| home > | |
| Santini | |
|
> |
Argumente für die Einführung des Vorsorgeprinzips |
|
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF APPLYING THE By Roger
SANTINI Doctor
of Science Lecturer, 6 March 2002 I
– INTRODUCTION. To
allow for the correct functioning of the millions of mobile cellular
telephones, thousands of mobile telephone base stations have been sited
in Europe and throughout the entire world. In the preponderant digital
technology currently on the market, high frequencies (or microwaves -
MW) pulsed with extremely low frequencies (ELFs) are utilized. These
high frequencies operate in the 900 MegaHertz (MHz) range for the GSM
system (Global System for Mobile Communication) and in the 1800 MHz
range for the DCS system (Digital Cellular System) (1). Let us note here
that these 2 frequency ranges are very close to that of the domestic
microwave oven which functions at 2450 MHz. Of
particular note: ·
The text that follows does not pretend to be exhaustive
concerning the numerous scientific studies that report the existence of
biological effects relating to exposure to microwaves. ·
Neither does it tackle the problem of the biological effects of
the extremely low frequencies that are present in mobile telephone
signals. While
for the users of mobile cellular telephones the MW exposure is in the
“near field”, for the populations living in the vicinity of base
stations this exposure is in the “far field”.(2) During the “far
field” exposure, different factors are liable to modify the level of
exposure for the neighboring populations and in particular: ·
The distance from the emitting source: at several meters from a
base station, one can measure high frequency power densities of several
tens of microwatts per . 2
centimeter squared (uW/cm2) through 10uW/cm2 (6.1 volts per meter –
V/m) at 50 meters(3). ·
The fact of whether or not one falls within the principal high
frequency lobe situated in front of emitting antennas: this principal
lobe carries electromagnetic energy stronger than that of the secondary
lobes found on the sides of and behind the antennas. ·
The presence of “passive reflectors” in the form of metallic
structures (window shutters, garage doors, flights of stairs, etc.)
capable of amplifying high frequencies.(4) ·
Fluctuations in the strength of the signals emitted by base
stations as a function of the number of telephone calls being handled by
them. · The presence of
other electromagnetic sources in the environment (power lines,
electrical transformers, household electrical equipment, etc.) that can
interfere with high frequencies from base stations.(5) Measurement
of electromagnetic fields in the environment of base stations at any
given moment appears insufficient to accurately describe the level of
chronic exposure to high frequency radiation for neighboring inhabitants.
One key factor is that the number of antennas present and operating at a
given site varies over the course of time according to the needs of
different operators. II.
WHY SHOULD THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE BE APPLIED TO COUNTER THE EFFECTS
OF BASE STATIONS? Several
arguments can be advanced and are developed hereafter: ·
Microwave effects have been known and referenced for more than 40
years. ·
Exposure to a mobile cellular telephone generates biological
effects. ·
Biological effects are reported among people living in the
vicinity of base stations and TV and radio transmitters. ·
Certain countries have already adopted for their populations
exposure limits lower than the currently accepted limits (in France). ·
Sensitivity to high frequencies is not the same for all. 1.
Microwave effects are known and have been referenced for more
than 40 years . Chronic exposure to microwaves is responsible for, among
other things, the appearance of “microwave syndrome” and augments
the risk of cancer. 1-1)
“Microwave syndrome”, also called radiofrequency sickness, has
been described since the 1960’s by researchers in Eastern
countries(6). One recent publication(7) clarifies that this pathology is
tied to chronic exposure to pulsed high frequencies, similar to those
generated by mobile cellular phone technology. It
is characterized by: ·
A debility syndrome (fatigue, irritability, nausea, headaches,
anorexia, depression). ·
A cardiovascular dysfunction syndrome (bradycardia, tachycardia,
hypertension or
low blood pressure). ·
A brain dysfunction syndrome (drowsiness, insomnia, concentration
difficulties). Chronic
exposure is also associated with dermatological problems (skin allergies,
eczema, psoriasis), changes in blood chemistry, disruption of
electroencephalograms and reproduction, effects on sense organs, and
tumors. 1-2)
Carcinogenic risk: ·
From 1953 to 1976 the personnel of the American Embassy in Moscow
were subjected to a chronic irradiation from microwaves at a mean power
density of 1 to 2.4 uW/cm2 (1.9 to 3V/m), with maxima of short durations
of 5 to 18 uW/cm2 (4.3 to 8.2 V/m) and with frequencies varying from 600
MHz to 9.5 GHz. One study of these personnel evidences an increased risk
of leukemia and of uterine cancer (8). ·
A study of 9,590 Canadian telecommunications workers underscores
a significant increase in the number of melanomas when compared to the
general population(9). ·
A survey conducted by the American army on 880,000 persons
exposed to microwaves reports a significant increase in the risk of
brain tumors(10) . · The effects of chronic exposure of Polish servicemen to ultra-short waves associated with microwaves (frequencies from 150 to 3,500 MHz) have been studied for 20 years on approximately 120,000 persons. The results obtained show significant increases in the risk of cancers of the blood, esophagus, stomach, colon, skin (melanoma) and brain, for a microwave exposure not exceeding 200 uW/cm2 (27.4 V/m)(11). 2.
Exposure to a mobile cellular telephone generates biological effects. 2-1)
A Swedish-Norwegian epidemiological study of 11,000 mobile cellular
telephone users gives evidence to a relationship between the exposure (number
and duration of phone calls) and the increase in complaints such as
headaches, fatigue, feeling of warmth on the ear(12), etc. 2-2)
A French study of mobile phone users reports a significant rise in the
frequency of complaints during the phone call such as tingling in the
ear, feeling of discomfort, and warmth of the ear. These symptoms relate
to duration of the call (> 2 min) and the number of calls per day
(>2). This study also gives evidence to a greater sensitivity for
women to sleep disturbances when compared to men. For the authors the
feeling of warmth of the ear represents an alert that should bring about
the termination of the phone call(13,14,15). 2-3)
Other significant effects were observed during experiments conducted on
human volunteers, in particular: ·
Disruption of cerebral electrical activity(16). ·
Changes in sleep(17). ·
Effects on arterial pressure(18). ·
Increase in headaches(19) , etc. 2-4)
Cancer risks. ·
In animals: A
significant rise in the risk of lymphoma following exposure to a
GSM-type signal was observed in mice(20). ·
In man: o
Several publications find no association between mobile phone usage and
the risk of cerebral tumors(21-22-23). To the contrary, one study
evidences a significant rise in the risk of cerebral tumor linked to
mobile phone usage (Relative risk = 2.6. Confidence interval = 1.02 –
6.71)(24). o
Concerning the eye, one study shows a significant rise (Relative risk =
4.2, Confidence interval = 1.2 – 14.5) in the risk of uveal melanoma
in relation to “probable/certain” use of a cellular mobile
phone(25). 2-5)
COMOBIO Report (Communications Mobiles et Biologie: - Program financed
by the Ministries of Research and of Industry). In
rats exposed to GSM-type electromagnetic waves generated by a mobile
phone, the COMOBIO Report (Internet site: http://www.sig.enst.fr/comobio
) underscores: ·
Disturbances to the Blood-Brain Barrier ( permeability of the
intracranial blood vessels) which could be, according to the authors, at
the origin of localized inflammatory processes responsible for the
development of migraine headaches in susceptible people. ·
A rise in the number of astrocytes (brain cells) translating to a
inflammation that could be the sign, according to the authors, of neuron
injury. ·
Modifications in the quantity and/or the affinity for their
receptors of essential brain neurotransmitters (GABA, Dopamine,
Glutamate). Of
particular note: ·
The COMOBIO study results confirm the known microwave effects on
the Blood-Brain barrier, neurotransmitters, and cerebral receptors in
various animal species(1). ·
GABA is the brain’s principal inhibitor neurotransmitter. Its
decrease is the origin of diseases such as epilepsy. It is equally
implicated in neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s Disease and
Huntington’s Disease. ·
Variations in the concentration of Dopamine in the brain are
responsible for pathologies such as Parkinson’s Disease and
schizophrenia. ·
Glutamate is the brain’s principal exciter neurotransmitter.
Its increase can lead to mood changes (irritability, aggression, etc.).
It is equally involved in neurological diseases like Parkinson’s
Disease. 3.
Biological effects are reported by persons living in the vicinity of
mobile phone base stations and radio/television transmitters. 3-1)
Persons in the vicinity of base stations. According
to an Australian government report(26), persons exposed in their homes
at 200 meters from a base station complain of symptoms that recall those
described in radiofrequency sickness: chronic fatigue, multiple
allergies, sleep disturbances, and premature menopause. The
only study that currently exists is French and concerns 530 persons
living in the vicinity of base stations(27,28). In comparison with the
reference group (persons situated at > 300 m or not exposed to base
stations), it gives evidence of a significant rise in the frequency of
certain complaints at a distance of: ·
100 m for irritability, depressive tendencies, memory loss,
concentration difficulties, vertigo. ·
200 m for headaches, sleep disturbances, feelings of discomfort,
skin problems ·
300 m for fatigue 3-2)
Persons living in the vicinity of radio/television transmitters Radio/television
transmitters generate electromagnetic waves that are essentially ultra
short (VHF) and/or high frequencies. Studies concerning these types of
transmitters demonstrate biological effects at weak and very weak power
densities: ·
In mice, after 5 successive generations, exposure to an ultra
short-wave transmitter (80 MHz) and a high frequency transmitter (900
MHz) and at a power density of 168 to 1.053 nanoWatts per centimeter
squared (nW/cm2 – 0.8 to 1.98 V/m) brings about a lowering of
fertility and a general impairment of the physiological state(29). ·
In adults exposed within a radius of 2 km to radio (30 MHz)- and
television (1 GHz) transmitters at power densities of 1.3 uW/cm2
(2.2V/m) for television and 5.7 uW/cm2 (4.6 V/m) for radio, a
significant rise in the risk of leukemia and bladder cancer is observed.(30). ·
In children exposed within a radius of 12 km to television relay
transmitters at ultra short waves (63 to 215 MHz) at power densities
from 0.02 to 8 uW/cm2 (0.07 to 5.4 V/m), a significant rise in cases of
leukemia and deaths from leukemia is reported (31). ·
In children exposed to ultra short (154 to 162 MHz) waves pulsed
at 24.4 Hz from a radio transmitter at power densities of 0.3 to 1.64 uW/cm2
(1.06 to 7.8 V/m) when compared to children who were not exposed or were
living behind the transmitter, these effects were demonstrated: o
Reduction in memory and attention o
Reduction in motor function o
Slowing of reflexes(32). ·
A study conducted around a radio transmitter in Rome gives
evidence of a significant rise in mortality from leukemia for persons
living within a 3.5 km radius (Relative risk = 2.5, Confidence interval
= 1.07 to 4.83) and a significant lowering of risk with distance away
from the transmitter(33). 4.
Some countries have already adopted lower exposure limits for their
populations than those currently allowed (in France). In
a 1998 order (decree) Italy adopted an exposure limit of 10 uW/cm2 (6.1
V/m) in place of 450 and 900 uW/cm2 (41 and 58 V/m) currently allowed in
European regulations for the frequencies of 900 and 1800 MHz
respectively(34). In December 2000, The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
adopted an exposure limit of 3 V/m(35). In Austria, the Salzburg
Resolution recommends 0.6 V/m (36). Of
particular note: o
Mayors of French towns have taken actions to prohibit the siting of
mobile phone base stations at distances less than 300 m from residences. o
In Belgium in a decision of March 6, 2000, the National Assembly
prohibited the siting of a base station antenna by applying the
precautionary principle in making mention of the reasonable question of
risk for the health the people living nearby. 5.
Sensitivity to high frequencies is not the same for all. In
1995 the French Air Force conducted an epidemiological study in which 30
% of the personnel presented with a non-specific neurovegetative
syndrome and 10% presented with authenticated clinical signs. Following
this study, the National Institute of Research and Safety (INRS)
concluded that: “These exists indisputably an individual sensitivity
the the effects of radiofrequencies. Undergoing the same exposure,
certain individuals can present with clinical disturbances and others
not.”(37) According
to the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), this
individual sensitivity to radiofrequencies would have a genetic
basis(4). Recent
results underscore a greater sensitivity in women to electromagnetic
waves generated by mobile phones(14,15) or by a mobile phone base
station(28) when compared to men. It is equally apparent that children
are more vulnerable that adults due to their developing nervous systems
and a more intense absorption of electromagnetic energy by their
tissues(2). III
– CONCLUSION. With
regard to the preceding, it is advisable from now on to apply the
precautionary principle to counter the effects of mobile phone base
stations. Some measures should be put into effect rapidly so as to
protect the populations living in the vicinity of base stations. In
accordance with the precautionary principle, base stations will not be
sited at less than 300 meters from populated places. Antennas will be
carefully orientated so that the principal high frequency radiation lobe
is not directed toward places (daycare centers, schools, hospitals, and
senior citizen centers, etc.) where people are found who are susceptible
to being more sensitive to electromagnetic nuisances. This prudent
avoidance measure must be applied equally to residential areas reached
by microwave beams since certain of their occupants can be “electrosensitive.” Regular
measurement of high frequency power densities must be made at different
times of day and various times of the year. In base station environments,
those living in the vicinity should not be exposed to an average annual
power density above 0.1 uW/cm2 (0.61 V/m). Zones where residents’
exposure to high frequencies is above this amount should be clearly
marked (signs at ground level, signs with a signaling system, etc.)(1) A
medical follow-up for base station maintenance workers (blood analyses,
baseline EEG’s and ECG’s) is imperative. No base station work site
should be entered until the transmitting equipment has been deactivated.
For other categories of workers who work in proximity to base stations (elevator
maintenance, ventilation maintenance, etc.) it is advisable to post
visible warnings about the biological risks and safe distances to
respect in relation to base stations. New
microwave frequencies are being developed for mobile telephones. Those
very close to microwave oven frequencies (UMTS system in the 2 to 3 GHz
range) will contribute, with the buildout of new telecommunications
networks (local radio loops, Hertzian bridges, etc.), to the growth of
non-ionizing radiation exposure to populations. IV - BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.
SANTINI R. Téléphones cellulaires. Danger ? Editions Marco Pietteur.
1998. 208 2.
SANTINI R. Les téléphones cellulaires et leurs stations relais :
risques pour la santé ? 3.
PETERSEN R.C., TESTAGROSA P.A. Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields 4.
IRPA. Guidelines on limits of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields in the 5.
LITOVITZ T.A., PENAFIELD L.M., FARREL J.M. et coll. Bioeffects induced
by 6.
GORDON Z.V. Biological effect of microwaves in occupational settings.
Hygiene. 7.
JOHNSON LIAKOURIS G. Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lillienfeld
study. 8.
GOLDSMITH J.R. Epidemiological evidence of radiofrequency radiation 9.
DE-GUIRRE L., THERIAULT G., ITURRA H., PROVENCHER S., CYR D., CASE 10.
GRAYSON J.K. Radiation exposure, socioeconomic status and brain tumor
risk in 11.
SZMIGIELSKI S. Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to
high 12.
SANDSTRÖM M., WILEN J., OFTEDAL G., MILD K.H. Mobile phone use and 13. SANTINI R., SEIGNE M., BONHOMME-FAIVRE L., BOUFFET S., DEFRANE 14. SANTINI R., SEIGNE M., BONHOMME-FAIVRE L., BOUFFET S., DEFRANE 15. SANTINI R., SEIGNE M., BONHOMME-FAIVRE L., BOUFFET S., DEFRANE 16.
FREUDE G., ULLSPERGER P., EGGERT S., RUPPE I. Effects of microwaves 17.
MANN K., ROSCHKE J. Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic
fields on 18.
BRAUNE S., WROCKLAGE C., RACZEK J., GAILUS T., LUCKING Ch. Resting 19.
CHIA S.E., CHIA H.P., THAN J.S. Prevalence of headach among handheld
cellular 20. REPACHOLI M.H.,
BASTEN A., GEBAKI V., NOONAN D., FIMNIE J., HARRIS A.
Lymphoma in Eµ-PM1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz 21.
INSKIP P.D., TARONE E.R, HATCH E.E., WILCOSKY T.C. et coll.
Cellulartelephone 22.
MUSCAT J.E., MALKIN M.G., THOMPSON S., SHORE R.E. et coll. Handheld 23.
MORGAN R.W., KELSH M.A., ZHAO K., EXUZIDES K.A. 24.
HARDELL L., MILD H.K., PAHLSON A., HALLQUIST A. 25.
STANG A., ANASTASSIOU G., AHRENS W., BROMEN K., BORNFELD N. et 26.
« Mobiles phones and their transmitter bases stations. The evidence for
health 27. SANTINI R., SANTINI P., SEIGNE M., DANZE J.M. Symptômes exprimés par
des 28. SANTINI R., SANTINI P., DANZE J.M., LE RUZ P., SEIGNE M. Enquête sur la 29.
MAGRAS I.N., XENOS Th.D. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal 30.
DOLK. H., SHADDICK G., WALLS P., GRUNDY Ch. et coll. Cancer incidence 31.
HOCKING B., GORDON I., GRAIN H., HATFIELD G. Cancer incidence and 32.
KOLODYNSKI A.A., KOLDYNSKA V.V. Motor and psychological functions of 33. MICHELOZZI P., ANCONA C., FUSCO D., FORASTIERE F., PERUCCI C.A. 34. SANTINI R., DANZE J.M., SEIGNE M., LOUPPE B. Guide pratique européen
des 35. Grand Duché de Luxembourg – Ministre de l’environnement du travail
et de l’emploi 36.
Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations –
International 37. INRS. Champs électriques, champs magnétiques, ondes électromagnétiques.
Guide à ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The
author gratefully acknowledges Janet NEWTON, President of The EMR
Network, ----------- If
you cite all or part of this text, please give the author’s name and
the place of this PARLIAMENTARY
OFFICE FOR EVALUATION OF Hearing
of 6 March 2002 at the request of
|
|
|
[ home ] [ Fenster verkleinern ] [ Diese Seite drucken ] [ Fenster schliessen ] |
|