Keywords: safety; occupational exposure; Physical Agents Directive; electromagnetic fields; MRIAbstractPurposeTo measure the potential impact on clinical MRI practice in the UK of the European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF). There is evidence that the exposure limit values contained in the PAD will make it impossible for members of staff to stand close to the magnet during scanning; currently this is common practice in order to provide care and support for vulnerable patients. Interventional MR procedures will also be impossible.Materials and MethodsMembers of the British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR) were sent a questionnaire to assess the impact of the PAD and related safety issues.ResultsA total of 25% of responding sites have at least one sedation/general anesthesia (GA) session per week, while only 3% reported any interventional practice. A total of 29% of respondents reported that operators give a bolus injection by hand during contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) scans. Overall it is estimated that 3% of all MR examinations in the UK are performed with a staff member in the magnet room. Some of these examinations would be impossible without staff in the room and it would be necessary for patients to have computed tomography (CT) instead of MRI. The additional radiation dose of substituting CT for MRI is estimated at 224 man-sievert per year.ConclusionWhile the financial costs of implementing the PAD (EMF) are relatively low, the social costs are difficult to quantify but potentially more alarming. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007;26:13031307. 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Introduction

This web site will be devoted to the subject of EMF and health from the perspective of evidence based science that has been published in reputable peer reviewed journals. There is growing public alarm about the possible health effects of EMF whether from high voltage power lines, cell phones, cell phone towers, WiFi networks, and so called "dirty electricity", etc. This concern has been fed by a wide array of misleading information on the Internet as well as various reports in the media. These alarmist's reports are contradicted by the vast majority of solid scientific evidence.

The public health organizations of the world's industrialized countries conduct regular expert reviews of the scientific literature on the issue of EMF & health. The expert reviews from more than 30 countries conclude that there is no evidence of harm from EMF. These include the World Health Organization (WHO) - the same organizations that coordinated the international response to the H1N1 swine flu, SARS, and other pandemics, as well as the as well as the US FDA, the American Cancer Society, and the European SCENIHR. As we believe this web site makes clear, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and the overwhelming consensus from mainstream science is that there is no harm from EMF based on existing safety guidelines.

In its 2004 document entitled "What are Electromagnetic Fields: Health Effects" the World Health Organization said: "In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields."

This large body of scientific evidence is divided into three main categories: epidemiological, in vitro, and in vivo. Epidemiological studies have shown no consistent evidence of harm to health from EMF in human populations. In vivo and in vitro studies have shown no consistent evidence of harm in animal studies or on studies conducted on cell cultures.

Alarmists and a minority of scientists, whose work is not recognized according to established standards, point to some studies that have shown evidence for harm. However studies showing harm have not been replicated in follow up studies, and have been strongly refuted by far more comprehensive and rigorous studies. In many cases, serious flaws have been found with studies that show harm. The recent Expert Review by the COMAR Committee of the IEEE provides several excellent examples of poorly done studies that have been thoroughly refuted. Some alarmists, such as the Bio-Initiative group have argued that studies do not need to be consistent to raise cause for concern. But this is completely contrary to the way science works. The COMAR Expert Review paper debunks the shoddy studies cited in the Bio-Initiative Report. See the following section on in vitro studies for more examples.

Another often repeated claim is that the studies which find no evidence of harmful effects are "industry funded". This accusation is simply false as can be seen by reviewing a database of studies of EMF & health such as the one maintained by the IEEE. The suggestion of a massive conspiracy to cover up the health effects of EMF, involving virtually all the world's most prestigious health science organizations, is simply preposterous.

Alarmists demand that scientists prove that EMF is safe. Science can never absolutely prove a negative. For instance, science cannot prove with 100% certainty that ordinary drinking water is safe. Reports from mainstream scientific bodies often say that more studies are recommended even though no harm from EMF has been found. Alarmists seize upon this standard scientific conservatism to exaggerate the degree of scientific uncertainty. They keep promoting many of the same questionable or poorly executed "scientific" studies, while ignoring far more comprehensive and rigorous studies that show no harm.

Mainstream public health bodies do not act on questionable, poorly executed studies that have not been replicated and/or refuted. In reviewing the large body of existing scientific evidence, they have all reached the same conclusion: there are no proven health effects from EMF that is within existing safety guidelines.

In seeking to promote a greater understanding of the state of true scientific knowledge of EMF & Health, it is important to distinguish between myth and reality, evidence based science and poor science, and to expose pseudoscience. We hope this web site will help inform and enlighten you about the status of mainstream scientific research on the issue of EMF and HealthDirty Electricity and Other EMFs are Dangerous to Your HealthExperts now believe there is a strong correlation between the increased exposure to electrical contaminates in the home and the dramatic increase in a phenomenon originally known as Radio Wave Sickness now classified as "Electrical Hypersensitivity" and also known by other names such as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and electro-impairment. Today, more and more people are experiencing symptoms of EHS and other more serous ailments as a result of the increased daily exposure to Dirty Electricity and EMFs from other sources like cellular and wireless devices.Studies have shown that EMF contamination affects children more than adults, and the huge increase in electromagnetic energy in today's modern electronic environment coincides with an alarming increase in new-age ailments such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome linked to chronic pain (also called fibromyalgia) and with the huge spike in childhood cancers, asthma, autism, ADD/ADHD and physiological and behavioral problems in children. EMFs have also been linked to breast cancer.Research indicates that EMFs suppress the immune system's response to ongoing processes such as tumor growth. In men, EMFs reduced testosterone a hormone drop that has been linked to testicular and prostate cancers. In women there is strong scientific evidence linking ongoing exposure to EMFs and the huge increase in breast cancer in recent years. Dr. David Carpenter, Dean at the School of Public Health, State University of New York believes it is likely that up to 30% of all childhood cancers come from exposure to EMFs.A scientific report released in 1994 suggested a possible link between occupational EMF exposure and increased incidence of Alzheimer's disease. This study also found a higher incidence of Alzheimer's disease among tailors and dressmakers.Exposure to high-energy radiation and intense exposure to low-energy radiation from power lines, electric wiring and appliances have been strongly linked to leukemia. Read: High Frequency Transients on Electrical Wiring: A Missing Link to Increasing Diabetes and Asthma?Investigators demonstrated an increase of non-Hodgkins lymphoma deaths among employees of Ontario Hydro Electric as exposure to electric fields increased above thresholds of 10 and 40 Volts/meter over a period of several years.Scientists in Russia have done more studies on EMF than any other country and for decades have been reporting that electric fields cause high blood pressure, chronic stress effects, immune system dysfunction, changes in white and red blood cell counts, increased metabolism, chronic fatigue disorders and headaches.Read: The Health Effects of Electrical PollutionThe government of Sweden funded an official, massive study of the effects of electric fields from overhead power lines on 500,000 people over a period of 25 years and found overwhelming evidence that electric fields generated cancer in children at 4 times the normal rate and tripled the rate in adults. Sweden now lists electromagnetic fields (EMF) as Class 2 Carcinogens, right along with tobacco.In a draft report issued in March 1990, the EPA recommended that EMFs be classified as a Class B carcinogen a "probable human carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs.Martin Halper, the EPA's Director of Analysis and Support says "I have never seen a set of epidemiological studies that remotely approached the weight of evidence that we're seeing with EMFs. Clearly there is something here."The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warns: "There is reason for concern" and advises "prudent avoidance."See Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is GenotoxicTo have your home tested or school tested for electrical pollution or to order Stetzer filters to remove dangerous dirty electricity from your environment, call 1 877 987-5185.

Our results strongly suggest that (electrical) transients are biologically active within the frequency range of 4 to 100kHz and at intensities currently found in homes and schools."Cancer and EMF: EMR )Electromagnetic Radiation), Powerlines and Electric Fields and Your HealthElectromagnetic fields (EMF) and Your Health Here is yet controversial issue. The EPA stated that EMF and EMR (electromagnetic radiation) pose no threat to human health, but other studies claim equally fervently that it does! EHSO's opinion is - common sense - living under a high power line for 20 years can't possibly be good for youthen neither is selling your home at a $20,000 loss to move quickly. Balance the risks and costs and try to avoid prolonged exposure. Typical scenario: My family and I are thinking about buying a house that is positioned approximately 600 feet away from a high tension wire. Are there any adverse health effects associated with the long term exposure to electromagnetic fields? Is there a government-designated "safe distance" from the source of electromagnetic fields? Note: This answer comes from Robert B. Goldberg, Ph.D. of EMF-Link, Information Ventures, Inc. ( http://infoventures.com/ ) Answer: There are now close to 100 larger and smaller epidemiologic studies that address the long-term exposure issue. I refer you to EMF-Link (1-800-643-4794) - ask about the Epidemiology Studies chapter in the Status Report prepared for the State of Maryland, as a basic reference ( http://infoventures.microserve.com/emf/maryland/cover.html ). In brief, there is a suggestion which has appeared in many (but not all) studies of children living near power lines that such exposure can approximately double the risk of leukemia and/or brain tumors. Evidence is less clear for adults, but suggests the possibility of similar risks. Risks of breast cancer, depression, and other negative health effects are based on much more limited evidence and are even more speculative. There is enough information to have some concern, but not enough to set exposure standards. There is also a lack of clear evidence from laboratory evidence from laboratory experiments to indicate what protective measures (if any) would be appropriate or to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction a mechanism which could explain such an effect of powerline fields. The question of a "safe distance" is, at least in my opinion, a complete unknown. The epidemiologic studies indicated above used a "cut off point" of 2 or 3 mG (average magnetic field level) to define people as "exposed," but you should realize that this is somewhat arbitrary level. If you set the cut off point too low, the exposed group is not really much different from the group you are comparing them to, and if you set it too high you will never find enough people in the exposed group to allow statistical analysis. These experiments cannot really give an indication of safe levels: you would need a very clear effect, show a sharp change in effect over a small difference in exposure. Given the current state knowledge, I don't think anyone can indicate safe or unsafe levels, only magnetic field levels which are unusually high compared to what most of us are exposed to. Many people adopt a "prudent avoidance" position where they reduce personal exposure levels to 1 or 2 mG if it doesn't cost a lot to do so. In doing this you are not establishing "safe" conditions (because we don't really know what is safe), but are establishing conditions which do not expose you to an unusually high magnetic field. Now, read both sides and make up your own mind Middle ground this is the best balanced study I've seen! Powerlines and your health - a detail scientific background study EMF / EMR is dangerous EMF /EMR is not a problem Links to other resources Cellular phone EMF EMF FAQs

EMF / EMR is dangerous Although not a chemical, electromagnetic radiation (also called EMR) has been linked with numerous health effects, including immune system problems. EMR has many sources and includes overhead power lines, radio broadcast towers, telephone/television microwave transmission and computer equipment. EMR is invisible radiowave energy that in some circumstances can change biological function. For instance, it is well known that microwaves can heat human tissue, thereby causing damage. However, even small amounts of microwave energy has been found to cause oscillation (vibration) of the DNA and genes without our cells. This research was conducted in 1984 at the National Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the Food & Drug Administration in Rockville, Maryland. According to Dr. Earl Prohofsky at Purdue University in Indiana, "Thats worrisome because thats about the worst place in the body youd want resonant absorption (vibration) - right in the DNA." Other research has shown that microwave energy can actually cause the chromosomes to uncoil. In tests with laboratory rats at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Loma Linda, California, as little as 60 hertz of nonionizing energy (about what escapes from a leaky microwave) adversely affected immune response. EPA Admits Problem A 1984 EPA report stated there was a detrimental link between radiation and immunity including negative changes in blood count, immunity and overall health among animals exposed to radio waves. Neutrophils Lose Effectiveness The U.S. government has set standards allowing the public to be exposed to microwave levels of 10 milliwatts per square centimeter. Many European countries permit far less than this to their public. In a 1979 Soviet study, very low intensity microwaves about 60 times less than what the U.S. government allows, caused "inhibition of neutrophils phagocytic activity." This means that the neutrophils were not consuming foreign substances in the blood as effectively as before the microwave exposure. Overhead Power Lines Weaken Natural Killer Cells Another type of EMR is called "extremely low frequency" magnetic fields, which are produced by high voltage power lines. Several studies have linked high voltage power lines with increased cancer risk for children. Research from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and the University of Colorado found a five-fold increase in childhood cancer, particularly leukemia, in those homes near the highest level of extremely low frequency fields. Homes showing increased cancer risk were within 48 feet of power line wires designed to carry very high electric currents and within 22 feet of power lines designed to carry lower currents. In helping to explain why this could be happening, Dr. Jerry Phillips, director of biochemical research at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center in San Antonio, Texas, conducted research into this problem. Dr. Phillips experiments have shown that exposure to extremely low frequency electric fields causes an abnormal increase in the growth of cancer cells. His research of the immune system found that natural killer T-cells were also 60-70% less effective in killing the cancer cells.

NIEHS CONTACTS: Bill Grigg , (301) 402-3378 or Tom Hawkins, (919) 541-1402 NIEHS PR #9-99 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE REPORT CONCLUDES EVIDENCE IS 'WEAK' THAT ELECTRIC and MAGNETIC FIELDS CAUSE CANCER After six years of accelerated, Congressionally mandated research, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences today announced it has concluded that the evidence for a risk of cancer and other human disease from the electric and magnetic fields (EMF) around power lines is "weak." NIEHS review and analysis of the existing data came in a report to Congress, released today. The report applies to the extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields surrounding both the big power lines that distribute power and the smaller but closer electric lines in homes and appliances. While sections of the report say EMF exposure "cannot be recognized as entirely safe," the report concludes: "The NIEHS believes that the probability that EMF exposure is truly a health hazard is currently small. The weak epidemiological associations and lack of any laboratory support for these associations provide only marginal scientific support that exposure to this agent is causing any degree of harm." Research continues on some "lingering concerns," the report says, and efforts to reduce exposures should continue. NIEHS said that the "strongest evidence" for health effects comes from statistical associations observed in human populations with childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults such as electric utility workers, machinists and welders. "While the support from individual studies is weak," according to the report, "these epidemiological studies demonstrate, for some methods of measuring exposure, a fairly consistent pattern of a small, increased risk with increasing exposure that is somewhat weaker for chronic lymphocytic leukemia than for childhood leukemia." However, laboratory studies and investigations of basic biological function do not support these epidemiological associations, according to the report. It says, "Virtually all of the laboratory evidence in animals and humans and most of the mechanistic studies in cells fail to support a causal [cause and effect] relationship." NIEHS Director Kenneth Olden, Ph.D., said, "The lack of consistent, positive findings in animal or mechanistic studies weakens the belief that this association is actually due to EMF, but it cannot completely discount the epidemiological findings. For that reason, and because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to EMF, efforts to encourage reductions in exposure should continue. For example, industry should continue efforts to alter large transmission lines to reduce their fields and localities should enforce electrical codes to avoid wiring errors that can produce higher fields." An interagency committee established by the President will make a subsequent report to Congress about the findings of this report and whether any remedial actions are needed to minimize exposures. Dr. Olden said NIEHS would continue to support some research on EMF, though not at the high levels Congress provided in special legislation and appropriations. The NIEHS report follows a six-year research program and a two-year review by the institute and by outside scientists. For the effort, Congress appropriated $23 million that the electrical industry matched. The industry had no control over what research was conducted. The funds were administered by the Department of Energy and a portion was transferred to NIEHS, targeted for health effects research. NIEHS also added $14 million of its own appropriated funds to support additional research. The total expenditure was about $60 million. The studies reviewed and conducted by NIEHS and its grantees focused on the possibility of a link to cancer a reaction to a leukemia study in Denver, Colo., in 1979, and to subsequent attempts to duplicate or refute it in Denver and elsewhere. But the report said NIEHS also found inadequate evidence of any link to such non-cancer diseases as Alzheimers, depression and birth defects. Christopher Portier, Ph.D., the associate director of the Environmental Toxicology Program at NIEHS who coordinated the evaluation effort, said, "This risk assessment gains strength and reliability from the conduct of extensive new research focused to support the evaluation and through obtaining the opinion of hundreds of scientists who participated in the evaluation. The novel methods used in this risk assessment can serve as a blueprint for resolving other difficult issues." To assist NIEHS in reaching its conclusions, several panels of scientists reviewed the data in open, public hearings. A major panel of scientists many of them EMF researchers was assembled in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minn., last June to advise NIEHS. The panel rejected EMF as a "known" or proven, or even "probable" carcinogen but a majority of the panel said a role in cancer could not be ruled out and so it should be regarded as "possible" carcinogen. The NIEHS report today also recommends that the fields continue to be recognized as a "possible" cancer hazard, but emphasizes the weakness of the data and the low risk that may be involved. The NIEHS report says the evidence does not seem to meet the standard for listing as a known or even "anticipated" human carcinogen in the National Toxicology Programs Report on Carcinogens . NIEHS is one of the National Institutes of Health. NIEHS headquarters and laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C., are also the headquarters of the National Toxicology Program, and they have the same director. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health issues Listen Print AAA Font size Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health issues SummaryElectromagnetic fields (EMF) are generated in the vicinity of power lines, mobile phones, mobile phone towers, broadcast towers and similar transmitters. Scientific evidence does not demonstrate a causal link between typical exposures to EMF and adverse health effects, including leaukaemia in children. However it is advisable to avoid heavy exposure to EMF if possible.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are generated in the vicinity of power lines, mobile phones, mobile phone towers, broadcast towers and similar transmitters. Whether or not EMF can harm human health is a controversial issue. One EMF source to have received significant media attention is the high-voltage power line.

Various studies have comprehensively investigated power lines and cancers (such as leukaemia) to see if there is a causal link. Some researchers maintain that EMF generated by power lines have frequencies which are too low to influence living cells or harm DNA. Other researchers disagree. They suggest that EMF from power lines can cause significant changes in a biological system via electric fields induced in the body. Scientific standards have been developed to limit public exposure to power-frequency EMF, so that induced currents are below those that occur naturally in the body. Two decades of debate

In 1979, researchers investigating childhood leukaemia in Denver, Colorado (USA) found an association between high-current configuration electrical wiring near the home and an increased risk of childhood cancer (Wertheimer and Leeper). This initial work, however, did not measure electromagnetic fields, relying instead on distances from power lines and the type of wiring. Since then, researchers across the world have investigated power lines. To date, serious limitations have been identified in nearly all studies on power lines and cancer. It has not been possible to confirm whether or not there is a real association between EMF and cancer. UK findings are inconclusive

The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in the United Kingdom recently released a report which found some evidence that EMF exposures higher than 0.4 microtesla (T) are associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children. The review found no evidence of any increased risk of cancer in adults. However, the NRPB was careful to explain that no causal link was found, and recommended that further studies are needed. The evidence for the effect was inconclusive because the key studies in the review might have suffered from selection bias or random variation.No proof of harm

Despite the evidence for an increased risk of leukaemia in children exposed to higher than 0.4T of EMF, a range of experimental studies have failed to provide clear supporting evidence for the claim that EMF can be harmful to health, including: No clear evidence that EMF affects biological processes. No evidence that EMF can change living cells or is genotoxic (harmful to DNA). No convincing evidence from animal studies to support the claim that EMF increases the risk of cancer.Victorian government policy

The Victorian Department of Human Services supports the view that current guidelines on EMF and power lines are adequate, since the EMF generated by power lines is well below the recommended maximum limit of exposure. However, it is advisable to avoid heavy exposure, if possible.Where to get help Your doctor Department of Health, Radiation Safety Team Tel. 1300 767 469Things to remember Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are generated in the vicinity of power lines, mobile phones, mobile phone towers, broadcast towers and similar transmitters. Whether or not EMF can harm human health is a controversial issue. Scientific evidence does not demonstrate a causal link between typical exposures to EMF and adverse health effects. The Victorian Department of Human Services recommends that heavy exposure to EMF be avoided, if possible. Electric & Magnetic FieldsTable of ContentsDescriptionElectric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are invisible areas of energy, often referred to as radiationDictionary of Environmental Health, that are associated with the use of electrical power and various forms of natural and man-made lighting. EMFs are typically characterized by wavelength or frequency into one of two radioactive categories: Non-ionizing: low-level radiation which is generally perceived as harmless to humans Ionizing: high-level radiation which has the potential for cellular and DNA damageRadiation TypeDefinitionForms of RadiationSource Examples

Non-IonizingLow to mid-frequency radiation which is generally perceived as harmless due to its lack of potency. Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Rediofrequency (RF) Microwaves Visual Light Microwave ovens Computers House energy smart meters Wireless (wifi) networks Cell Phones Bluetooth devices Power lines MRIs

IonizingMid to high-frequency radiation which can, under certain circumstances, lead to cellular and or DNA damage with prolonged exposure. Ultraviolet (UV) X-Rays Gamma Ultraviolet light X-Rays ranging from 30 * 1016 Hz to 30 * 1019 Hz Some gamma raysIllustrated Dictionary and Resource Directory of Environmental and Occupational Health

Can EMFs be harmful to my health?During the 1990s, most EMF research focused on extremely low frequency exposures stemming from conventional power sources, such as power lines, electrical substations, or home appliances. While some of these studies showed a possible link between EMF field strength and an increased risk for childhood leukemiaDictionary of Environmental Health, their findings indicated that such an association was weak. Now, in the age of cellular telephones, wireless routers, and portable GPS devices (all known sources of EMF radiation), concerns regarding a possible connection between EMFs and adverse health effects still persists, though current research continues to point to the same weak association.Additionally, the few studies that have been conducted on adults show no evidence of a link between EMF exposure and adult cancers, such as leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer. Nevertheless, NIEHS recommends continued education on practical ways of reducing exposures to EMFs.Does my cell phone emit EMF radiation?Measured in units called hertz, cell phone emissions, a form of radiofrequency radiation, exist at the lower end of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum at the 900-1900 megahertz range. At present, the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, though scientists admit that more research is needed. To that end, the National Toxicology Program (NTP), headquartered at NIEHS, is leading the largest laboratory rodent study, to date, on cell phone radiofrequency exposure, the findings of which are expected sometime in 2015.To learn more about cell phone radiofrequency or the NTP rodent study, visit the NIEHS Environmental Health Topics page on cell phones.What if I live near a power line?It is important to remember that the strength of a magnetic field decreases dramatically with increasing distance from the source. This means that the strength of the field reaching a house or structure will be significantly weaker than it was at its point of origin, a concept which is illustrated on page 37 of the NIEHS educational booklet, EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power.. For example, a magnetic field measuring 57.5 milligauss immediately beside a 230 kilovolt transmission line measures just 7.1 milligauss at a distance of 100 feet, and 1.8 milligauss at a distance of 200 feet.How can I find out if Im being exposed to EMFs?If you are concerned about EMFs emitted by a power line or substation in your area, you can contact your local power company to schedule an on-site reading. You can also measure EMFs yourself with the use of a gaussmeter, which is available for purchase online through a number of retailers.Where can I learn more? British Journal of Cancer Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Federal Communications Commission International Agency for Research on Cancer National Cancer Institute Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Food and Drug Administration World Health OrganizationRelated Topics Cell PhonesIs Dirty Electricity Making You Sick?Too many electromagnetic fields surrounding usfrom cell phones, wifi, and commonplace modern technologymay be seriously harming our health. Here's how to minimize your exposure.By Michael Segell

In 1990, the city of La Quinta, CA, proudly opened the doors of its sparkling new middle school. Gayle Cohen, then a sixth-grade teacher, recalls the sense of excitement everyone felt: "We had been in temporary facilities for 2 years, and the change was exhilarating." But the glow soon dimmed. One teacher developed vague symptomsweakness, dizzinessand didn't return after the Christmas break. A couple of years later, another developed cancer and died; the teacher who took over his classroom was later diagnosed with throat cancer. More instructors continued to fall ill, and then, in 2003, on her 50th birthday, Cohen received her own bad news: breast cancer. "That's when I sat down with another teacher, and we remarked on all the cancers we'd seen," she says. "We immediately thought of a dozen colleagues who had either gotten sick or passed away." By 2005, 16 staffers among the 137 who'd worked at the new school had been diagnosed with 18 cancers, a ratio nearly 3 times the expected number. Nor were the children spared: About a dozen cancers have been detected so far among former students. A couple of them have died.Prior to undergoing her first chemotherapy treatment, Cohen approached the school principal, who eventually went to district officials for an investigation. A local newspaper article about the possible disease cluster caught the attention of Sam Milham, MD, a widely traveled epidemiologist who has investigated hundreds of environmental and occupational illnesses and published dozens of peer-reviewed papers on his findings. For the past 30 years, he has trained much of his focus on the potential hazards of electromagnetic fields (EMFs)the radiation that surrounds all electrical appliances and devices, power lines, and home wiring and is emitted by communications devices, including cell phones and radio, TV, and WiFi transmitters. His work has led him, along with an increasingly alarmed army of international scientists, to a controversial conclusion: The "electrosmog" that first began developing with the rollout of the electrical grid a century ago and now envelops every inhabitant of Earth is responsible for many of the diseases that impairor killus.Milham was especially interested in measuring the ambient levels of a particular kind of EMF, a relatively new suspected carcinogen known as high-frequency voltage transients, or "dirty electricity." Transients are largely by-products of modern energy-efficient electronics and appliancesfrom computers, refrigerators, and plasma TVs to compact fluorescent lightbulbs and dimmer switcheswhich tamp down the electricity they use. This manipulation of current creates a wildly fluctuating and potentially dangerous electromagnetic field that not only radiates into the immediate environment but also can back up along home or office wiring all the way to the utility, infecting every energy customer in between. With Cohen's help, Milham entered the school after hours one day to take readings. Astonishingly, in some classrooms he found the surges of transient pollution exceeded his meter's ability to gauge them. His preliminary findings prompted the teachers to file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which in turn ordered a full investigation by the California Department of Health Care Services.Electromagnetic radiation and healthFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources. Please review the contents of the article and add the appropriate references if you can. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be removed. (July 2014)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2014)

This article is about the health effects of non-ionizing radiation. For the health effects of ionizing radiation, see radiation poisoning.Electromagnetic radiation can be classified into two types: ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation, based on its capability of ionizing atoms and breaking chemical bonds. Ultraviolet and higher frequencies, such as X-rays or gamma rays are ionizing, and these pose their own special hazards: see radiation and radiation poisoning. By far the most common health hazard of radiation is sunburn, which causes over one million new skin cancers annually.[1]Contents[hide] 1 Types of hazards 1.1 Electrical hazards 1.2 Fire hazards 1.3 Biological hazards 2 Lighting 2.1 Compact fluorescent light bulbs 2.2 LED lights 3 EMR Effects on the human body by frequency 3.1 Extremely-low-frequency RF 3.2 Microwaves 3.3 Millimeter waves 3.4 Infrared 3.5 Visible Light 3.6 Ultraviolet 3.7 Radio frequency fields 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksTypes of hazards[edit]Electrical hazards[edit]Very strong radiation can induce current capable of delivering an electric shock to persons or animals. It can also overload and destroy electrical equipment. The induction of currents by oscillating magnetic fields is also the way in which solar storms disrupt the operation of electrical and electronic systems, causing damage to and even the explosion of power distribution transformers,[2] blackouts (as occurred in 1989), and interference with electromagnetic signals (e.g. radio, TV, and telephone signals).[3]Fire hazards[edit]Extremely high power electromagnetic radiation can cause electric currents strong enough to create sparks (electrical arcs) when an induced voltage exceeds the breakdown voltage of the surrounding medium (e.g. air). These sparks can then ignite flammable materials or gases, possibly leading to an explosion.This can be a particular hazard in the vicinity of explosives or pyrotechnics, since an electrical overload might ignite them. This risk is commonly referred to as HERO (Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance). MIL-STD-464A mandates assessment of HERO in a system, but Navy document OD 30393 provides design principles and practices for controlling electromagnetic hazards to ordnance.On the other hand, the risk related to fueling is known as HERF (Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Fuel). NAVSEA OP 3565 Vol. 1 could be used to evaluate HERF, which states a maximum power density of 0.09 W/m for frequencies under 225MHz (i.e. 4.2 meters for a 40 W emitter).Biological hazards[edit]The best understood biological effect of electromagnetic fields is to cause dielectric heating. For example, touching or standing around an antenna while a high-power transmitter is in operation can cause severe burns. These are exactly the kind of burns that would be caused inside a microwave oven.This heating effect varies with the power and the frequency of the electromagnetic energy. A measure of the heating effect is the specific absorption rate or SAR, which has units of watts per kilogram (W/kg). The IEEE[4] and many national governments have established safety limits for exposure to various frequencies of electromagnetic energy based on SAR, mainly based on ICNIRP Guidelines,[5] which guard against thermal damage.There are publications which support the existence of complex biological effects of weaker non-thermal electromagnetic fields (see Bioelectromagnetics), including weak ELF magnetic fields[6][7] and modulated RF and microwave fields.[8] Fundamental mechanisms of the interaction between biological material and electromagnetic fields at non-thermal levels are not fully understood.[9]A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.[10] However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits.Lighting[edit]Compact fluorescent light bulbs[edit]Compact energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs may emit dangerous levels of Ultraviolet radiation when the protective coating around the phosphor, which creates light inside the bulb, is cracked by mishandling or faulty manufacturing. This cracking of bulb's shielding allows UV rays to escape at levels that could cause burns or even skin cancer. The light generated inside the bulb of a fluorescent light is invisible UV which is converted into visible light by the phosphor coating.[11][12]LED lights[edit]See also: High CRI LED LightingWhite light, emitting at wavelengths of 400-500 nanometers suppresses the production of melatonin produced by the pineal gland is known. The effect is disruption of a human beings biological clock resulting in poor sleeping and rest periods.[13]EMR Effects on the human body by frequency[edit]While the most acute exposures to harmful levels of electromagnetic radiation are immediately realized as burns, the health effects due to chronic or occupational exposure may not manifest effects for months or years.Extremely-low-frequency RF[edit]High-power extremely-low-frequency RF with electric field levels in the low kV/m range are known to induce perceivable currents within the human body that create an annoying tingling sensation. These currents will typically flow to ground through a body contact surface such as the feet, or arc to ground where the body is well insulated.[14][15]Microwaves[edit]Microwave exposure at low-power levels below the specific absorption rate set by government regulatory bodies are considered harmless non-ionizing radiation and have no effect on the human body. However, levels above the specific absorption rate set by the FCC are considered potentially harmful. ANSI standards for safe exposure levels to RF and microwave radiation are set to a SAR level of 4 W/kg, the threshold before hazardous biological effects occur due to energy absorption in the body. A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final recommended protection guidelines of a SAR exposure threshold of 0.4 W/kg for RF and microwave radiation. There is disagreement over exactly what levels of RF radiation are "safe," particularly with regard to low levels of exposure. For instance, Russia and eastern European countries in particular set SAR thresholds for Microwaves and RF much lower than western countries.Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, can be particularly susceptible to heating by RF energy because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load. Laboratory experiments have shown that short-term exposure to high levels of RF radiation (100-200mW/cm) can cause cataracts in rabbits. Temporary sterility, caused by such effects as changes in sperm count and in sperm motility, is possible after exposure of the testes to high-level RF radiationLong-term exposure to high-levels of microwaves, is recognized, from experimental animal studies and epidemiological studies in humans, to cause cataracts. The mechanism is unclear but may include changes in heat sensitive enzymes that normally protect cell proteins in the lens. Another mechanism that has been advanced is direct damage to the lens from pressure waves induced in the aqueous humor.Exposure to high-power microwave RF is known to create effects ranging from a burning sensation on the skin and microwave auditory effect, to extreme pain at the mid-range, to physical microwave burns and blistering of skin and internals at high power levels.Millimeter waves[edit]Recent technology advances in the developments of Millimeter wave scanners for airport security and WiGig for Personal area networks have opened the 60GHz and above Microwave band to SAR exposure regulations. Previously, microwave applications in these bands were for point-to-point satellite communication with minimal human exposure. Radiation levels in the millimeter wavelength represent the high microwave band or close to Infrared wavelengths.[16]Infrared[edit]Infrared wavelengths longer than 750nm can produce changes in the lens of the eye. Glassblower's cataract is an example of a heat injury that damages the anterior lens capsule among unprotected glass and iron workers. Cataract-like changes can occur in workers who observe glowing masses of glass or iron without protective eyewear for many hours a day.Another important factor is the distance between the worker and the source of radiation. In the case of arc welding, infrared radiation decreases rapidly as a function of distance, so that farther than 3 feet away from where welding takes place, it does not pose an ocular hazard anymore but, ultraviolet radiation still does. This is why welders wear tinted glasses and surrounding workers only have to wear clear ones that filter UV.Visible Light[edit]Moderate and high-power lasers are potentially hazardous because they can burn the retina of the eye, or even the skin. To control the risk of injury, various specifications for example ANSI Z136 in the US, and IEC 60825 internationally define "classes" of lasers depending on their power and wavelength. These regulations also prescribe required safety measures, such as labeling lasers with specific warnings, and wearing laser safety goggles during operation (see laser safety)As with its infrared and ultraviolet radiation dangers, welding creates an intense brightness in the visible light spectrum, which may cause temporary flash blindness. Some sources state that there is no minimum safe distance for exposure to these radiation emissions without adequate eye protection.[17]Ultraviolet[edit]Short-term exposure to strong ultraviolet sunlight causes sunburn within hours of exposure.Ultraviolet light, specifically UV-B, has been shown to cause cataracts and there is some evidence that sunglasses worn at an early age can slow its development in later life.[18] Most UV light from the sun is filtered out by the atmosphere and consequently airline pilots often have high rates of cataracts because of the increased levels of UV radiation in the upper atmosphere.[19] It is hypothesised that depletion of the ozone layer and a consequent increase in levels of UV light on the ground may increase future rates of cataracts.[20] Note that the lens filters UV light, so once that is removed via surgery, one may be able to see UV light.[21]Prolonged exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun can lead to melanoma and other skin malignancies.[1] Clear evidence establishes ultraviolet radiation, especially the non-ionizing medium wave UVB, as the cause of most non-melanoma skin cancers, which are the most common forms of cancer in the world.[1] UV rays can also cause wrinkles, liver spots, moles, and freckles. In addition to sunlight, other sources include tanning beds, and bright desk lights. Damage is cumulative over one's lifetime, so that permanent effects may not be evident for some time after exposure.[22]Ultraviolet radiation of wavelengths shorter than 300nm (actinic rays) can damage the corneal epithelium. This is most commonly the result of exposure to the sun at high altitude, and in areas where shorter wavelengths are readily reflected from bright surfaces, such as snow, water, and sand. UV generated by a welding arc can similarly cause damage to the cornea, known as "arc eye" or welding flash burn, a form of photokeratitis.Radio frequency fields[edit]See also: Mobile phone radiation and healthApart from some suspicion that the electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones may be responsible for an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, the fields otherwise pose no risk to human health.[23][24] This designation of mobile phone signals as "possibly carcinogenic" by the World Health Organization has often been misinterpreted as indicating that of some measure of risk has been observed however the designation indicates that the possibility could not be conclusively ruled out using the available data.[25]See also[edit]What are electromagnetic fields?

Summary of health effectsWhat happens when you are exposed to electromagnetic fields?Exposure to electromagnetic fields is not a new phenomenon. However, during the 20th century, environmental exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields has been steadily increasing as growing electricity demand, ever-advancing technologies and changes in social behaviour have created more and more artificial sources. Everyone is exposed to a complex mix of weak electric and magnetic fields, both at home and at work, from the generation and transmission of electricity, domestic appliances and industrial equipment, to telecommunications and broadcasting.Tiny electrical currents exist in the human body due to the chemical reactions that occur as part of the normal bodily functions, even in the absence of external electric fields. For example, nerves relay signals by transmitting electric impulses. Most biochemical reactions from digestion to brain activities go along with the rearrangement of charged particles. Even the heart is electrically active - an activity that your doctor can trace with the help of an electrocardiogram.

Low-frequency electric fields influence the human body just as they influence any other material made up of charged particles. When electric fields act on conductive materials, they influence the distribution of electric charges at their surface. They cause current to flow through the body to the ground.Low-frequency magnetic fields induce circulating currents within the human body. The strength of these currents depends on the intensity of the outside magnetic field. If sufficiently large, these currents could cause stimulation of nerves and muscles or affect other biological processes.Both electric and magnetic fields induce voltages and currents in the body but even directly beneath a high voltage transmission line, the induced currents are very small compared to thresholds for producing shock and other electrical effects.

Heating is the main biological effect of the electromagnetic fields of radiofrequency fields. In microwave ovens this fact is employed to warm up food. The levels of radiofrequency fields to which people are normally exposed are very much lower than those needed to produce significant heating. The heating effect of radiowaves forms the underlying basis for current guidelines. Scientists are also investigating the possibility that effects below the threshold level for body heating occur as a result of long-term exposure. To date, no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure to radiofrequency or power frequency fields have been confirmed, but scientists are actively continuing to research this area.Biological effects or health effects? What is a health hazard?Biological effects are measurable responses to a stimulus or to a change in the environment. These changes are not necessarily harmful to your health. For example, listening to music, reading a book, eating an apple or playing tennis will produce a range of biological effects. Nevertheless, none of these activities is expected to cause health effects. The body has sophisticated mechanisms to adjust to the many and varied influences we encounter in our environment. Ongoing change forms a normal part of our lives. But, of course, the body does not possess adequate compensation mechanisms for all biological effects. Changes that are irreversible and stress the system for long periods of time may constitute a health hazard.An adverse health effect causes detectable impairment of the health of the exposed individual or of his or her offspring; a biological effect, on the other hand, may or may not result in an adverse health effect.It is not disputed that electromagnetic fields above certain levels can trigger biological effects. Experiments with healthy volunteers indicate that short-term exposure at the levels present in the environment or in the home do not cause any apparent detrimental effects. Exposures to higher levels that might be harmful are restricted by national and international guidelines. The current debate is centred on whether long-term low level exposure can evoke biological responses and influence people's well being.

Widespread concerns for healthA look at the news headlines of recent years allows some insight into the various areas of public concern. Over the course of the past decade, numerous electromagnetic field sources have become the focus of health concerns, including power lines, microwave ovens, computer and TV screens, security devices, radars and most recently mobile phones and their base stations.The International EMF ProjectIn response to growing public health concerns over possible health effects from exposure to an ever increasing number and diversity of electromagnetic field sources, in 1996 the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a large, multidisciplinary research effort. The International EMF Project brings together current knowledge and available resources of key international and national agencies and scientific institutions.Conclusions from scientific researchIn the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.Effects on general healthSome members of the public have attributed a diffuse collection of symptoms to low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields at home. Reported symptoms include headaches, anxiety, suicide and depression, nausea, fatigue and loss of libido. To date, scientific evidence does not support a link between these symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields. At least some of these health problems may be caused by noise or other factors in the environment, or by anxiety related to the presence of new technologies.Effects on pregnancy outcomeMany different sources and exposures to electromagnetic fields in the living and working environment, including computer screens, water beds and electric blankets, radiofrequency welding machines, diathermy equipment and radar, have been evaluated by the WHO and other organizations. The overall weight of evidence shows that exposure to fields at typical environmental levels does not increase the risk of any adverse outcome such as spontaneous abortions, malformations, low birth weight, and congenital diseases. There have been occasional reports of associations between health problems and presumed exposure to electromagnetic fields, such as reports of prematurity and low birth weight in children of workers in the electronics industry, but these have not been regarded by the scientific community as being necessarily caused by the field exposures (as opposed to factors such as exposure to solvents).CataractsGeneral eye irritation and cataracts have sometimes been reported in workers exposed to high levels of radiofrequency and microwave radiation, but animal studies do not support the idea that such forms of eye damage can be produced at levels that are not thermally hazardous. There is no evidence that these effects occur at levels experienced by the general public.Electromagnetic fields and cancerDespite many studies, the evidence for any effect remains highly controversial. However, it is clear that if electromagnetic fields do have an effect on cancer, then any increase in risk will be extremely small. The results to date contain many inconsistencies, but no large increases in risk have been found for any cancer in children or adults.A number of epidemiological studies suggest small increases in risk of childhood leukemia with exposure to low frequency magnetic fields in the home. However, scientists have not generally concluded that these results indicate a cause-effect relation between exposure to the fields and disease (as opposed to artifacts in the study or effects unrelated to field exposure). In part, this conclusion has been reached because animal and laboratory studies fail to demonstrate any reproducible effects that are consistent with the hypothesis that fields cause or promote cancer. Large-scale studies are currently underway in several countries and may help resolve these issues.Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and depressionSome individuals report "hypersensitivity" to electric or magnetic fields. They ask whether aches and pains, headaches, depression, lethargy, sleeping disorders, and even convulsions and epileptic seizures could be associated with electromagnetic field exposure.There is little scientific evidence to support the idea of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Recent Scandinavian studies found that individuals do not show consistent reactions under properly controlled conditions of electromagnetic field exposure. Nor is there any accepted biological mechanism to explain hypersensitivity. Research on this subject is difficult because many other subjective responses may be involved, apart from direct effects of fields themselves. More studies are continuing on the subject.The focus of current and future researchMuch effort is currently being directed towards the study of electromagnetic fields in relation to cancer. Studies in search for possible carcinogenic (cancer-producing) effects of power frequency fields is continuing, although at a reduced level compared to that of the late 1990's.The long-term health effects of mobile telephone use is another topic of much current research. No obvious adverse effect of exposure to low level radiofrequency fields has been discovered. However, given public concerns regarding the safety of cellular telephones, further research aims to determine whether any less obvious effects might occur at very low exposure levels.Key points A wide range of environmental influences causes biological effects. 'Biological effect' does not equal 'health hazard'. Special research is needed to identify and measure health hazards. At low frequencies, external electric and magnetic fields induce small circulating currents within the body. In virtually all ordinary environments, the levels of induced currents inside the body are too small to produce obvious effects. The main effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is heating of body tissues. There is no doubt that short-term exposure to very high levels of electromagnetic fields can be harmful to health. Current public concern focuses on possible long-term health effects caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields at levels below those required to trigger acute biological responses. WHO's International EMF Project was launched to provide scientifically sound and objective answers to public concerns about possible hazards of low level electromagnetic fields. Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health. The focus of international research is the investigation of possible links between cancer and electromagnetic fields, at power line and radiofrequencies.Electromagnetic FieldsElectromagnetic fields (EMFs) arise whenever electrical energy is used. So for example, EMFs arise in our home from electrical appliances in the kitchen, from work processes such as radio frequency heating and drying and in the world at large from radio, TV and Telecoms broadcasting masts and security detection devices.It has been known for a long time that exposure of people to high levels of EMFs can give rise to acute effects. The effects that can occur depend on the frequency of the radiation. At low frequencies the effects will be on the central nervous system of the body whilst at high frequencies, heating effects can occur leading to a rise in body temperature. In reality, these effects are extremely rare and will not occur in most day-to-day situations.A directive, entitled "Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive (2004/40/EC amended by 2008/46/EC), to postpone, for four years, until 30 April 2012, the deadline for introducing legislation on workers' exposure to electromagnetic fields has been adopted by the European Union.The Directive deals only with health and safety at work and applies to work activities where workers are exposed to risks from electromagnetic fields.The Directive places a number of duties on employers. The main ones being that it:places a duty on the employer to conduct a risk assessment and calculate EMF strengths,places a duty on the employer to eliminate or reduce as low as possible the risk of exposure and where risk can't be eliminated that measures are devised by the employer to reduce the risk of exposure below an Exposure Limit Value andrequires an investigation and medical examination where an employee is detected as having been exposed. - See more at: http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Physical_Agents/Electromagnetic_Fields/#sthash.2gg2qVAu.dpufElectromagnetic fieldsSAVE ITEM

1 / 10 / 2009 The Council and the European Parliament havereached agreement on new EU rules to protect workers from exposure to electromagnetic fields. The rules exempt healthcare workers using MRI scanners from the agreed exposure limits subject to strong alternative safeguards and will ensure that patients continue to have access to lifesaving MRI treatment.The new directive, which replaces a never applied directive from 2004, was published in the Official Journal of the EU on June 29, 2013 and Member States have until July 12 2016 to transpose the new provisions.Aim of the DirectiveThe aim of theDirective is to balance the protection of workers' health and safety with appropriate flexibility and proportionality so as not to unduly hamper the use and development of (industrial and) medical activities. The new agreement means that the long-term effects of exposure are not covered as there is currently no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship. The European Commission will however, monitor future scientific developments in this area.Other compromises mean that risk assessments can be made public on request, unless there are commercial reasons or an overriding public interest. The rules on health surveillance and on the records to be established regarding risks, prevention and protection measures have also been strengthened.Background to the issue In 2006, the medical community informed the Commission of its concerns regarding the implementation of the existing Directive, claiming that the exposure limit values laid down therein would have madesome Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) techniquesdifficult or even impossible to carry out whilst remaining compliant with the law. Subsequently, other industrial sectors also expressed their concerns about the impact of the Directive on their activities.In response to these concerns, the Commission asked the Member States to inform it of any difficulties associated with implementation of the Directive. It also launched a study to assess the actual impact of the Directive on medical procedures using MRI. The results of this study were made available in early 2008.The original EU Directive was due to be implemented in April 2008 but implementation was delayeduntil 2012, and then until 2013,as a result of concerns that the exposure limits set out in the Directiveare too low. First stage consultation of the social partnersIn summer 2009, the European Commission launched a formal consultation process with the social partnersseeking views onhow bestto proceed. Both CEEP and HOSPEEM responded to this consultation, with input from NHS Employers and the NHS European Office on behalf of the NHS. The responsesargued that as thereis no evidence of long-term damage from EMFs the application of strict exposure limits was unjustified.In addition,if the exposure limits set out in the Directivewere implemented there could be a negative effect on the health of workers as it would mean greater use of other scanning techniques most likely using ionising radiation, whose potential for long-term ill health effects is well-known. CEEP and HOSPEEM recommended that the explicit exposure limits should be dropped andthe Directive should emphasise the use of risk assessment to determine appropriate health and safety measures.Second stage consultation of the social partnersThe European Commission launchedits second stageconsultation of thesocial partners (employers' representatives and the trade unions) on options for improving Directive 2004/40/EC on the protection of workers exposed toelectromagnetic fields (EMFs) in May 2010.NHS Employers and the NHS European Office contributedto the response tothe consultation on behalf of the NHS through our social partner organisations, CEEP and HOSPEEM. In particular, the response supported the potential exclusion for workers conducting MRI procedures from the exposure limit values setin the EU law, which wouldinstead be replaced by commonly agreed qualitative preventative and protective measures.Electromagnetic Fields Directive (EMF)What is it ?Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) can have natural causes (sun, lightning) as well as many artificial causes in the wide spectrum of what is scientifically called non-ionising radiations and waves. These come from everyday modern life and the plethora of electrical and electronic equipment and applications. With the mobile telephone revolution, irrational public concerns have arisen over the possible adverse effect of such EMF on our health. In the face of scientific uncertainty, public authorities have proved incapable of addressing these public concerns with an appropriate risk communication and have instead concentrated on rushing through legislation on the issue.Why is it important?In 1999, a cautionary approach was acknowledged by the European Union in its Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC aiming at providing a high-level of protection to the general public. Its practical operation is based on national legislative measures and the development of European harmonised standards within the framework of Directives 73/23/EEC (low voltage) and 1999/5/EC (RTTE).In April 2004, after a 12-year procedure that flouted their own much publicisedBetter Regulationprinciples, EU institutions adopted the 3rd Physical Agents 2004/40/EC Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from electromagnetic fields.How weve been engagedWorking together with its sister organisation on the employers side, CEEMET, Orgalime continues to monitor this issue closely in order to ensure that protection from EMF exposure remains indisputable, harmonised throughout the EU, practically applicable, without ambiguities for authorities, fair for all (manufacturers, users, infrastructure managers), transparent and thus, accountable, as it is urgent to restore a climate of mutual confidence amongst all stakeholders.Useful links European Commissions Enterprise & EMF Web Page European Commissions Information Society & EMF Web Page European Commissions Public Health & EMF Web Page European Conference on Application of the Precautionary Principle to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), 24-26 February 2003 WHOs international EMF project- See more at: http://www.orgalime.org/page/electromagnetic-fields-directive-emf#sthash.JNSnquR2.dpufProposed EU Directive on Electromagnetic FieldsThis European directive requires that occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields are assessed and limited. It would adversely impact upon common processes such as welding, despite there being no history of harm.Key points Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are produced wherever electricity is used. This directive requires employers to assess exposure to EMF and take action. However there is no credible evidence of a risk to health for the vast majority of processes affected. The directive would affect processes in manufacturing including: arc and resistance welding, plastic welding, induction heating, crack detection and electricity distribution. It was originally due to come into force in 2008. However, following a campaign in which EEF was at the forefront, the EU realised that it would effectively outlaw hospital MRI scans as well as many industrial processes. At that point the European Parliament voted for a 4 year delay to allow for a review There is now a general acceptance by the European Commission (EC) that there needs to be change to the directive. EEF is concerned that the change will be cosmetic or be limited to the healthcare sector and not solve the problems for manufacturing businesses. The review is way behind time and there is no realistic prospect of a new directive being ready to meet the 2012 deadline a further postponing directive is likely. EEF has a seat on the EC working group advising on the directive and has a leading role in campaigning at both UK and EU levels.Position summaryEEF would like to see the directive to be revoked altogether; in the few instances where there are genuine risks, these are already covered by the Health and Safety (Framework) Directive which requires that all risks be assessed and controlled. However, it looks very likely the directive will be significantly amended, but unlikely to be revoked altogether. Many European business organisations appear to want a compromise; some see the establishment of legal limits as a way of defending their position against campaigners who believe that EMFs are the cause of cancers and other long term effects. However many organisations simply have not got to grips with the issues and the significance of the directive. EEF is therefore both campaigning against the directive and influencing other business organisations to take a firmer approach to the directive. We have been instrumental in elevating this issue to a high priority with European partners such as the European metals manufacturing umbrella organisation, CEEMET. We meet to discuss regularly with officials in the Health and Safety Executive, who are now broadly supportive of our view. We also raise it at meetings with DWP ministers and their shadows.Q.People who work with EMFs have developed brain cancer and leukaemia, doesnt that show why we need a directive?A.Sadly some workers have developed cancers, but no more than in the general population who were not exposed. No robust studies, including one that followed power generation workers for 25 years, have found a link between EMF exposure and the supposed long-term effects. Q.The real problem is that the directive would have stopped hospital MRI scans. Surely the best solution is to simply exempt MRI scans from the directive?A.That would leave major problems for industrial processes, including welding, though there is no evidence of genuine health risk from these processes. Legislation should be based upon firm scientific evidence; fields produced in a medical setting are not somehow less dangerous than similar fields in factories. We need to resolve all of the problems, not just the ones for MRI.Exposure to electromagnetic fieldsThis Directive lays down minimum requirements concerning the protection of workers from the risks arising from exposure to electromagnetic fields and waves.ACTDirective 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29April2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (18th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) [See amending acts].SUMMARYThis Directive forms part of a "package" of four directives on the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents: noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields and optical radiation.It is an individual directive under framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.SCOPE The Directive provides for measures to protect workers from the risks related to electromagnetic fields. However, it does not address the long-term effects, including the carcinogenic effects, that could result from exposure to electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, for which there is no conclusive scientific data establishing a causal link.Moreover, the Directive does not yet provide for exposure limits for static magnetic fields, for which further scientific evaluations are awaited.The measures foreseen create a minimum basis of protection for all workers in the Union, leaving the Member States the option of keeping or adopting more favourable provisions. Moreover, its implementation cannot be used to justify any regression of the (possibly more favourable) provisions that apply in each Member State before its entry into force.EXPOSURE LIMIT VALUES AND ACTION VALUES The Directive lays down two types of value for exposure of workers: "exposure limit values" defined in Table 1of the Annex to the Directive on the basis of the various frequencies that are recognised as having harmful effects on the human cardiovascular system or the central nervous system or as being capable of causing whole-body heat stress or excessive localised heating of tissues; "action values", or values above which employers must take the measures specified in the Directive. Compliance with these action values will ensure compliance with the relevant exposure limit values. These action values are obtained from the guidelines laid down by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). They are set out in Table 2of the Annex to the Directive (13frequency ranges that apply to all electromagnetic fields and are based on directly measurable parameters).OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYERS The Directive lays down various types of obligation with which employers must comply.Determination of exposure and assessment of risks assessment, measurement and calculation, by the appropriate services and at regular intervals, of the levels of electromagnetic fields to which workers are exposed; saving of the results of this assessment on a suitable data storage medium so that they can be consulted at a later stage; consideration in the assessment of risks (among other things, of the level, frequency spectrum, duration and type of exposure), of the indirect effects, such as interference with medical electronic equipment and devices, fires and explosions resulting from ignition of flammable materials.Provisions designed to avoid or reduce risks Once the action values are exceeded, employers must devise and implement an action plan comprising technical and/or organisational measures intended to prevent exposure from exceeding the exposure limit values (modification of working methods, choice of appropriate work equipment, better design of work stations, etc.). However, employers are not obliged to do so if they prove that there are no risks to the health of workers.If, despite the measures taken by the employer to limit the risks, the exposure limit values are exceeded, the employer must take immediate action in order to reduce exposure to an authorised level.Worker information and training Exposed workers or their representatives must receive all necessary information and training, particularly relating to the outcome of the risk assessment, the measures taken by the employer, safe working practices, the detection of adverse effects and the circumstances in which workers are entitled to health surveillance.Consultation and participation of workers The Directive restricts itself to the requirements laid down in framework Directive 89/391/EEC.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Health surveillance The Directive provides for the requirement of appropriate surveillance of the health of exposed workers with the objective of preventing any adverse effects due to exposure to electromagnetic fields.Where exposure exceeds the limit values, a medical examination is foreseen. If it transpires that the health of the workers concerned has been harmed as a result of this exposure, a reassessment of the risks must be carried out.Measures are also foreseen to ensure that the doctor responsible for the health surveillance has access to the results of the risk assessment, while the workers concerned will be able to have access to their own personal health records, at their request.Sanctions The Member States must provide for adequate sanctions in the event of infringement of the national provisions transposing the Directive.Reports Member States must provide a report to the Commission every five years on the practical implementation of the Directive, indicating the points of view of the social partners.Every five years, the Commission must inform the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health Protection at Work of the content of the reports of the Member States. It must also send them an assessment of developments in this field, in particular as regards exposure to static magnetic fields.REFERENCESActEntry into forceDeadline for transposition in the Member StatesOfficial Journal

Directive 2004/40/EC 30.04.200430.10.2013OJ L 184of 24.05.2004

Amending act(s)Entry into forceDeadline for transposition in the Member StatesOfficial Journal

Directive 2007/30/EC28.6.200731.12.2012OJ L 165of 27.6.2007

Directive 2008/46/CE 26.4.2008-OJ L 114of 26.4.2008

Regulation (EC) No 1137/200811.12.2008-OJ L 311of 21.11.2008

Directive 2012/11/EU24.4.201230.10.2013OJ L 110of 24.4.2012

Successive amendments and corrections to Directive 2004/40/EC have been incorporated in the basic text. This consolidated version is for reference purpose only. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) have been the source of a wide-ranging discussion, in particular with respect to concerns raised over possible health issues.Proposal for the mandate submitted to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI concerning EMF. CENELEC/BT has accepted the mandate (in principle) in December 2000. A formal acceptance from CEN, CENELEC and ETSI has been received in March 2001. The mandate has been renumbered from M/32 rev. 1 to M/305.Council recommendation 1999/519/EC on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) Electromagnetic fields More information on electromagnetic fields[1]What are EMFs?Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) arise whenever electrical energy is used. So for example, EMFs arise in our home from electrical appliances in the kitchen, from work processes such as radiofrequency heating and drying and in the world at large from radio, TV and Telecoms broadcasting masts and security detection devices. What are their effects?It has been known for a long time that exposure of people to high levels of EMFs can give rise to acute effects. The effects that can occur depend on the frequency of the radiation. At low frequencies the effects will be on the central nervous system of the body whilst at high frequencies, heating effects can occur leading to a rise in body temperature. In reality, these effects are extremely rare and will not occur in most day-to-day work situations