SECTION 1

Summary for the Public(2014 Supplement)

Cindy Sage, MA
Sage Associates
Co-Editor, BioInitiative ReportSanta Barbara, CA USA

Prepared for the BioInitiative Working Group
March 2014

	
  

	
  	
  

TABLE OF CONTENTSI.

SUMMARY FOR THE PUBLIC - 2014
A.
Introduction
B.
Why We Care?
C.
Do We Know Enough to Take Action?

II.

SUMMARY OF KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE(Also see Section 5 – Section 24)
A. Evidence for Damage to Sperm and Reproduction
B. Evidence that Children are More Vulnerable
C. Evidence for Fetal and Neonatal Effects
D. Evidence for Effects on Autism (Autism Spectrum Conditions)E. Evidence for Electrohypersensitivity
F. Evidence for Effects from Cell Tower-Level RFR Exposures
G. Evidence for Effects on the Blood-brain Barrier
H. Evidence for Effects on Brain Tumors
I. Evidence for Effects on Genes (Genotoxicity)
J. Evidence for Effects on the Nervous System (Neurotoxicity)
K. Evidence for Effects on Cancer (Childhood Leukemia, Adult Cancers
L. Melatonin, Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease
M. Stress, Stress Proteins and DNA as a Fractal Antenna
N. Effects of Weak-Field Interactions on Non-Linear Biological
Oscillators and Synchronized Neural Activity

III.

EMF EXPOSURES AND PRUDENT PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNINGIV.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
A. Defining preventative actions for reduction in RFR exposures
B. Defining new ‘effect level’ for RFR	  I. SUMMARY FOR THE PUBLIC
A. Introduction
The BioInitiative Working Group concluded in 2007 that existing public safety limits were inadequate toprotect public health, and agreed that new, biologically-based public safety limits were needed five years ago.
The BioInitiative Report was prepared by more than a dozen world-recognized experts in science and publichealth policy; and outside reviewers also contributed valuable content and perspective.
From a public health standpoint, experts reasoned that it was not in the public interest to wait. In 2007, theevidence at hand coupled with the enormous populations placed at possible risk was argued as sufficient towarrant strong precautionary measures for RFR, and lowered safety limits for ELF-EMF.

The ELF

recommendations were biologically-based and reflected the ELF levels consistently associated with increased
risk of childhood cancer, and further incorporated a safety factor that is proportionate to others used in similar
circumstances. The public health cost of doing nothing was judged to be unacceptable in 2007.
What has changed in 2012? In twenty-four technical chapters, the contributing authors discuss the content
and implications of about 1800 new studies. Overall, these new studies report abnormal gene transcription(Section 5); genotoxicity and single- and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of thefractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity inhuman stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers, particularly melatonin (Sections 5,
9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9); carcinogenicity in humans (Sections
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section18); effects on the fetus, neonate and offspring (Section 18 and 19); effects on brain and cranial bonedevelopment in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5
and 18); and findings in autism spectrum disorders consistent with EMF/RFR exposure. This is only a snapshotof the evidence presented in the BioInitiative 2012 updated report.
There is reinforced scientific evidence of risk from chronic exposure to low-intensity electromagnetic
fields and to wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation including microwave radiation). The levels at
which effects are reported to occur is lower by hundreds of times in comparison to 2007. The range of possible
health effects that are adverse with chronic exposures has broadened. There has been a big increase in thenumber of studies looking at the effects of cell phones (on the belt, or in the pocket of men radiating only on
standby mode) and from wireless laptops on impacts to sperm quality and motility; and sperm death (fertility
and reproduction). In other new studies of the fetus, infant and young child, and child-in-school – there are adozen or more new studies of importance. There is more evidence that such exposures damage DNA, interferewith DNA repair, evidence of toxicity to the human genome (genes), more worrisome effects on the nervous
system (neurology) and more and better studies on the effects of mobile phone base stations (wireless antenna
facilities or cell towers) that report lower RFR levels over time can result in adverse health impacts.
Importantly, some very large studies were completed on brain tumor risk from cell phone use. The 13country World Health Organization Interphone Final study (2010) produced evidence (although highly debated	
  among fractious members of the research committee) that cell phone use at 10 years or longer, withapproximately 1,640 hours of cumulative use of a cell and/or cordless phone approximately doubles glioma riskin adults. Gliomas are aggressive, malignant tumors where the average life-span following diagnosis is about
400 days. That brain tumors should be revealed in epidemiological studies at ONLY 10 or more years is
significant; x-ray and other ionizing radiation exposures that can also cause brain tumors take nearly 15-20
years to appear making radiofrequency/microwave radiation from cell phones a very effective cancer-causing
agent. Studies by Lennart Hardell and his research team at Orebro University in Sweden later showed thatchildren who start using a mobile phone in early years have more than a 5-fold (more than a 500%) risk fordeveloping a glioma by the time they are in the 20-29 year age group. This has significant ramifications for
public health intervention.
In short order, in 2011 the World Health Organization International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC)
classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen, joining the IARC classificationof ELF-EMF that occurred in 2001. The evidence for carcinogenicity for RFR was primarily from cell
phone/brain tumor studies but by IARC rules, applies to all RFR exposures (it applies to the exposure, not justto devices like cell phones or cordless phones that emit RFR).

B. Why We Care?
The stakes are very high. Exposure to electromagnetic fields (both extremely low-frequency ELF-EMF
from power frequency sources like power lines and appliances; and radiofrequency radiation or RFR) has been
linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes that may have significant public health consequences. The mostserious health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with extremely low frequency (ELF) and/or
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) include childhood and adult leukemia, childhood and adult brain tumors, andincreased risk of the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). In
addition, there are reports of increased risk of breast cancer in both men and women, genotoxic effects (DNAdamage, chromatin condensation, micronucleation, impaired repair of DNA damage in human stem cells),
pathological leakage of the blood–brain barrier, altered immune function including increased allergic andinflammatory responses, miscarriage and some cardiovascular effects. Insomnia (sleep disruption) is reported instudies of people living in very low-intensity RF environments with WI-FI and cell tower-level exposures.
Short-term effects on cognition, memory and learning, behavior, reaction time, attention and concentration, andaltered brainwave activity (altered EEG) are also reported in the scientific literature. Biophysical mechanismsthat may account for such effects can be found in various articles and reviews (Sage, 2012).
Traditional scientific consensus and scientific method is but one contributor to deciding when to takepublic health action; rather, it is one of several voices that are important in determining when new actions are
warranted to protect public health. Certainly it is important, but not the exclusive purview of scientists alone todetermine for all of society when changes are in the public health interest and welfare of children.

	  C. Do We Know Enough to Take Action
Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectricalsignals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in thehuman body. In some cases, this may cause discomfort, or sleep disruption, or loss of well-being (impaired
mental functioning and impaired metabolism) or sometimes, maybe it is a dread disease like cancer or
Alzheimer’s disease. It may be interfering with one’s ability to become pregnant, or to carry a child to fullterm, or result in brain development changes that are bad for the child. It may be these exposures play a role incausing long-term impairments to normal growth and development of children, tipping the scales away frombecoming productive adults. The use of common wireless devices like wireless laptops and mobile phones
requires urgent action simply because the exposures are everywhere in daily life; we need to define whether andwhen these exposures can damage health, or the children of the future who will be born to parents now
immersed in wireless exposures.
Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially, mostrecently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones (six billion in 2011-12, up fromtwo billion in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI ,WiMAX and LTE networks. Some countries are moving from
telephone landlines (wired) to wireless phones exclusively, forcing wireless exposures on uninformed
populations around the world. These wireless exposures at the same time are now classified by the world’s
highest authority on cancer assessment, the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on
Cancer to be a possible risk to health.

Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs

are biologically active in animals and in humans. Now, the balance has clearly shifted to one of ‘presumptionof possible adverse effects’ from chronic exposure. It is difficult to conclude otherwise, when the bioeffects
that are clearly now occurring lead to such conditions as pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier(allowing toxins into the brain tissues); oxidative damage to DNA and the human genome, preventing normal
DNA repair in human stem cells; interfering with healthy sperm production; producing poor quality sperm or
low numbers of healthy sperm, altering fetal brain development that may be fundamentally tied to epidemic
rates of autism and problems in school children with memory, attention, concentration, and behavior; andleading to sleep disruptions that undercut health and healing in numerous ways.
In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic
fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RFR)from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast
transmission towers. In this report we will use the term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields ingeneral; and the terms ELF or RFR when referring to the specific type of exposure. They are both types of nonionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits
around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing radiation. A
glossary and definitions are provided in this report to assist you. Some handy definitions you will probably
need when reading about ELF and RF in this summary section (the language for measuring it) are shown in
Section 26 – Glossary.

	  II. SUMMARY OF THE SCIENCE
A. Evidence for Damage to Sperm and Reproduction
Several international laboratories have replicated studies showing adverse effects on sperm quality,
motility and pathology in men who use and particularly those who wear a cell phone, PDA or pager on their belt
or in a pocket (See Section 18 for references including Agarwal et al, 2008; Agarwal et al, 2009; Wdowiak et al,2007; De Iuliis et al, 2009; Fejes et al, 2005; Aitken et al, 2005; Kumar, 2012). Other studies conclude thatusage of cell phones, exposure to cell phone radiation, or storage of a mobile phone close to the testes of humanmales affect sperm counts, motility, viability and structure (Aitken et al, 2004; Agarwal et al, 2007; Erogul et al,2006).

Animal studies have demonstrated oxidative and DNA damage, pathological changes in the testes ofanimals, decreased sperm mobility and viability, and other measures of deleterious damage to the male germline (Dasdag et al, 1999; Yan et al, 2007; Otitoloju et al, 2010; Salama et al, 2008; Behari et al, 2006; Kumar etal, 2012). There are fewer animal studies that have studied effects of cell phone radiation on female fertility
parameters.

Panagopoulous et al (2012) report decreased ovarian development and size of ovaries, andpremature cell death of ovarian follicles and nurse cells in Drosophila melanogaster. Gul et al (2009) reported
rats exposed to stand-by level RFR (phones on but not transmitting calls) had a decrease in the number ofovarian follicles in pups born to these exposed dams. Magras and Xenos (1997) reported irreversible infertility
in mice after five (5) generations of exposure to RFR at cell phone tower exposure levels of less than one
microwatt per centimeter squared (µW/cm2). See Section 18 for references.

HUMAN SPERM AND THEIR DNA ARE DAMAGED
Human sperm are damaged by cell phone radiation at very low intensities (0.00034 – 0.07 µW/cm2). There is averitable flood of new studies reporting sperm damage in humans and animals, leading to substantial concerns
for fertility, reproduction and health of the offspring (unrepaired de novo mutations in sperm). Exposure levels
are similar to those resulting from wearing a cell phone on the belt, or in the pants pocket, or using a wirelesslaptop computer on the lap. Sperm lack the ability to repair DNA damage. (Behari and Rajamani, Section 18)
young child are more vulnerable than older persons are to chemicals and ionizing radiation. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a 10-fold risk adjustment for the first 2 years of life exposure
to carcinogens, and a 3-fold adjustment for years 3 to 5. These adjustments do not deal with fetal risk, and thepossibility of extending this protection to the fetus should be examined, because of fetus’ rapid organ
development.

The Presidential Cancer Panel (2010) found that children “are at special risk due to their smaller body mass andrapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known carcinogens, including
radiation.” The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a letter to Congressman Dennis Kucinich dated 12
December 2012 states: “Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell
phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child’s brain compared to an
adult’s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper into their brains than adults.
It is essential that any new standards for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting theyoungest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded through their lifetimes.”	  The issue around exposure of children to RFR is of critical importance. There is overwhelming evidence
that children are more vulnerable than adults to many different exposures (Sly and Carpenter, 2012), including
RFR, and that the diseases of greatest concern are cancer and effects on neurodevelopment. Yet parents place
RFR-emitting baby monitors in cribs, provide very young children with wireless toys, and give cell phones toyoung children, usually without any knowledge of the potential dangers. A growing concern is the movement
to make all student computer laboratories in schools wireless. A wired computer laboratory will not increase
RFR exposure, and will provide safe access to the Internet (Section, Sage and Carpenter, BioInitiative 2012
Report).

C. Evidence for Fetal and Neonatal Effects
Effects on the developing fetus from in-utero exposure to cell phone radiation have been observed in bothhuman and animal studies since 2006. Sources of fetal and neonatal exposures of concern include cell phoneradiation (both paternal use of wireless devices worn on the body and maternal use of wireless phones during
pregnancy). Sources include exposure to whole-body RFR from base stations and Wi-Fi, use of wirelesslaptops, use of incubators for newborns with excessively high ELF-EMF levels resulting in altered heart ratevariability and reduced melatonin levels in newborns, fetal exposures to MRI of the pregnant mother, andgreater susceptibility to leukemia and asthma in the child where there have been maternal exposures to ELFEMF. Divan et al (2008) found that children born to mothers who used cell phones during pregnancy develop
more behavioral problems by the time they have reached school age than children whose mothers did not use
cell phones during pregnancy. Children whose mothers used cell phones during pregnancy had 25% more
emotional problems, 35% more hyperactivity, 49% more conduct problems and 34% more peer problems(Divan et al, 2008). Aldad et al (2012) showed that cell phone radiation significantly altered fetal brain
development and produced ADHD-like behavior in the offspring of pregnant mice. Exposed mice had a dosedependent impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission onto Layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal
cortex.

The authors conclude the behavioral changes were the result of altered neuronal developmental

programming in utero. Offspring mice were hyperactive and had impaired memory function and behavior
problems, much like the human children in Divan et al (2008). See Sections 19 and 20 for references.
Fragopoulou et al (2012) reports that brain astrocyte development followed by proteomic studies is adversely
affected by DECT (cordless phone radiation) and mobile phone radiation.

Fetal (in-utero) and early childhood exposures to cell phone radiation and wireless technologies in general may
be a risk factor for hyperactivity, learning disorders and behavioral problems in school. Common sense
measures to limit both ELF-EMF and RF EMF in these populations is needed, especially with respect toavoidable exposures like incubators that can be modified; and where education of the pregnant mother withrespect to laptop computers, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and RF EMF are easily instituted.
A precautionary approach may provide the frame for decision-making where remediation actions have to berealized to prevent high exposures of children and pregnant woman.
(Bellieni and Pinto, 2012 – Section 19)	  D. Evidence for Effects on Autism (Autism Spectrum Conditions)Physicians and health care practitioners should raise the visibility of EMF/RFR as a plausible
environmental factor in ASC clinical evaluations and treatment protocols. Reducing or removing EMF andwireless RFR stressors from the environment is a reasonable precautionary action given the overall weight ofevidence for a link to ASCs.
Several thousand scientific studies over four decades point to serious biological effects and health harmfrom EMF and RFR. These studies report genotoxicity, single-and double-strand DNA damage, chromatincondensation, loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells, reduction in free-radical scavengers(particularly melatonin), abnormal gene transcription, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, damage to spermmorphology and function, effects on behavior, and effects on brain development in the fetus of human mothers
that use cell phones during pregnancy. Cell phone exposure has been linked to altered fetal brain development
and ADHD-like behavior in the offspring of pregnant mice.
Many disrupted physiological processes and impaired behaviors in people with ASCs closely resemble
those related to biological and health effects of EMF/RFR exposure. Biomarkers and indicators of disease andtheir clinical symptoms have striking similarities. At the cellular and molecular level many studies of people
with ASCs have identified oxidative stress and evidence of free-radical damage, as well as deficiencies ofantioxidants such as glutathione.

Elevated intracellular calcium in ASCs can be associated with genetic

mutations but more often may be downstream of inflammation or chemical exposures. Lipid peroxidation ofcell membranes, disruption of calcium metabolism, altered brain wave activity and consequent sleep, behavior
and immune dysfunction, pathological leakage of critical barriers between gut and blood or blood and brain
may also occur. Mitochondria may function poorly, and immune system disturbances of various kinds arecommon. Changes in brain and autonomic nervous system electrophysiology can be measured and seizures are
far more common than in the population at large. Sleep disruption and high levels of stress are close touniversal. All of these phenomena have also been documented to result from or be modulated by EMF/RFR
exposure.

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

• Children with existing neurological problems that include cognitive, learning, attention, memory, or behavioral
problems should as much as possible be provided with wired (not wireless) learning, living and sleeping environments.
• Special education classrooms should observe 'no wireless' conditions to reduce avoidable stressors that may impedesocial, academic and behavioral progress.
• All children should reasonably be protected from the physiological stressor of significantly elevated EMF/RFR(wireless in classrooms, or home environments).
• School districts that are now considering all-wireless learning environments should be strongly cautioned that wired
environments are likely to provide better learning and teaching environments, and prevent possible adverse healthconsequences for both students and faculty in the long-term.
• Monitoring of the impacts of wireless technology in learning and care environments should be performed withsophisticated measurement and data analysis techniques that are cognizant of the non-linear impacts of EMF/RFR andof data techniques most appropriate for discerning these impacts.
• There is sufficient scientific evidence to warrant the selection of wired Internet, wired classrooms and wired learning
devices, rather than making an expensive and potentially health-harming commitment to wireless devices that may
have to be substituted out later.
• Wired classrooms should reasonably be provided to all students who opt-out of wireless environments.
(Herbert and Sage, 2012 – Section 20)	  The public needs to know that these risks exist, that transition to wireless should not be presumed safe, andthat it is very much worth the effort to minimize exposures that still provide the benefits of technology inlearning, but without the threat of health risk and development impairments to learning and behavior in theclassroom.
Broader recommendations also apply, related to reducing the physiological vulnerability to exposures,
reduce allostatic load and build physiological resiliency through high quality nutrition, reducing exposure to
toxicants and infectious agents, and reducing stress, all of which can be implemented safely based uponpresently available knowledge.

E. Evidence for Electrohypersensitivity
The contentious question of whether electrohypersensitivity exists as a medical condition and what kindsof testing might reveal biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment has been furthered by several new studies
presented in Section 24 – Key Scientific Evidence and Public Health Policy Recommendations. What isevident is that a growing number of people world-wide have serious and debilitating symptoms that key tovarious types of EMF and RFR exposure. Of this there is little doubt. The continued massive rollout of
wireless technologies, in particular the wireless ‘smart’ utility meter, has triggered thousands of complaints of
ill-health and disabling symptoms when the installation of these meters is in close proximity to family homeliving spaces.
McCarty et al (2011) studied electrohypersensitivity in a patient (a female physician). The patient was
unable to detect the presence or absence of EMF exposure, largely ruling out the possibility of bias. In multiple
trials with the fields either on or not on, the subject experienced and reported temporal pain, feeling of unease,skipped heartbeats, muscle twitches and/or strong headache when the pulsed field (100 ms, duration at 10 Hz)
was on, but no or mild symptoms when it was off. Symptoms from continuous fields were less severe than withpulsed fields. The differences between field on and sham exposure were significant at the p < 0.05 level. The
authors conclude that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a neurological syndrome, and statistically reliable
somatic reactions can be provoked in this patient by exposure to 60-Hz electric fields at 300 volts per meter(V/m). Marino et al (2012) responded to comments on his study with McCarty saying:“EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurologicalsyndrome. We followed an empirical approach and demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship(p < 0.05) under conditions that permitted us to infer the existence of electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (EHS), a novel neurological syndrome.”
The team of Sandstrom, Hansson Mild and Lyskov produced numerous papers between 1994 and 2003
involving people who are electrosensitive (See Section 24 - Lyskov et al, 1995; Lyskov et al, 1998; Sandstrom
et al, 1994; Sandstrom et al, 1995;
Sandstrom et al, 1997; Sandstrom et al, 2003). Sandstrom et al (2003) presented evidence that heart ratevariability is impaired in people with electrical hypersensitivity and showed disruption of the autonomic
nervous system.

	  “EHS patients had a disturbed pattern of circadian rhythms of HRF and showed a relatively ‘flat’representation of hourly-recorded spectral power of the HF component of HRV”. This research team also
found that “EHS patients have a dysbalance of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) regulation with atrend to hyper-sympathotonia, as measured by heart rate (HR) and electrodermal activity, and a
hyperreactivity to different external physical factors, as measured by brain evoked potentials andsympathetic skin responses to visual and audio stimulation.” (Lyskov et al, 2001 a,b; Sandstrom et al,1997).
The reports referenced above provide evidence that persons who report being electrosensitive differ fromothers in having some abnormalities in the autonomic nervous system, reflected in measures such as heart ratevariability.

F. Evidence for Effects from Cell Tower-Level RFR Exposures
Very low exposure RFR levels are associated with bioeffects and adverse health effects. At least five newcell tower studies are reporting bioeffects in the range of 0.001 to 0.05 µW/cm2 at lower levels than reported in2007 (0.05 to 0.1 uW/cm2 was the range below which, in 2007, effects were not observed). Researchers reportheadaches, concentration difficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents; and sleep
disturbances, headaches and concentration problems in adults. Public safety standards are 1,000 – 10,000 or
more times higher than levels now commonly reported in mobile phone base station studies to cause bioeffects.

Since 2007, five new studies of base station level RFR at intensitites ranging from lessthan 0.001 uW/cm2 to0.05 uW/cm2 report headaches, concentrationdifficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents;and sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems in adults.

G. Evidence for Effects on the Blood-brain Barrier (BBB)
The Lund University (Sweden) team of Leif Salford, Bertil Persson and Henrietta Nittby has done
pioneering work on effects of very low level RFR on the human brain’s protective lining – the barrier that
protects the brain from large molecules and toxins that are in the blood.

THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER IS AT RISKThe BBB is a protective barrier that prevents the flow of toxins into sensitive brain tissue. Increased
permeability of the BBB caused by cell phone RFR may result in neuronal damage. Many research studies
show that very low intensity exposures to RFR can affect the blood-brain barrier (BBB) (mostly animalstudies). Summing up the research, it is more probable than unlikely that non-thermal EMF from cell phones
and base stations do have effects upon biology. A single 2-hr exposure to cell phone radiation can result inincreased leakage of the BBB, and 50 days after exposure, neuronal damage can be seen, and at the later time
point also albumin leakage is demonstrated. The levels of RFR needed to affect the BBB have been shown to be
as low as 0.001 W/kg, or less than holding a mobile phone at arm’s length. The US FCC standard is 1.6 W/kg;
the ICNIRP standard is 2 W/kg of energy (SAR) into brain tissue from cell/cordless phone use. Thus, BBB
effects occur at about 1000 times lower RFR exposure levels than the US and ICNIRP limits allow.
(Salford et al, 2012 - Section 10)	  H. Evidence for Effects on Brain Tumors
The Orebro University (Sweden) team led by Lennart Hardell, MD, an oncologist and medical researcher,has produced an extraordinary body of work on environmental toxins of several kinds, including the effects ofradiofrequency/microwave radiation and cancer. Their 2012 work concludes:“Based on epidemiological studies there is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic
neuroma associated with use of mobile phones and cordless phones. The evidence comes mainly from twostudy centres, the Hardell group in Sweden and the Interphone Study Group. No consistent pattern of anincreased risk is seen for meningioma. A systematic bias in the studies that explains the results would also havebeen the case for meningioma. The different risk pattern for tumor type strengthens the findings regarding
glioma and acoustic neuroma. Meta-analyses of the Hardell group and Interphone studies show an increased
risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Supportive evidence comes also from anatomical localisation of thetumor to the most exposed area of the brain, cumulative exposure in hours and latency time that all add to the
biological relevance of an increased risk. In addition risk calculations based on estimated absorbed dose givestrength to the findings.
(Hardell et al, 2012 – Section 11)“There is reasonable basis to conclude that RF-EMFs are bioactive and have a potential to cause health impacts.
There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with use of wirelessphones (mobile phones and cordless phones) mainly based on results from case-control studies from the Hardellgroup and Interphone Final Study results. Epidemiological evidence gives that RF-EMF should be classified asa human carcinogen. Based on our own research and review of other evidence the existing FCC/IEE andICNIRP public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health. New public healthstandards and limits are needed.
(Hardell et al, 2012 – Section 11)

I. Evidence for Genotoxic Effects (Genotoxicity)
Genetic Damage (Genotoxicity Studies): There are at least several hundred published papers that report
EMF (ELF/RFR) can affect cellular oxidative processes (oxidative damage). Increased free radical activity andchanges in enzymes involved in cellular oxidative processes are the most consistent effects observed in cells
and animals after EMF exposure. Aging may make an individual more susceptible to the detrimental effects of
ELF EMF from oxidative damage, since anti-oxidants may decline with age. Clearly, the preponderance ofgenetic studies report DNA damage and failure to repair DNA damage.

One hundred fourteen (114) new papers on genotoxic effects of RFR published between 2007 and early 2014
are profiled. Of these, 74 (65%) showed effects and 40 (35%) showed no effects.
(Lai, 2014 – Section 6)
Fifty nine (59) new ELF-EMF papers and two static magnetic field papers that report on genotoxic effects of
ELF-EMF published between 2007 and early 2014 are profiled. Of these, 49 (83%) show effects and 10 (17%)
show no effect.
(Lai, 2014 – Section 6)	  Factors that act directly or indirectly on the nervous system can cause morphological, chemical, or
electrical changes in the nervous system that can lead to neurological effects. Both RF and ELF EMF affectneurological functions and behavior in animals and humans.

Two hundred eleven (211) new papers that report on neurological effects of RFR published between 2007 andearly 2014 are profiled. Of these, 144 (68%) showed effects and 67 (32%) showed no effects.

One hundred five (105) new ELF-EMF papers (including two static field papers) that report on neurologicaleffects of ELF-EMF published between 2007 and early 2014 are profiled. Of these, 95 (90%) show effects and10 (10%) show no effect.
(Lai, 2014 – Section 9)

K. Evidence for Cancer (Childhood Leukemia)
With overall 42 epidemiological studies published to datel power frequency ELF-EMF is among the mostcomprehensively studied environmental factors. Except ionizing radiation no other environmental factor has
been as firmly established to increase the risk of childhood leukemia.

Sufficient evidence exists from epidemiological studies of an increased risk from exposure to EMF (power
frequency ELF-EMF magnetic fields) and cannot be attributed to chance, bias or confounding. Therefore,
according to the rules of IARC such exposures can be classified as a Group 1 carcinogen (Known
Carcinogen).
There is no other risk factor identified so far for which such unlikely conditions have been put forward to
postpone or deny the necessity to take steps towards exposure reduction. As one step in the direction of
precaution, measures should be implemented to guarantee that exposure due to transmission and distributionlines is below an average of about 1 mG. This value is arbitrary at present and only supported by the fact that inmany studies this level has been chosen as a reference.
(Kundi, 2012 – Section 12)

L. Melatonin, Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease
MELATONIN AND BREAST CANCER: Eleven (11) of the 13 published epidemiologic residential andoccupational studies are considered to provide (positive) evidence that high ELF magnetic fields (MF) exposure
can result in decreased melatonin production. The two negative studies had important deficiencies that may
certainly have biased the results. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that long-term relatively high ELF
MF exposure can result in a decrease in melatonin production. It has not been determined to what extent
personal characteristics, e.g., medications, interact with ELF MF exposure in decreasing melatonin production.

	  There is sufficient evidence to conclude that long-term relatively high ELF MF exposure can result in a decrease
in melatonin production, which may increase risk for breast cancer. It has not been determined to what extent
personal characteristics, e.g., medications, interact with ELF MF exposure in decreasing melatonin production.
New research indicates that ELF MF exposure, in vitro, can significantly decrease melatonin activity througheffects on MT1, an important melatonin receptor. Five longitudinal studies have now been conducted of low
melatonin production as a risk factor for breast cancer. There is increasingly strong longitudinal evidence that
low melatonin production is a risk factor for at least post-menopausal breast cancer.
(Davanipour and Sobel, 2012 – Section 13)
ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: There is now evidence that a) high levels of peripheral amyloid beta are a risk
factor for AD, and b) medium to high ELF MF exposure can increase peripheral amyloid beta. High brain
levels of amyloid beta are also a risk factor for AD and medium to high ELF MF exposure to brain cells likely
also increases these cells’ production of amyloid beta. There is considerable in vitro and animal evidence thatmelatonin protects against AD. Therefore it is certainly possible that low levels of melatonin production areassociated with an increase in the risk of AD.
There is strong epidemiologic evidence that exposure to ELF MF is a risk factor for AD. There are now twelve(12) studies of ELF MF exposure and AD or dementia. Nine (9) of these studies are considered positive andthree (3) are considered negative. The three negative studies have serious deficiencies in ELF MF exposure
classification that results in subjects with rather low exposure being considered as having significant exposure.
There are insufficient studies to formulate an opinion as to whether radiofrequency MF exposure is a risk orprotective factor for AD.
There is now evidence that (i) high levels of peripheral amyloid beta are a risk factor for AD and (ii) medium tohigh ELF MF exposure can increase peripheral amyloid beta. High brain levels of amyloid beta are also a risk
factor for AD and medium to high ELF MF exposure to brain cells likely also increases these cells’ productionof amyloid beta.
There is considerable in vitro and animal evidence that melatonin protects against AD. Therefore it is certainly
possible that low levels of melatonin production are associated with an increase in the risk of AD.
(Davanipour and Sobel, 2012 – Section 13)

M. Stress, Stress Proteins and DNA as a Fractal Antenna
Any agent (EMF, ionizing radiation, chemicals, heavy metals, heat and other factors) that continuously
generates stress proteins is not adaptive, and is harmful, if it is a constant provocation. The work of Martin
Blank and Reba Goodman of Columbia University has established that stress proteins are produced by ELFEMF and RFR at levels far below what current safety standards allow. Further, they think DNA is actually avery good fractal RF-antenna which is very sensitive to low doses of EMF, and may induce the cellular
processes that result in chronic ‘unrelenting’ stress. That daily environmental levels of ELF-EMF and RFR canand do throw the human body into stress protein response mode (out of homeostasis) is a fundamental andcontinuous insult. Chronic exposures can then result in chronic ill-health.
“It appears that the DNA molecule is particularly vulnerable to damage by EMF because of thecoiled-coil configuration of the compacted molecule in the nucleus. The unusual structure
endows it with the self similarity of a fractal antenna and the resulting sensitivity to a wide rangeof frequencies. The greater reactivity of DNA with EMF, along with a vulnerability to damage,	  underscores the urgent need to revise EMF exposure standards in order to protect the public.
Recent studies have also exploited the properties of stress proteins to devise therapies for limiting
oxidative damage and reducing loss of muscle strength associated with aging.”(Blank, 2012- Section 7)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

DNA acts as a ‘fractal antenna’ for EMF and RFR. The coiled-coil structure of DNA in the nucleus makes
the molecule react like a fractal antenna to a wide range of frequencies.
The structure makes DNA particularly vulnerable to EMF damage.
The mechanism involves direct interaction of EMF with the DNA molecule (claims that there are no known
mechanisms of interaction are patently false).
Many EMF frequencies in the environment can and do cause DNA changes.
The EMF-activated cellular stress response is an effective protective mechanism for cells exposed to a wide
range of EMF frequencies.
EMF stimulates stress proteins (indicating an assault on the cell).
EMF efficiently harms cells at billions of times lower levels than conventional heating.
Safety standards based on heating are irrelevant to protect against EMF-levels of exposure. There is anurgent need to revise EMF exposure standards. Research has shown thresholds are very low (safety
standards must be reduced to limit biological responses). Biologically-based safety standards could be
developed from the research on the stress response.
(Blank, 2012 – Section 7).

N. Effects of Weak-Field Interactions on Non-Linear Biological Oscillators andSynchronized Neural Activity:
A unifying hypothesis for a plausible biological mechanism to account for very weak field EMF bioeffects
other than cancer may lie with weak field interactions of pulsed RFR and ELF-modulated RFR as disrupters ofsynchronized neural activity. Electrical rhythms in our brains can be influenced by external signals. This isconsistent with established weak field effects on coupled biological oscillators in living tissues. Biologicalsystems of the heart, brain and gut are dependent on the cooperative actions of cells that function according toprinciples of non-linear, coupled biological oscillations for their synchrony, and are dependent on exquisitely
timed cues from the environment at vanishingly small levels (Buzsaki, 2006; Strogatz, 2003). The key tosynchronization is the joint actions of cells that co-operate electrically and link populations of biologicaloscillators that couple together in large arrays and synchronize spontaneously.

Synchronous biologicaloscillations in cells (pacemaker cells) can be disrupted by artificial, exogenous environmental signals, resulting
in desynchronization of neural activity that regulates critical functions (including metabolism) in the brain, gut
and heart and circadian rhythms governing sleep and hormone cycles (Strogatz, 1987). The brain contains a
population of oscillators with distributed natural frequencies, which pull one another into synchrony (thecircadian pacemaker cells). Strogatz has addressed the unifying mathematics of biological cycles and external
factors disrupt these cycles (Strogatz, 2001, 2003)“Rhythms can be altered by a wide variety of agents and that these perturbations must seriously
alter brain performance.” (Busaki, 2006)	  III. EMF EXPOSURE AND PRUDENT PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNING
Chronic exposure to low-intensity RFR and to ELF-modulated RFR at today’s environmental levels inmany cities will exceed thresholds for increased risk of many diseases and causes of death (Sage and Huttunen,2012). RFR exposures in daily life alter homeostasis in human beings. These exposures can alter and damage
genes, trigger epigenetic changes to gene expression and cause de novo mutations that prevent genetic recovery
and healing mechanisms. These exposures may interfere with normal cardiac and brain function; alter circadianrhythms that regulate sleep, healing, and hormone balance; impair short-term memory, concentration, learningand behavior; provoke aberrant immune, allergic and inflammatory responses in tissues; alter brain metabolism;
increase risks for reproductive failure (damage sperm and increase miscarriage risk); and cause cells to produce
stress proteins. Exposures now common in home and school environments are likely to be physiologically
addictive and the effects are particularly serious in the young (Sage and Huttunen, 2012).

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
A. Defining Preventative Actions for Reduction in RFR Exposures
ELF-EMF and RFR are Classified as Possible Cancer-causing Agents – Why
Are Governments Not Acting?
The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified wirelessradiofrequency as a Possible Human Carcinogen (May, 2011)*. The designation applies to low-intensity RFR
in general, covering all RFR-emitting devices and exposure sources (cell and cordless phones, Wi-Fi, wirelesslaptops, wireless hotspots, electronic baby monitors, wireless classroom access points, wireless antenna
facilities). The IARC Panel could have chosen to classify RFR as a Group 4 – Not A Carcinogen if theevidence was clear that RFR is not a cancer-causing agent. It could also have found a Group 3 designation wasa good interim choice (Insufficient Evidence). IARC did neither.
New Safety Limits Must Be Established – Health Agencies Should Act Now
Existing public safety limits (FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits) do not sufficiently protect publichealth against chronic exposure from very low-intensity exposures. If no mid-course corrections are made toexisting and outdated safety limits, such delay will magnify the public health impacts with even more
applications of wireless-enabled technologies exposing even greater populations around the world in daily life.
Scientific Benchmarks for Harm Plus Safety Margins = New Safety Limits that are Valid
Health agencies and regulatory agencies that set public safety standards for ELF-EMF and RFR should act
now to adopt new, biologically-relevant safety limits that key to the lowest scientific benchmarks for harmcoming from the recent studies, plus a lower safety margin. Existing public safety limits are too high by several
orders of magnitude, if prevention of bioeffects and resulting adverse health effects are to be minimized or	  eliminated.

Most safety standards are a thousand times or more too high to protect healthy populations, andeven less effective in protecting sensitive subpopulations.
Sensitive Populations Must Be Protected
Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be set at lower levels than for healthy
adult populations. Sensitive populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, thosewith pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS).
Protecting New Life – Infants and Children
Strong precautionary action and clear public health warnings are warranted immediately to help prevent a
global epidemic of brain tumors resulting from the use of wireless devices (mobile phones and cordlessphones). Commonsense measures to limit both ELF-EMF and RFR in the fetus and newborn infant (sensitive
populations) are needed, especially with respect to avoidable exposures like baby monitors in the crib and baby
isolettes (incubators) in hospitals that can be modified; and where education of the pregnant mother with respect
to laptop computers, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and RFR are easily instituted.
Wireless laptops and other wireless devices should be strongly discouraged in schools for children of allages.
Standard of Evidence for Judging the Science
The standard of evidence for judging the scientific evidence should be based on good public healthprinciples rather than demanding scientific certainty before actions are taken.
Wireless Warnings for All
The continued rollout of wireless technologies and devices puts global public health at risk fromunrestricted wireless commerce unless new, and far lower exposure limits and strong precautionary warnings
for their use are implemented.
EMF and RFR are Preventable Toxic Exposures
We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from multi-generational adverse healthconsequences by reducing both ELF and RFR exposures.

Proactive and immediate measures to reduce

unnecessary EMF exposures will lower disease burden and rates of premature death.

B. Defining New ‘Effect Level’ for RFR
Section 24 concludes that RFR ‘effect levels’ for bioeffects and adverse health effects justify new andlower precautionary target levels for RFR exposure. New epidemiological and laboratory studies are finding
effects on humans at lower exposure levels where studies are of longer duration (chronic exposure studies).
Real-world experience is revealing worrisome evidence that sperm may be damaged by cell phones even on	  stand-by mode; and people can be adversely affected by placing new wireless pulsed RFR transmitters (utility
meters on the sides or interiors of homes), even when the time-weighted average for RFR is miniscule in bothcases.
There is increasing reason to believe that the critical factor for biologic significance is the intermittent
pulse of RF, not the time-averaged SAR. For example, Hansson Mild et al, (2012) concluded there could be noeffect on sleep and testicular function from a GSM mobile phone because the “exposure in stand-by mode canbe considered negligible”.

It may be that we, as a species, are more susceptible than we thought tointermittent, very low-intensity pulsed RFR signals that can interact with critical activities in living tissues. It isa mistake to conclude that the effect does not exist because we cannot explain HOW it is happening or it upsets
our mental construct of how things should work.
This highlights the serious limitation of not taking the nature of the pulsed RFR signal (high intensity but
intermittent, microsecond pulses of RFR) into account in the safety standards. This kind of signal isbiologically active. Even if it is essentially mathematically invisible when the individual RFR pulses are timeaveraged, it is apparently NOT invisible to the human body and its proper biological functioning.
For these reasons, and in light of parallel scientific work on non-linear biological oscillators including theaccepted mathematics in this branch of science regarding coupled oscillators (Bezsaki, 2006; Strogatz, 2001,
2003), it is essential to think forward about the ramifications of shifting national energy strategies towardubiquitous wireless systems. And, it is essential to re-think safety standards to take into account the exquisite
sensitivity of biological systems and tissue interactions where the exposures are pulsed and cumulatively
insignificant over time-scale averaging, but highly relevant to body processes and functioning. If it is true that
weak-field effects have control elements over synchronous activity of neurons in the brain, and other pacemakercells and tissues in the heart and gut that drive essential metabolic pathways as a result, then this will go far in
explaining why living tissues are apparently so reactive to very small inputs of pulsed RFR, and lead to better
understanding of what is required for new, biologically-based public exposure standards.
A reduction from the BioInitiative 2007 recommendation of 0.1 uW/cm2 (or one-tenth of a microwatt per
square centimeter) for cumulative outdoor RFR down to something three orders of magnitude lower (in the low
nanowatt per square centimeter range) is justified on a public health basis. We use the new scientific evidence
documented in this Report to identify ‘effect levels’ and then apply one or more reduction factors to provide asafety margin. A cautionary target level for cumulative, outdoor pulsed RFR exposures for ambient wirelessthat could be applied to RFR sources from cell tower antennas, Wi-Fi, WiMAX and other similar sources is
proposed. Research is needed to determine what is biologically damaging about intermittent pulses of RFR, andhow to provide for protection in safety limits against it. With this knowledge it might be feasible to recommend
a higher time-averaged number.
A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed
effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction tocompensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or forchildren as a sensitive subpopulation (if studies are on adults, not children) yields a 300 to 600 picowatts per	  square centimeter precautionary action level. This equates to a 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per squarecentimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR. Even so, theselevels may need to change in the future, as new and better studies are completed. This is what the authors said
in 2007 (Carpenter and Sage, 2007, BioInitiative Report) and it remains true today in 2012.
We leave room for future studies that may lower or raise today’s observed ‘effects levels’ and should be
prepared to accept new information as a guide for new precautionary action.