wireless systems include (albeit not exclusively)
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) gadgets, such as mobile phones and other wirelesscommunication devices, as well as their broadcasting systems and base stations,
Wi-Fi, transmission antennas, smart meters and baby monitors, as well as electricalutility equipments and their infrastructure which provide electricity that yields
extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF), often together withhigh-frequency disturbances found on today’s grid.
In this respect, we reiterate and undertake the 2017 International EMF Scientist
Appeal (1) in its general terms and the following statements in particular,“Scientific basis for our common concerns:
Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at
levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer
risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural andfunctional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurologicaldisorders, and negative impacts on the general well-being in humans. Damage goes wellbeyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant andanimal life.”

2. There is a need to take immediate action according to present scientific research;
it is not in the interest of the general public to wait. The ICNIRP (International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) as well as the FCC/IEEE
guidelines are obsolete and consequently new measures and more restrictive
exposure limitations must apply, in line with Resolution 1815 of the Council ofEurope of May 27, 2011 (2).
The WHO supports the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) cancer
classification of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-EMF) of 2002, andradiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 2011, as possible human carcinogens (group 2B).
The ICNIRP, in 1998, set “guidelines to determine exposure limits to electric,
magnetic, and electromagnetic fields”. These guidelines have been accepted by the
WHO and a number of countries, although the guidelines have become obsolete in
the face of scientific evidence showing risk to the population at lower exposurelevels and over longer exposure time periods.
Thus, in the Bioinitiative Report it is pointed out:

“While new ELF limits are being developed and implemented, a reasonable approach would
be a 1 mG planning limit for habitable space adjacent to all new or upgraded power lines anda 2 mG limit for all other new construction. It is also recommended for that a 1 mG limit beestablished for existing habitable space for children and/or women who are pregnant(because of the possible link between childhood leukemia and in utero exposure to ELF). This
recommendation is based on the assumption that a higher burden of protection is requiredfor children who cannot protect themselves, and who are at risk for childhood leukemia at
rates that are traditionally high enough to trigger regulatory action. This situation inparticular warrants extending the 1 mG limit to existing occupied space. "Establish" in this1case probably means formal public advisories from relevant health agencies”. ∗We agree with those values and recommend that they immediately be establishedas maximum exposure limits, which will be reviewed as new scientific evidence
comes out.

Therefore, it is relevant to point out that the Council of Europe passed their
Resolution 1815 on May 27, 2011, “Potential dangers of electromagnetic fields
and their effect on the environment” (2). We concur with this Resolution and pointout the following statements:
In the previous report, of May 6, 2011 (3) by the Committee on the Environment,
Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, we subscribe to the conclusion, “(that)indicates that there is sufficient evidence of potentially harmful effects ofelectromagnetic fields on fauna, flora and human health to react and to guard
against potentially serious environmental and health hazards”, and we agree withthe recommendation to apply the ”Precautionary Principle” and to review thepresent limit guidelines because any delay may have high financial and healthcosts, as asbestos, lead gasoline, and tobacco had in the past.
We particularly emphasize point 8 of the Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe:
8.1. In general terms:
8.1.1. take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially toradio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young
people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;
8.1.2. reconsider the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic
fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which haveserious limitations, and apply ALARA principles, covering both thermal effects and theathermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;
8.1.3. put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentiallyharmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especiallytargeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;
8.1.4. pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer from a syndrome of
intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them,including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;1∗ 1 mG = 0.1 μT; 2 mG = 0.2 μT

8.1.5. in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human health,step up research on new types of antenna, mobile phone and DECT-type devices, andencourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are justas efficient but whose effects are less negative on the environment and health;8.2. Concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT wireless phones, WiFi, WLAN and
WIMAX for computers and other wireless devices such as baby monitors:
8.2.1. set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor
areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, andin the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre;
8.2.2. undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior tolicensing;
8.2.3. introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic
fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any
health risks connected with its use;
8.2.4. raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT wireless telephones, baby monitorsand other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment
is left permanently on standby, and instead recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones athome or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves;
8.3. Concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1. develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted
information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specificrisks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting
microwaves;
8.3.2. for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference towired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by school children
on school premises.

Thus, the Council of Europe supports resolutions which have been signed byindependent scientists of different nationalities over the past 17 years; i.e.: the
Copenhagen Resolution of 2010; Resolution of Porto Alegre of 2010; Seletun
Statement of 2009; Paris Declaration of 2009; The London Resolution of 2007;
Venice Resolution of 2007; Brussels Appeal of 2007; Benevento Resolution of 2006,
Bamberg Appeal of 2005; Declaration of Helsinki of 2005; Declaration of Alcalá of2002; Catania Declaration of 2002; Declaration of Friburg of 2002, Salzburg
Resolution of 2000. All of them warn about health risks from exposure to EMF andthe need to take preventive measures.
We can state, without any doubt, that continuous exposure to these types ofradiation has been shown to be a potential and grave health risk and that efficientmeasures, such as those set forth by the Council of Europe, must be undertaken to
reduce them. It is important to understand that this is not the final, but the first,
step towards a healthy environment without damaging effects from artificial
electromagnetic fields on any living organisms. The current resolution of theCouncil of Europe may, thus, have to be revised in the future as further knowledgearises from science and investigation proving that more stricter protective
measures are needed to ensure the public health.
3. Consequently, we make the following appeal:
Public administrations at all levels, state, regional, autonomous, and local,
are requested to immediately implement the Council of Europe Resolution,
making it a mandatory and minimum part of their rules and regulations.

Madrid, September 28, 2017.

(1)To: His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Honorable Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization
U.N. Member States

International Appeal:
Scientists call for Protection from
Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure
We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic
fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding theubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–
but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordlessphones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as
electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low
frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

Scientific basis for our common concerns
Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well
below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress,
increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the
reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on
general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing
evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.
These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, toencourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering thedevelopment of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating
the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action,
the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.

Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines
The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect thegeneral public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the“Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields
1

(up to 300 GHz)”1. These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around theworld. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international
harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its
1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided noevidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate
revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields2. ICNIRP
continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to thecontrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure andlow-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health.
The WHO adopted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of
extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) in 20023 and radiofrequency radiation(RFR) in 20114. This classification states that EMF is a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B).
Despite both IARC findings, the WHO continues to maintain that there is insufficient evidence tojustify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.
Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects, werecommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an
independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current
practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields. The deliberations of
this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential thatindustry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its processes
or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to guideprecautionary action.
Collectively we also request that:
1. children and pregnant women be protected;
2. guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened;
3. manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology;
4. utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution, and monitoring of electricity
maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful
ground current;
5. the public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy andtaught harm reduction strategies;
6. medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy andbe provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity;
7. governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that is
independent of industry and mandate industry cooperation with researchers;
8. media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions
regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies; and9. white-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

1 http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
2

http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPStatementEMF.pdf

3

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol80

4

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/2Release date: May 11, 2015
All inquiries, including those from qualified scientists who request that their name be added to the Appeal,
may be made by contacting Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director, EMFscientist.org, at info@EMFscientist.org.
Note: the signatories to this appeal have signed as individuals, giving their professional affiliations, but this does notnecessarily mean that this represents the views of their employers or the professional organizations they are affiliated with.

Signatories

ArmeniaProf. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, UNESCO Chair, Armenia
Australia
Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Environmental Health Educator/Researcher, Australia; Advisor, Environmental Health Trustand Doctors for Safer Schools
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 ofWales Hospital, NSW, Australia
AustriaDr. 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
Bahrain
Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain
Belgium
Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium
BrazilVânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Prof. Dr. João Eduardo de Araujo, MD, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Dr. Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo, D. Sc., Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, State of Paraíba, Brazil
Prof. Alvaro deSalles, Ph.D., Federal University of Rio Grande Del Sol, Brazil
Prof. Adilza Dode, Ph.D., MSc. Engineering Sciences, Minas Methodist University, Brazil
Dr. Daiana Condessa Dode, MD, Federal University of Medicine, Brazil
Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, MRE Engenharia Ltda, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
CanadaDr. Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital,
McGill University, Canada
Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada
Prof. Ying Li, Ph.D., InVitroPlus Labs, Dept. of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
James McKay M.Sc, Ecologist, City of London; Planning Services, Environmental and Parks Planning, London, Canada
Prof. Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, University of Toronto, Canada
Prof. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, Ph.D., Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada
Prof. Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Behavioural Neuroscience and Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada

3

ChinaProf. Huai Chiang, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Yuqing Duan, Ph.D., Food & Bioengineering, Jiangsu University, China
Dr. Kaijun Liu, Ph.D., Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
Prof. Xiaodong Liu, Director, Key Lab of Radiation Biology, Ministry of Health of China; Associate Dean, School of Public Health,Jilin University, China
Prof. Wenjun Sun, Ph.D., Bioelectromagnetics Key Lab, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Minglian Wang, Ph.D., College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Qun Wang, Ph.D., College of Materials Science & Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Haihiu Zhang, Ph.D., School of Food & BioEngineering, Jiangsu University, China
Prof. Jianbao Zhang, Associate Dean, Life Science and Technology School, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Prof. Hui-yan Zhao, Director of STSCRW, College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China
Prof. J. Zhao, Department of Chest Surgery, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Croatia
Ivancica Trosic, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia
EgyptProf. Dr. Abu Bakr Abdel Fatth El-Bediwi, Ph.D., Physics Dept., Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Emad Fawzy Eskander, Ph.D., Medical Division, Hormones Department, National Research Center, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Heba Salah El Din Aboul Ezz, Ph.D., Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Nasr Radwan, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt
EstoniaDr. Hiie Hinrikus, Ph.D., D.Sc, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
FinlandDr. Mikko Ahonen, Ph.D, University of Tampere, Finland
Dr. Marjukka Hagström, LL.M., M.Soc.Sc, Principal Researcher, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland
Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland;Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen.
FranceDr. Dominique Belpomme, Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, ECERI Executive Director
Dr. Pierre Le Ruz, Ph.D., Criirem, Le Mans, France

GeorgiaProf. Besarion Partsvania, Ph.D., Head of Bio-cybernetics Department of Georgian Technical University, Georgia
Germany
Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman, Pandora Foundation, Germany
Prof. Dr. Hynek Burda, Ph.D., University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Dr. Horst Eger, MD, Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Head, Institute of Environ. Physics; Ex-Head, Clinical Research, Fribourg Medical University,
Germany
Dr.Sc. Florian M. König, Ph.D., Florian König Enterprises (FKE) GmbH, Munich, Germany
Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., Bionik-Institut, University of Saarlandes, Germany
GreeceDr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece
Dr. Christos Georgiou, Ph.D., Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
Prof. Emeritus Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D., Depts. Cell Biology, Radiobiology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece
Dr. Aikaterini Skouroliakou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Energy Technology Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece
Dr. Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society-Kefalonia, Greece
IcelandDr. Ceon Ramon, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, USA; Professor, Reykjavik University, Iceland

4

IndiaProf. Dr. B. D. Banerjee, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry,
University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India
Prof. Jitendra Behari, Ph.D., Ex-Dean, Jawaharlal Nehru University; presently, Emeritus Professor, Amity University, India
Prof. Dr. Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India
Dr. Kavindra K. Kesari, MBA, Ph.D., Resident Environmental Scientist, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Assistant Professor, Jaipur
National University, India
Prof. Rashmi Mathur, Ph.D., Head, Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Prof. N.N. Sareesh, Ph.D., Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal University, India
IranProf. Dr. Soheila Abdi, Ph.D., Physics, Islamic Azad University of Safadasht, Tehran, IranProf. G.A. Jelodar, D.V.M., Ph.D., Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, IranProf. Hamid Mobasheri, Ph.D., Head, BRC; Head, Membrane Biophysics & Macromolecules Lab; Institute of Biochemistry andBiophysics, University of Tehran, IranProf. S.M.J. Mortazavi, Ph.D., Head, Medical Physics & Engineering; Chair, NIER Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of
Medical Sciences, IranProf. Amirnader Emami Razavi, Ph.D., Clinical Biochem., National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute, Tehran Univ. Medical Sciences, Iran
Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, Ph.D., Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, IranProf. Dr. Mohammad Shabani, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Iran
IsraelDr. Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Israel
Dr. Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician and General Practitioner, Sherutey Briut Clalit, Shron Shomron district, Israel
Dr. Ronni Wolf, MD, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Head of Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel
ItalyProf. Sergio Adamo, Ph.D., La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Prof. Fernanda Amicarelli, Ph.D., Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy
Dr. Pasquale Avino, Ph.D., INAIL Research Section, Rome, Italy
Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Ph.D., FIATP, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy
Prof. Emanuele Calabro, Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Messina, Italy
Prof. Franco Cervellati, Ph.D., Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Section of General Physiology, University of Ferrara, Italy
Prof. Stefano Falone, Ph.D., Researcher in Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy
Prof. Dr. Speridione Garbisa, ret. Senior Scholar, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy
Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy
Prof. Livio Giuliani, Ph.D., Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florence-Bozen; Spokesman, ICEMS - International
Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Italy
Prof. Dr. Angelo Levis, MD, Dept. Medical Sciences, Padua University, Italy
Prof. Salvatore Magazù, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Science, Messina University, Italy
Dr. Fiorenzo Marinelli, Ph.D., Researcher, Molecular Genetic Institute of the National Research Council, Italy
Claudio Poggi, Electronics Engineer, Research Director, Sistemi s.r.l., (TN), Genoa, Italy
Prof. Raoul Saggini, University G. D'Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
Dr. Morando Soffritti, MD, Honorary President, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases B.
Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Prof. Massimo Sperini, Ph.D., Center for Inter-University Research on Sustainable Development, Rome, Italy
Japan
Prof. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Ph.D., Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
Prof. Hidetake Miyata, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan
Kazakhstan
Dr. Timur Saliev, MD, Ph.D., Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of
Dundee, UK
New Zealand
Dr. Bruce Rapley, BSc, MPhil, Ph.D., Principal Consulting Scientist, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New ZealandNigeriaDr. Idowu Ayisat Obe, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria

5

Oman
Prof. Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, Ph.D., Human Structure, Oman Medical College, Oman
PolandDr. Pawel Bodera, Pharm. D., Department of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland
Prof. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Ph.D., Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland
Republic of China
Prof. Dr. Tsun-Jen Cheng, MD, Sc.D., National Taiwan University, Republic of China
Russian Federation
Dr. Oleg Grigoyev, DSc., Ph.D., Deputy Chairman, The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Prof. Yury Grigoryev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Dr. Anton Merkulov, Ph.D., Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation
SerbiaDr. Snezana Raus Balind, Ph.D., Research Associate, Institute for Biological Research "Sinisa Stankovic", Belgrade, Serbia
Prof. Danica Dimitrijevic, Ph.D., Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Dr. Sladjana Spasic, Ph.D., Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Slovak Republic
Dr. Igor Belyaev, Ph.D., Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovak RepublicSouth Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Young Hwan Ahn, MD, Ph.D, Ajou University Medical School, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Kwon-Seok Chae, Ph.D., Molecular-ElectroMagnetic Biology Lab, Kyungpook National University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Dr. Myung Chan Gye, Ph.D., Hanyang University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Myoung Gimm, Ph.D., School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dankook University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Dr. Mina Ha, MD, Dankook University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Seung-Cheol Hong, MD, Inje University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Dong Hyun Kim, Ph.D., Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic University of
Korea, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Ha-Rim Kim, Dept.of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, South Korea (Republic of Korea
Prof. Myeung Ju Kim, MD, Ph.D., Department of Anatomy, Dankook University College of Medicine, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Nam Kim, Ph.D., School of Information and Communications Engineering, Chungbuk National University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Yun-Sil Lee, Ph.D., Ewha Womans University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Wong Kim, MD, Ph.D., Hallym University School of Medicine, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Jung Keog Park, Ph.D., Life Science & Biotech; Dir., Research Instit.of Biotechnology, Dongguk University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Sungman Park, Ph.D., Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hallym University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Kiwon Song, Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry, Yonsei University, South Korea (Republic of Korea)
SpainProf. Dr. Miguel Alcaraz, MD, Ph.D., Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain
Dr. Alfonso Balmori, Ph.D., Biologist, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Spain
Prof. J.L. Bardasano, D.Sc, University of Alcalá, Department of Medical Specialties, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, Ph.D., La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain
Prof. Dr. Elena Lopez Martin, Ph.D., Human Anatomy, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Prof. Enrique A. Navarro, Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics and Electromagnetics, University of Valencia, Spain
SwedenDr. Michael Carlberg, MSc, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Bertil R. Persson, Ph.D., MD, Lund University, Sweden
Senior Prof. Dr. Leif Salford, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, Director, Rausing Laboratory, Lund University, Sweden
Dr. Fredrik Söderqvist, Ph.D., Ctr. for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden
Switzerland
Dr. nat. phil. Daniel Favre, Association Romande Alert, Switzerland

6TurkeyProf. Dr. Mehmet Zülküf Akdağ, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Halil Ibrahim Atasoy MD, Faculty of Medicine, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey
Prof. Ayse G. Canseven (Kursun), Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Biophysics, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Salih Celik, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Turkish Biophysical Society; Head, Biophysics Dept; Medical Faculty, Dicle Univ., Turkey
Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag, Ph.D., Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey
Prof. Omar Elmas, MD, Ph.D., Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Turkey
Dr. Arzu Firlarer, M.Sc. Ph.D., Occupational Health & Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey
Prof. Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D., Deputy Chancellor; Dir. Health Services; Head, Dept. Histology & Embryology, Turkey
Dr. Mustafa Nazıroğlu, Ph.D., Biophysics Dept, Medical Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ersan Odacı, MD, Ph.D., Karadeniz Technical University, Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey
Dr. Elcin Ozgur, Ph.D., Biophysics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Turkey
Dr. Cemil Sert, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics of Medicine Faculty, Harran University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Medical Faculty of Gazi University; Chair, Biophysics Dept; Director GNRK Ctr.; Panel Mbr,
NATO STO HFM; Scientific Secretariat Member, ICEMS; Advisory Committee Member, WHO EMF, Turkey
Dr. Bahriye Sirav (Aral), ABD, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Turkey
United Kingdom
David Gee, Associate Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, UK
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., Institute of Science in Society, UK
Dr. Isaac Jamieson, Ph.D., Biosustainable Design, UK
Prof. Michael J. O’Carroll, Emeritus Professor, former Pro Vice-Chancellor, Sunderland University, UK.
Alasdair Phillips, Electrical Engineer, UK
Dr. Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, M.Sc., Ph.D., Public Health Consultant, Honorary Research Fellow, Brunel University London, UK
Dr. Sarah Starkey, Ph.D., UK
UkraineDr. Oleg Banyra, MD, 2nd Municipal Polyclinic, St. Paraskeva Medical Centre, Ukraine
Prof. Igor Yakymenko, Ph.D., D.Sc., Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
USA
Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA
Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept.of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, USA
Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA
Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA
Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA
Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA
Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA
Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA
Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA
Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA
B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA
Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University's Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences;
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA
Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA
Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA
Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA
Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA
L. Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA
Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. University of Colorado, USA
Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
Camilla Rees, CEO, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA
Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA
Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA
David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA
Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

7

8

(2)

http://assembly.coe.int

Resolution 1815 (2011)1
Final version

The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effecton the environment
Parliamentary Assembly
1.
The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states’ commitment topreserving the environment and environmental health, as set out in many charters, conventions, declarations
and protocols since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Stockholm
Declaration (Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation
1863 (2009) on environment and health: better prevention of environment-related health hazards,
Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution, and more generally, Recommendation 1885
(2009) on drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right toa healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information, public participation inenvironmental decision-making and access to justice – implementation of the Ǻrhus Convention.
2.
The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines
and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate.
According to the World Health Organization, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of themost common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are
spreading. All populations are now exposed in varying degrees to electromagnetic fields, the levels of which
will continue to increase as technology advances.
3.
Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an
extensive network of fixed antennae, or base stations, relaying information with radio-frequency signals. Over
1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of
third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed Internet access and services, suchas wireless local area networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas(airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks
increases, so does the radio-frequency exposure of the population.
4.
While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects
which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, whether from extremely low frequencies, powerlines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony,
appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals
as well as the human body, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
5.
As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types andfrequencies, the Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle
is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic
emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evaluation
does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Given the context of growing exposure of the
population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be
extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.

1. Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 27 May 2011 (see Doc. 12608, reportof the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Huss).

F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex|

assembly@coe.int|

Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000|

Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733

Resolution 1815 (2011)

6.
The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all
the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack ofreaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting andimplementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before
taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the casewith asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
7.
Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and their potential
consequences for the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as thelicensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It therefore
highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish atransparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.
8.
In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Councilof Europe:
8.1.

in general terms:
8.1.1.
take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially
to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young
people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;
8.1.2.
reconsider the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic
fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which haveserious limitations, and apply ALARA principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermicor biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;
8.1.3.
put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentiallyharmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especiallytargeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;
8.1.4.
pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer from a syndrome of
intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including
the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;
8.1.5.
in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human health,step up research on new types of antenna, mobile phone and DECT-type device, andencourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are justas efficient but whose effects are less negative on the environment and health;8.2. concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT wireless phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX
for computers and other wireless devices such as baby monitors:
8.2.1.
set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor
areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in
the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre;
8.2.2.
undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior tolicensing;
8.2.3.
introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic
fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any healthrisks connected with its use;
8.2.4.
raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT wireless telephones, baby monitorsand other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment isleft permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or,
failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves;
8.3.

concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1.
develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted
information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risksof early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2.
for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference towired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on
school premises;

2

Resolution 1815 (2011)

8.4.

concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base stations:
8.4.1.
introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric
installations at a safe distance from dwellings;
8.4.2.
apply strict safety standards for the health impact of electrical systems in new
dwellings;
8.4.3.
reduce threshold values for relay antennae in accordance with the ALARA principle andinstall systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all antennae;
8.4.4.
determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennae not solely
according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and regional government
authorities, local residents and associations of concerned citizens;

8.5.

concerning risk assessment and precautions:8.5.1.

make risk assessment more prevention oriented;

8.5.2.
improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk scale,making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several risk hypotheses to bestudied and considering compatibility with real-life conditions;
8.5.3.

pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;

8.5.4.
formulate a human-rights-oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA
principles;
8.5.5.
increase public funding of independent research, in particular through grants fromindustry and taxation of products that are the subject of public research studies to evaluate
health risks;
8.5.6.

create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds;

8.5.7.

make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;

8.5.8.
promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including civilsociety (Ǻrhus Convention).

3

(3)

http://assembly.coe.int

Doc. 12608
06 May 2011

The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effecton the environment
Report1
Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
Rapporteur: Mr Jean HUSS, Luxembourg, Socialist Group (SOC)

Summary
The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines andelectrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. Whileelectrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have fully beneficial effects which are appliedin medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines orcertain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear tohave more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as wellas the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.
One must respect the precautionary principle and revise the current threshold values; waiting for high levels ofscientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case in the past withasbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.

1.

Reference to the committee: Doc. 11894, Reference 3563 of 29 May 2009.

F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733

Doc. 12608 Report

Contents

Page

A. Draft resolution .......................................................................................................................................... 3
B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Huss, rapporteur ................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Background to the debate ..................................................................................................................... 6
3. Growing concerns in Europe ................................................................................................................ 7
4. Effects on the environment: plants, insects, animals ............................................................................ 7
5. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields in medicine ........................................................................ 8
6. Therapeutic use of electric currents or electromagnetic waves ............................................................ 8
7. Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and health protection....
9
8. Contending forces and arguments: the dispute over the incidence of biological effects and overthreshold values ....................................................................................................................................... 9
9. Scientific studies and arguments pursued by associations and NGOs, by groupings of scientists, by
the European Environment Agency and by the European Parliament .................................................... 10
10. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 132

Doc. 12608 Report

A. Draft resolution2
1.
The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states’ commitment topreserving the environment and environmental health, as set out in many charters, conventions, declarations
and protocols since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Stockholm
Declaration (Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation
1863 (2009) on environment and health, Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution, and moregenerally, Recommendation 1885 (2009) on drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on
Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to
information, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice – implementation of
the Aarhus Convention.
2.
The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines
and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate.
According to the World Health Organisation, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of themost common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are
spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of electromagnetic fields, the levels of which
will continue to increase as technology advances.
3.
Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an
extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radio frequency signals. Over
1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of
third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, suchas wireless local area networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas(airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks
increases, so does the radio frequency exposure of the population.
4.
While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects
which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low
frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications andmobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants,
insects and animals as well as the human body even when exposed to levels that are below the official
threshold values.
5.
As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types andfrequencies, the Assembly recommends that the ALARA or “as low as reasonably achievable” principle isapplied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic
emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applicable when scientific evaluation
does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty, especially given the context of growing
exposure of the population, including particularly vulnerable groups such as young people and children, which
could lead to extremely high human and economic costs of inaction if early warnings are neglected.
6.
The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all
the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack ofreaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting andimplementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before
taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the casewith asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
7.
Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and the potential
consequences for the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as thelicensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It therefore
highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish atransparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.

2.

Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 11 April 2011.
3

Doc. 12608 Report8.
In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Councilof Europe:
8.1.

in general terms:
8.1.1.
take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially
to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young
people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours;
8.1.2.
reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure
standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which haveserious limitations and apply “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principles, coveringboth thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions orradiation;
8.1.3.
put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentiallyharmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especiallytargeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age;
8.1.4.
pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” persons suffering from a syndrome of
intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including
the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network;
8.1.5.
in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human health,step up research on new types of antennas and mobile phone and DECT-type devices, andencourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are justas efficient but have less negative effects on the environment and health;8.2. concerning the private use of mobile phones, DECT phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX forcomputers and other wireless devices such as baby phones:
8.2.1.
set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor
areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in
the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre;
8.2.2.
undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior tolicensing;
8.2.3.
introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic
fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any healthrisks connected with its use;
8.2.4.
raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones, baby
monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electricalequipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones athome or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves;
8.3.

concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1.
develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted
information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risksof early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2.
ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms andschools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society
organisations;8.4.

concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base stations:
8.4.1.
introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric
installations at a safe distance from dwellings;
8.4.2.

apply strict safety standards for sound electric systems in new dwellings;

8.4.3.
reduce threshold values for relay antennas in accordance with the ALARA principle andinstall systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all antennas;
8.4.4.
determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennas not solely
according to the operators’ interests but in consultation with local and regional government
officials, local residents and associations of concerned citizens;4Doc. 12608 Report

8.5.

concerning risk assessment and precautions:8.5.1.

make risk assessment more prevention oriented;

8.5.2.
improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk scale,making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several risk hypotheses andconsidering compatibility with real life conditions;
8.5.3.

pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists;

8.5.4.

formulate a human rights oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA principles;

8.5.5.
increase public funding of independent research, inter alia through grants from industry
and taxation of products which are the subject of public research studies to evaluate healthrisks;
8.5.6.

create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds;

8.5.7.

make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory;

8.5.8.
promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including civilsociety (Aarhus Convention).

5Doc. 12608 Report

B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Huss, rapporteur
1. Introduction
1.
Electromagnetic fields, whether emitted by high-voltage lines, domestic appliances, relay antennas,
mobile telephones or other microwave devices, are increasingly present in our techno-industrial environment.
2.
Obviously, in evolutionary terms, living or working in artificial electromagnetic extremely low frequency
and high frequency fields, on top of the electromagnetic fields naturally occurring in the environment, is still a
relatively new experience for human beings, fauna and flora. It goes back no further than fifty years or so,when intensive industrial and domestic exposure began with radars, radio waves and televisions andelectromagnetic fields generated by high-voltage lines and household electrical appliances.
3.
It was only from the 1990s onwards that the new telephony and wireless mobile communication
technologies began to boom ever faster Europe-wide and even worldwide thanks to increasingly diverse andsophisticated applications: mobile telephones, cordless telephones, WiFi, WLAN (wireless local area
network), etc.
4.
The term "electromagnetic fields" covers all the fields emitted by natural and man-made sources. A
distinction is drawn between static fields and alternating fields. In the latter case there is essentially adifferentiation between extremely low frequency (ELF) fields, such as domestic electricity, and hyperfrequency (HF) fields, which include mobile telephones. Electrical fields are measured in volts per metre (v/m),
whereas magnetic fields are measured in terms of current-induced exposure in microteslas (µt). Since very
weak electrical currents are part of human physiology, at the level of communication between cells forexample, the question of the possible disruptive effects of present levels of artificial exposure on the humanenvironment and any consequences they might have for health may legitimately be raised.
5.
It should be noted with satisfaction that a major contribution was made by the technological innovations
resulting from electrification and new radio-telecommunication techniques to economic growth and thematerial well-being of the populations of industrialised countries. Domestic appliances, for example, havegreatly helped to lighten the load from everyday chores in millions of households and played a notinconsiderable role in the women's liberation movement.
2. Background to the debate
6.
Nevertheless, it must be said that, since some of these new technologies were first introduced,
environmental or health problems have emerged and become a topic of discussion in certain countries, bothin scientific circles and in the field of health and occupational medicine. From the 1930s onwards, radar waves
were linked to certain "microwave syndromes" among operators and technicians subjected to intensive andprolonged exposure. The former USSR and Eastern bloc countries adopted very low preventive thresholds
aimed at protecting operators' health.
7.
In the United States and western Europe, discussion of potential harm to health resulting fromelectromagnetic fields focused, in the 1970s and 1980s, essentially on the problem of high- or very highvoltage lines and protection in the workplace (for those working on computers, in electrically powered
steelworks, etc). As far as the risks from high-voltage lines are concerned, an American epidemiological study(Wertheimer and Leeper, 1979) demonstrated a link between the proximity of high-voltage lines and childleukaemia, corroborated in 2001 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified
these fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (category 2B). At the same time, from the early 1980s
onwards, another issue relating to electromagnetic fields and chemical pollution was raised atinternational conferences: discomforts due to office computer screens, health effects in the form ofheadaches, fatigue and eye and skin problems. Regarding the electromagnetic aspect of those effects,
stringent preventive standards (TCO standards) were proposed at the beginning of the 1990s by the Swedish
Confederation of Employees and then widely adopted.
8.
The 1990s saw a boom in mobile telephony and its rapid expansion, first in the industrialised countries
and then increasingly in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
9.
Mobile telephony and ever more sophisticated wireless telecommunication applications have not only
been taken on board in professional spheres but have also quite literally invaded our private life. This affects
even very young children, at home, at school, on transport, etc.

6Doc. 12608 Report

3. Growing concerns in Europe
10.
However, for a good ten years or so, Europe's populations have begun to show increasing concern
over the potential health risks of mobile telephony, with reliable information on these questions in short supply.
In a recent Eurobarometer study (European Commission), 48% of Europeans stated that they were concernedor very concerned over the potential health risks posed by mobile telephony. The presumption of risk wasnoted among 76% of Europeans concerning relay antennas and 73% concerning the potential effects ofmobile telephones, respectively.
11.
Such concerns over electromagnetic fields or waves have triggered the emergence and growth of amultitude of citizens' initiatives in many countries. These initiatives are mostly directed against the installationof relay antenna stations, above all close to schools, nurseries, hospitals or other institutions caring forchildren or vulnerable individuals. They also increasingly have challenged other aspects of wirelesstelecommunication such as WiFi in schools, for example.
12.
The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs organised two hearings
with experts on 17 September 2010 and 25 February 2011.
13.
At the first hearing of experts, Mr Ralph Baden of the Occupational Medicine Department of the Ministryof Health of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg spoke generally about the issue of very low frequency and highfrequency electromagnetic fields and waves and the respective applicable threshold values. He listed thedifferent sources of those electromagnetic fields outside dwellings: relay antennas, high-voltage lines, radio
stations, television, radars, etc., but laid special emphasis on the results of measurement readings, onsources of such fields in homes or public buildings and provided concrete examples of simple and practicalmeans of reducing exposure to these "indoor" fields and eliminating certain health problems, such as
headaches, insomnia, coughs, depression, etc.
4. Effects on the environment: plants, insects, animals
14.
At the same hearing of experts, Dr Ulrich Warnke of the Institute of Technical Biology and Bionics in
Saarbrücken described the biological effects of certain microwave frequencies on plants. Depending on thefrequencies, their intensity and modulation and the length of exposure, scientific studies demonstrated stress
reactions and disruptions of gene expression. Recent studies by the cellular biology laboratory of ClermontFerrand University (2007), for example, clearly show the effects of mobile telephony microwaves on plant
genes, in particular tomato plants.
15.
Other scientific international studies show comparable stress reactions in certain types of beans, aswell as deciduous and coniferous trees exposed to various frequencies (relay antennas, TETRA frequency).
16.
Dr Warnke highlighted the innate magnetic compass used by certain animals or insects to orient
themselves in time and space and which dictates the internal functioning of their organism, before going on todemonstrate how extremely weak artificial fields or waves could adversely affect the sense of direction,navigation and communication of certain animals or insects: migratory birds, pigeons, certain kinds of fish
(sharks, whales, rays) or certain insects (ants, butterflies and especially bees). He suggested thatmalfunctions induced by artificial electromagnetic waves might be one of the major causes – besides
problems of exposure to chemicals – of repeated incidents of whales being washed up on beaches or thedeath or disappearance of bee colonies (colony collapse disorder) observed in past years.
17.
The great multitude of scientific studies quoted during the hearing of experts should certainly prompt
policymakers to reflect on their decisions and act accordingly. One final aspect mentioned during the hearing
concerned the potentially pathogenic effects observed in livestock – calves, cows, horses, geese, etc. –following the installation of mobile telephone masts nearby: unaccountable deformities of new-born calves,
cataracts, fertility problems.
18.
In the face of fast-growing concerns and opposition in many Council of Europe member states, theresponse of top executives of electricity companies and mobile telephone operators is to deny that theirindustrial and commercial activities have any adverse effect on human health. At the hearing in Paris on 25
February 2011, the official representatives of French and European mobile telephone operators passionately
argued that the official threshold values applicable in most countries in the world were adequate to protect
human beings from the thermal effects of mobile telephones and that any biological effects, if these could bedemonstrated, would not have any adverse effects on human health.

7Doc. 12608 Report

19.
To back up their argument, the experts quoted the scientific assessments carried out by associations
such as the International Committee on Non-Ionisation Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a small private NGOnear Munich, or by official organisations: the World Health Organization, the European Commission and anumber of national protection agencies. It appears that these European and national organisations orinternational bodies have based their thinking on the threshold values and recommendations advocated by
the ICNIRP when that private association was set up near Munich at the beginning of the 1990s.
20.
Yet, at the same hearing, leaders of associations of citizens and representatives of the NGOs, such as
Robin des toits, laid heavy emphasis on the numerous risks and harmful biological effects and related healthproblems which they believed to be linked to electromagnetic fields or waves from mobile telephony, relay
antennas, high-voltage lines and other artificially generated electromagnetic fields, even at very low levels thatwere well below the officially applicable threshold values.
21.
The representative of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, an official advisory body to
the European Union, stressed the importance of the precautionary principle written into the European treaties
and accordingly pointed to the need for effective preventive measures to protect human health and avoid
painful health issues or scandals of the kind already experienced over asbestos, tobacco smoking, lead and
PCBs (polychlorobiphenyls), to name but a few. He presented a convincing analysis of the scientificassessment methods currently used and the different levels of evidence to conclude, on the basis of the"Bioinitiative" scientific report and other more recent studies by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, that theindices or levels of proof were sufficient at this stage to prompt action by governments and international
bodies.
22.
Finally, another expert specialising in clinical medicine and oncology confirmed, on the basis of thefindings of biological and clinical analysis of several hundred French patients describing themselves
as "electrosensitive", that a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields (SIEMF) does exist and thatthose people are not feigning illness or suffering from psychiatric disorders.
5. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields in medicine
23.
It has been established since the beginning of the 20th century that electromagnetic fields operating at
various frequencies can have useful and beneficial effects in clinical medicine, whether for diagnosis ortreatment.
24.
Scientific developments since the Second World War have revealed that the human organism does not
function solely on the basis of biological or biochemical cellular reactions but that humans also function using
electromagnetic forces. It is now well known that nerve cells communicate between one another using
electrical impulses. The most powerful electrical signals detected in humans are those generated by nervous
and muscular activity. In the case of the heart, which is the most important muscle group in the body, anelectrocardiogram (ECG) diagnoses cardiac function by recording the electrical signals emitted by it–. Againat the level of diagnosis, electroencephalography (EEG) allows non-invasive monitoring of the brain's
electrical activity. The EEG has been widely used in the clinical areas of brain disorders, sleep patternmonitoring and confirmation of clinical death.
6. Therapeutic use of electric currents or electromagnetic waves
25.
Without going into detail, the rapporteur wishes to point out that certain electrical currents orelectromagnetic waves used at certain frequencies may have a perfectly beneficial effect in medical terms.
There are a number of examples illustrating the therapeutic benefits of electrotherapy: clinical effects of directelectric currents (electrolysis), clinical effects of external electrical impulses on the cardiac muscle(defibrillators, pacemakers), clinical effects of micro-currents generated by pulsed magnetic fields to improvehealing in tissue repair and bone fractures, to mention only the best known of these non-ionising frequency
band applications.
26.
But while electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have fully beneficial effects,
other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain highfrequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have moreor less potentially harmful biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body evenwhen exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.

8Doc. 12608 Report

7. Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and health protection27.
It should be noted that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and the potential consequences
for the environment and health has clear parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing ofchemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), to mention only the best
known examples. It is certain that one cause of public anxiety and mistrust of the communication efforts ofofficial safety agencies and governments lies in the fact that a number of past health crises or scandals, suchthose involving asbestos, contaminated blood, PCBs or dioxins, lead, tobacco smoking and more recently
H1N1 flu, were able to happen despite the work or even with the complicity of national or international
agencies nominally responsible for environmental or health safety.
28.
Indeed, it is in this connection that the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local andRegional Affairs is currently working on the question of conflicts of interest and the urgent need for real
independence of scientists involved in the official agencies tasked with evaluating the risks of products prior tolicensing.
29.
The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicableofficial threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields andhigh frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European
Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which
is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped byrecommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.
30.
If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with replicating andadopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:–in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth,
technological progress and job creation;–

and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters ofassessing technological risks for the environment and health.

31.
With regard to the frequently inconclusive if not contradictory findings of scientific research and studies
on the possible risks of products, medicines or, in this case, electromagnetic fields, a number of comparative
studies do seem to suggest a fairly strong correlation between the origin of their funding – private or public –and the findings of risk assessments, a manifestly unacceptable situation pointing to conflicts of interest which
undermine the integrity, the genuine independence and the objectivity of scientific research.
32.
Concerning the assessment of health risks resulting from mobile telephone radio frequencies, forexample, in 2006 Swiss researchers from Bern University presented the findings of a systematic analysis of
all research results and concluded that there was a strong correlation between how the research was funded
and the results obtained: 33% of studies funded by industrial concerns conclude that exposure to mobile
telephone radio frequencies has an effect on our organism. That figure rises to over 80% in studies carried out
with public funding.
33.
Accordingly, in this field and in others, one should call for genuine independence on the part of theexpert appraisal agencies and for independent, multidisciplinary and properly balanced expert input. There
must no longer be situations where whistleblowers are discriminated against and renowned scientists withcritical opinions are excluded when experts are selected to sit on expert committees or no longer receive
funding for their research.
8. Contending forces and arguments: the dispute over the incidence of biological effects and overthreshold values
34. It seems obvious that economic and financial parameters such as profits and market shares are theprime considerations for societies dependent on electricity, mobile telephony and telecommunication.
Understandably, in this context more stringent regulations and threshold values which ostensibly inhibit theirbusiness dealings are viewed with disfavour and forcefully resisted – as could be seen from the irritated andsometimes emotional statements of a representative of French mobile telephony at our committee’s hearing
for contrastive expert opinion.
35. The representatives of mobile telephony have for years espoused the same paradigm and the sameline of argument, in which they invoke the soothing discourse of most international agencies and institutions.
For example, the threshold values of 100 microtesla for low or high frequency electromagnetic fields and9Doc. 12608 Report

41/42 volts/metre for the very high frequencies of mobile telephony on 900 megahertz (MHz) are claimed tobe quite adequate for protecting the public against thermal effects. At very high levels, the radio frequency
fields are plainly liable to produce harmful thermal effects on the human body, in the estimation of all parties
moreover.
36. Of course there remains the vexing question whether there are non-thermal or athermic, hence
biological, consequences for the environment and the human body. The operators’ representatives totally
deny the existence of nefarious long-term biological effects for electromagnetic fields below the thresholdvalues in force. To illustrate the nature and extent of these threshold values, let us mention by way of an
example Article 5.1 of Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
concerning the minimum standards for protecting workers: “… However, the long-term effects, including
possible carcinogenic effects due to exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields forwhich there is no conclusive scientific evidence establishing a causal relationship, are not addressed in thisDirective. …” (Introduction, paragraph 4).
37.

So the protection of workers is only valid for averting thermal effects, and only in the short term!

38. Any potentially harmful biological effects are disregarded by the operators, agencies and official
regulations, and to justify this attitude they abide by the contention that firstly, the ascertainment of a biologicaleffect need not signify its being of a pathological character dangerous to the human constitution. Furthermore,they discern no absolutely conclusive scientific evidence of a cause and effect relationship between
electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies and long-term pathological consequences of their non-thermal or
athermic effects. And to emphasise these statements they invoke numerous scientific publications said toindicate no significant biological effect.
39.

The operators’ arguments on the whole can be summed up as follows:–

the threshold values recommended by the ICNIRP are values ensuring health security;–

child mobile phone users are no more sensitive than adults;–

there are no significant biological effects apart from thermal effects;–

if there were any possibly harmful biological effects, moreover, there would be no scientifically
acceptable mechanism of action to account for them.

9. Scientific studies and arguments pursued by associations and NGOs, by groupings of scientists, by
the European Environment Agency and by the European Parliament
40.
Serious scientific and medical studies revealing biological effects of a pathological nature have existed
since the 1930s concerning radio frequencies and microwaves from radar installations. Studies in the late1970s also pointed out the harmful effects of protracted exposure to the low or very low frequency
electromagnetic fields of electrical transmission lines or computer screens. .The WHO’s IARC (International
Agency for Research on Cancer) classified these fields as “possibly carcinogenic” for humans (Group 2B) in
2001.
41.
The rapporteur recalls the proven positive biological effects of certain medical applications(electrotherapies) of electromagnetic fields and microwaves at very low intensity. If there are such beneficial
effects in certain frequency bands, then adverse biological effects on the human body should be just as muchin the realm of plausibility or possibility.
42.
Scientific studies concerning the negative effects of certain microwave frequencies on plants, insects
and wildlife or farm animals are disturbing in more than one respect and the scientific studies disclosing
potentially pathogenic biological effects on the human body are also important and not to be merely brushedaside.
43.
These studies are very numerous indeed: the 2007 “Bioinitiative” report analysed over 2 000 of them,and more were added by an important monograph published in 2010 by the Ramazzini Institute, the national
institute for study and control of cancer and environmental diseases in Bologna, Italy.
44.
A significant number of top scientists and researchers have banded together in a dedicatedinternational body entitled ICEMS, “International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety”, in order to carry out
independent research and recommend that the precautionary principle be applied in the matter. In 2006
(Benevento Resolution) and 2008 (Venice Resolution), these scientists published instructive resolutions
calling for the adoption of far tougher new safety standards and rules.

10Doc. 12608 Report45.
Scientific studies disclose athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic fields or waves on cells, thenervous system, genetics, etc., which essentially fall into three categories: biological effects influencing themetabolism, sleep, the electrocardiogram profile; effects observed in experimentation on animals or in cell
cultures (in vitro); effects emerging from epidemiological studies on prolonged use of mobile telephones or on
living near high voltage power lines or base stations of relay antennas.
46.
The term “biological effect” is used to refer to a physiological, biochemical or behavioural changebrought about in a tissue or a cell in response to an external stimulus. Not every biological effect necessarily
poses a serious threat to health; it may simply show the normal response of the cell, tissue or organism to that
stimulus.
47.
A medical or pathological biological effect, on the other hand, is an effect that may imperil theorganism’s normal functioning by causing more or less severe symptoms or pathologies. Precisely, a growing
number of scientific studies made by teams of high-level academic researchers demonstrate the existence ofpotentially or definitely pathological biological effects.
48.
The rapporteur acknowledges that it is not possible within the compass of this report to analyse andsummarise the findings of all these studies. A synopsis of the greater number of them (some 2 000) was
produced in the “Bioinitiative” report, a report drawn up by 14 scientists of international standing who
concurred, regarding mobile telephony and other radio frequencies, as to abnormally high incidence of brain
tumours and acoustic neuroma, effects on the nervous system and cerebral functions, and effects on genes,
cell stress proteins and the immune system. In this context, it has been observed for instance that radio
frequency exposure can cause inflammatory and allergic reactions and impair the immune function even atlevels well below the norms of exposure for the public.
49.
A major programme of research into the specific features of these effects such as genotoxicity of waves(REFLEX programme), funded by the European Commission and involving 12 European research teams, waslaunched and the results were made public in December 2004. The conclusions of the report were disturbing
on several counts as the results bore out genotoxic effects of mobile telephone waves, and in particular
greater frequency of chromosomal deletions and breakup of DNA molecules in different types of cultivatedhuman and animal cells. In addition, stress protein synthesis was greatly increased and gene expression was
modified in various types of cells.
50.
Concerning the Interphone study, the biggest epidemiological survey was carried out on mobile phoneusers and their exposure to glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma and tumours of the parotid gland after
protracted use of their mobile telephones. The partial early results published on 18 May 2010 by IARC morethan ten years after the commencement of the study pointed to profound disagreement between the different
teams of researchers (16 teams from 13 countries) over the interpretation of these results. The study coordinator, Ms Elisabeth Cardis, summed up a kind of compromise by saying that the study did not reveal anincreased risk, but one could not conclude that there was no risk because there were sufficient results
suggesting a possible risk. Indeed, some results show that lasting intensive use very significantly increases
the risks of glioma (40% and even 96% looking at ipsilateral use, that is to say where the glioma has
appeared at the side of the head to which the telephone was held) and the meningioma risks (15%; 45% for
ipsilateral use).
51.
The rapporteur feels that one of this epidemiological study’s principal weaknesses lies in the fact thatthe period of mobile phone use analysed, extending until the early years of the 21st century, is probably too
short at less than 10 years to reach conclusive results given the period of latency and growth of cerebral
tumours. In fact, ionising radiation (radioactivity) is recognised as a cause of brain cancer, but cases due toradioactivity rarely become apparent before 10 or 20 years of exposure.
52.
The Interphone study, performed solely on adults, nevertheless raises serious speculation as to what
will happen, after 15 or 20 years of intensive use, to the young adults, teenagers or even children who are
currently the biggest users and in whom absorption of the radiation is still greater and more problematic.
53.
The rapporteur would like to emphasise another side of the potential risks: while attention is focused atpresent on the radiation from mobile phones, and while he appeals for the wisest possible use of this device,by children and young people especially, it is inescapable that for some years there have been many othersources of electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies.
54.
Whether outside or inside offices and dwellings, we are now exposed to a whole variety ofelectromagnetic frequencies on top of the chemical pollutants in the air that we breathe or accumulated in thefood chain. Outdoors or indoors, we encounter the electromagnetic fields or the radio frequencies of the11

Doc. 12608 Report(nearby) electric power lines and of the base stations of GSM, UMTS and WiFi relay antennas or of, forexample, radio or radar stations. Besides these, inside offices or private residences there is very often theradiation of cordless telephones (DECT), baby phones and other devices of wireless technology.
55.
What is more, industrialists seek a further expansion of mobile telephony infrastructures for hosting thefourth generation (4G) facility with the intention of delivering a secure, comprehensive broadband mobile
system for the cordless modems of laptop computers, “smart” mobile phones and other portable backup
devices for broadband mobile Internet access, games services, etc.
56.
In Israel, the ministries concerned (environment, health, communication) fall back on the application of
the precautionary principle, opposing the introduction of these new infrastructures on the grounds that theeffects of the irradiations should be verified before authorising new systems.
57.
A question that always strongly arouses the European populations is the problem of where basestations and relay antennas are sited. In parallel to certain local or regional studies (mainly Swiss andGerman), describing the advent of health problems in farm animals after the installation of mobile telephone
relay antennas near some farms, describing unaccountable problems of infertility, deformity, cataracts, etc.,
certain local or regional epidemiological studies, carried out by groups of scientists and doctors, havesucceeded in also showing certain disease symptoms in residents of districts or villages near relay antennas
installed a few months or years ago. These local studies were carried out in France, Germany, Switzerland,
Austria, etc.
58.
According to these epidemiological and also partly clinical studies, symptoms of sleeping disorders,headaches, blood pressure problems, dizziness, skin trouble and allergies appeared or increased some timeafter relay antennas were commissioned or their beams intensified. by raising the number or the power of theantennas. The scientific value of such local studies is regularly queried by the operators and very often the
security and regulatory bodies too, and so a most recent study released early in 2011 in a German medical
publication (Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 1/2011) is nonetheless worthwhile and revealing, although thenumber of participants in the study (60 persons) remains quite small. These persons, from the locality of
Rimbach in Bavaria, underwent analysis before a new relay antenna base station came into service inJanuary 2004, then afterwards in July 2004, January 2005 and July 2005. In this study, as in similar
epidemiological studies, the symptoms that increased or became aggravated after the station began operatingwere sleep disorders, headaches, allergies, dizziness, and concentration problems.
59.
Doctors and scientists measured and determined significant changes in concentrations of stress-related
and other hormones in urine samples. There was a significant increase of adrenalin and noradrenalin over
several months and a significant reduction of dopamine and phenylethylamine (PEA), changes indicating astate of chronic stress which, according to the authors of the study, caused the aforesaid heightened
symptoms. The authors correlate the lowered PEA levels with impaired attention and hyperactivity in children,
disorders which significantly increased in Germany from 1990 to 2004.
60.
Here, too, the rapporteur stresses that some people may be more sensitive than others toelectromagnetic radiation or waves. The research performed, for instance, by Professor Dominique
Belpomme, President of the Association for Research on Treatments Against Cancer (ARTAC), on more than
200 people describing themselves as “electrosensitive” succeeded, with corroborative results of clinical andbiological analyses, in proving that there was such a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields acrossthe whole spectrum of frequencies. According to these results, not only proximity to the sources ofelectromagnetic emissions was influential, but also the time of exposure and often concomitant exposure tochemicals or to (heavy) metals present in human tissues. In this context, Sweden has granted sufferers fromelectromagnetic hypersensitivity the status of persons with reduced capacity so that they receive suitable
protection.
61.
In connection with the proven or potential risks of electromagnetic fields, it should also be noted thatafter a Lloyd’s report, insurance companies tended to withhold coverage for risks linked with electromagnetic
fields under civil liability policies, in the same way as, for example, genetically modified organisms orasbestos, which is hardly reassuring given the potential risks that stem from these electromagnetic fields.
62.
Finally, the rapporteur wonders whether it might not be expedient and innovative to try and develop new
wireless communication technologies, equally powerful but more energy-efficient and above all lessproblematic in terms of the environment and health than the present microwave-based wirelesscommunication. Systems such as optical or optoelectronic communication technologies employing visible andinfrared light are reportedly being developed in the United States and Japan and could largely replace thepresent technologies. Should such changes in transmission and communication systems prove realistic, itwould then be a case of technological and economic innovations not to be missed or obstructed.
12Doc. 12608 Report

10. Conclusions
63. The potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic fields on the environment and human health have notyet been fully elucidated and a number of scientific uncertainties continue to exist in that regard. Nevertheless,anxieties and fears over the health hazards posed by the waves remain in wide sectors of the population, as
do the demands voiced by high-level scientists, by groupings of doctors and by the associations of concerned
citizens which abound in many Council of Europe member states.
64. The precautionary principle and the right to a healthy environment, particularly on behalf of children andfuture generations, must be key factors in all economic, technological and social development of society. In
that regard, the Parliamentary Assembly has decided on several previous occasions (see Recommendation
1863 (2009) on environment and health: better prevention of environment-related health hazards andRecommendation 1959 (2011) on preventive health care policies in the Council of Europe member states)that coherent, effective preventive measures must be taken to protect the environment and human health.
65. After analysing the scientific studies available to date, and also following the hearings for expert
opinions organised in the context of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional
Affairs, there is sufficient evidence of potentially harmful effects of electromagnetic fields on fauna, flora andhuman health to react and to guard against potentially serious environmental and health hazards.
66. That was moreover already the case in 1999 and 2009 when the European Parliament overwhelmingly
passed resolutions upholding the precautionary principle and efficient preventive actions vis-à-vis the harmful
effects of electromagnetic fields, in particular by substantially lowering the exposure thresholds for workers
and the general public according to the ALARA principle, by restoring genuine independence of research inthat field, and through a policy of enhanced information and transparency towards the anxious populations(see European Parliament Resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic
fields, 2008/2211 INI).
67. Lastly, the Assembly could endorse the analyses and warnings issued first in September 2007, then in
September 2009, by the European Environment Agency (EEA), concerning the health hazards ofelectromagnetic fields, mobile telephony and not least mobile phones. According to the EEA, there aresufficient signs or levels of scientific evidence of harmful biological effects to invoke the application of the
precautionary principle and of effective, urgent preventive measures.

13