-The electromagnetic fields. Configuration, damage and liability-
The electromagnetic pollution, known under the name of electrosmog it is a phenomenon so far reaching that, to deal the issue, it certainly creates difficulties.
It is about placing magnetic waves, sensually imperceptible in the body of persons,that pollutes
because it is able to interact with biological systems, creating damage to health in the short or long term.
The length of the electromagnetic waves is variable so that the radiation does not necessarily alter the nature of the object that invests, although recently there has gone moving more and more about the possible negative effects that these waves cause in humans.
Our body, indeed, when it is hit by these waves, it is equivalent to an antenna and the different parts of the same react differently: insomnia, headache, irritability, depression, fatigue, and again, nervous system excitation, irritation of the muscles, severe cardiac dysfunction and even the appearance of some types of tumors may be the result of excessive and constant exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Radioactivity has always existed in nature in its double origin: terrestrial or extraterrestrial. The first is generated by radioactive nucleuses present in the inorganic materials of the earth's crust so that radioactive particles are also collected during their flow from groundwater and artesian wells are found in oil or ground. Animals sense the existence of magnetic fields, and avoid them while dogs, cats, however, like to roll in it.
The second comes from cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere. Sources are the sun, the stars and someweather events such as, for example, electrostatic discharge.Scientific discoveries have made it known how the men were always aware of the existence of radiation. Geoges Lakhovsky, noted researcher of early 1900, wrote: "Every living being emits radiation, the vast majority of living beings is capable of receiving and detecting the waves ..."
and again "Life is created by radiation, life is maintained by radiation, life is destroyed by an oscillatory imbalance andvibration."
People have maintained, at first, against the radioactivity strange behavior.At first they believed the radiationbeneficial and healthy so that it now absurd, they were even sold syrups energy among the ingredients of whichthere was the radioactive thorium, beauty creams uranium-based machines, which had the function to enter trapsradon in the soda and pads of radon that hung in the ceiling radiated, so as to derive benefit, who was in the roomwith them below! The same mothers, caring and careful with their children, they gave them a bottled watercontainer on which was written "powerfully radioactive":
Today it would be absurd to do or to believe!Subsequently, the discovery of electricity and the progressive advent of technology exploiting advanced electromagnetic fields, have increased significantly the amount of radiation: they are man-made radiation polluting the environment and harmful to health. They, unlike of the sound, that it needs of the air to spread and that it is harmful only to very high levels and,specifically, when the wave violently strikes the eardrum, they have, as a characteristic, the transfer of energy from one point to another space without movement of the bodies or support of material resources.
When the radiation, placed in the human body, is absorbed by this and, it exceeds the so-called
effect -threshold, breaking the bonds that hold molecules of living cells, the consequences for human health are devastating. Man is surrounded by an invisible network of electromagnetic waves, whatever its origin, which propagate through space. If radiation is natural and exceed the thresholds of concentration, one speaks of simple pollution, and if artificial, should alter the natural state of equilibrium is called electromagnetic pollution or electrosmog. The disasters of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, the dissemination of images that represented the terrors and fears generated by the atomic radiation, however, have changed the belief that individuals had over the radioactivity even if the way we do continues to remain ambiguous. How many people during the summer season does not lie down for hours and hours in the sun to tan, accepting with satisfaction the ultraviolet rays?
-The results of scientific research-
Looking at the overall picture of electromagnetic, we must start from the results of scientific research on the subject of radiation damage, developed over the years. Although the first experiments and studies on the intersections between electromagnetic fields and biological systems date back a few centuries ago, only in recent years scientific research has studied the question about the changes at the biological level, and produce these fields were made public the serious problems that may arise to the health of people affected in areas disturbed by radiation or in direct contact with them. Several are the illnesses caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.
With more and more precise investigation is known that the prolonged presence in an intense electromagnetic field can lead to serious health problems. At first the disturbances are rather generic, following over the years, they can become real diseases that causecentral nervous system disorders of the autonomic nervous, circulatory and endocrine systems.
There is high risk. It and 'a phenomenon in devastating effects, like asbestos and its derivativesThere are numerous epidemiological and laboratory studies. Under study are not only harmful effects of radiation in the frequencies used in the production, transport and the use of electrical energy, but also those attributable tomedium-high frequencies used in communications (eg mobile phones).
Health effects from radiofrequency Electromagnetic fields
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/HPAmobile2012.pdf
The electromagnetic pollution, known under the name of electrosmog it is a phenomenon so far reaching that, to deal the issue, it certainly creates difficulties.
It is about placing magnetic waves, sensually imperceptible in the body of persons,that pollutes
because it is able to interact with biological systems, creating damage to health in the short or long term.
The length of the electromagnetic waves is variable so that the radiation does not necessarily alter the nature of the object that invests, although recently there has gone moving more and more about the possible negative effects that these waves cause in humans.
Our body, indeed, when it is hit by these waves, it is equivalent to an antenna and the different parts of the same react differently: insomnia, headache, irritability, depression, fatigue, and again, nervous system excitation, irritation of the muscles, severe cardiac dysfunction and even the appearance of some types of tumors may be the result of excessive and constant exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Radioactivity has always existed in nature in its double origin: terrestrial or extraterrestrial. The first is generated by radioactive nucleuses present in the inorganic materials of the earth's crust so that radioactive particles are also collected during their flow from groundwater and artesian wells are found in oil or ground. Animals sense the existence of magnetic fields, and avoid them while dogs, cats, however, like to roll in it.
The second comes from cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere. Sources are the sun, the stars and someweather events such as, for example, electrostatic discharge.Scientific discoveries have made it known how the men were always aware of the existence of radiation. Geoges Lakhovsky, noted researcher of early 1900, wrote: "Every living being emits radiation, the vast majority of living beings is capable of receiving and detecting the waves ..."
and again "Life is created by radiation, life is maintained by radiation, life is destroyed by an oscillatory imbalance andvibration."
People have maintained, at first, against the radioactivity strange behavior.At first they believed the radiationbeneficial and healthy so that it now absurd, they were even sold syrups energy among the ingredients of whichthere was the radioactive thorium, beauty creams uranium-based machines, which had the function to enter trapsradon in the soda and pads of radon that hung in the ceiling radiated, so as to derive benefit, who was in the roomwith them below! The same mothers, caring and careful with their children, they gave them a bottled watercontainer on which was written "powerfully radioactive":
Today it would be absurd to do or to believe!Subsequently, the discovery of electricity and the progressive advent of technology exploiting advanced electromagnetic fields, have increased significantly the amount of radiation: they are man-made radiation polluting the environment and harmful to health. They, unlike of the sound, that it needs of the air to spread and that it is harmful only to very high levels and,specifically, when the wave violently strikes the eardrum, they have, as a characteristic, the transfer of energy from one point to another space without movement of the bodies or support of material resources.
When the radiation, placed in the human body, is absorbed by this and, it exceeds the so-called
effect -threshold, breaking the bonds that hold molecules of living cells, the consequences for human health are devastating. Man is surrounded by an invisible network of electromagnetic waves, whatever its origin, which propagate through space. If radiation is natural and exceed the thresholds of concentration, one speaks of simple pollution, and if artificial, should alter the natural state of equilibrium is called electromagnetic pollution or electrosmog. The disasters of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, the dissemination of images that represented the terrors and fears generated by the atomic radiation, however, have changed the belief that individuals had over the radioactivity even if the way we do continues to remain ambiguous. How many people during the summer season does not lie down for hours and hours in the sun to tan, accepting with satisfaction the ultraviolet rays?
-The results of scientific research-
Looking at the overall picture of electromagnetic, we must start from the results of scientific research on the subject of radiation damage, developed over the years. Although the first experiments and studies on the intersections between electromagnetic fields and biological systems date back a few centuries ago, only in recent years scientific research has studied the question about the changes at the biological level, and produce these fields were made public the serious problems that may arise to the health of people affected in areas disturbed by radiation or in direct contact with them. Several are the illnesses caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.
With more and more precise investigation is known that the prolonged presence in an intense electromagnetic field can lead to serious health problems. At first the disturbances are rather generic, following over the years, they can become real diseases that causecentral nervous system disorders of the autonomic nervous, circulatory and endocrine systems.
There is high risk. It and 'a phenomenon in devastating effects, like asbestos and its derivativesThere are numerous epidemiological and laboratory studies. Under study are not only harmful effects of radiation in the frequencies used in the production, transport and the use of electrical energy, but also those attributable tomedium-high frequencies used in communications (eg mobile phones).
Health effects from radiofrequency Electromagnetic fields
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/HPAmobile2012.pdf
The AGNIR (Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation) has produced a report on behalf of the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA). The document is entitled 'Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields', April 2012.
The HPA state "The report finds that although a substantial amount of research has been conducted, there is no convincing evidence that radiofrequency field exposure below internationally agreed guideline levels (which are applied in the UK) causes health effects in adults or children". However, the chairman of the AGNIR is responsible for setting the existing guidelines (part of ICNIRP), introducing a potential conflict of interest.
The report lists many studies finding damaging biological and health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below current guidelines, but manages to dismiss them for various reasons. Some studies had been omitted.
No mention was made of the decision by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify radiofrequency radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on scientific evidence (May 2011).
Professor Dariusz Leszcynski from the Finnish Radiation Protection Agency has commented that he considers the UK HPA report to be biased and misleading. "Unlike the claims on HPA website the UK HPA AGNIR Report 2012 is not a comprehensive review but it is a biased review." "It is obvious that the AGNIR's members do not agree with the outcome of IARC evaluation. However, complete omission of it feels like rewriting of history and omitting inconvenient facts. In my opinion it shows a very biased attitude of AGNIR members towards the IARC classification. After all, in cancer research the IARC evaluations are a "gold standard"."
We illustrate the misleading nature of the report with an example here:
Male Fertility
The report has separated out studies into different sections making it harder to view all of the evidence for fertility together. But we have brought together all of the male fertility studies mentioned in the report. 78% of the studies listed found decreased measures of male fertility or damage to sperm.
For studies into human male fertility the report lists 4 studies since 2003, all of which find decreased male fertility for users of mobile phones or exposure to military radiofrequency equipment (Agarwal et al., 2008; Fejes et al 2005; Baste et al., 2008; Møllerløkken and Moen 2008; p.257). Four studies were omitted (listed below, A), which also all find damage to human male fertility for users of mobile phones. So all 8 studies in humans mentioned since 2003 find decreased male fertility associated with mobile phone use/possession or exposure to other radiofrequency fields.
For studies on isolated human sperm samples, 4 studies were mentioned (Erogul et al., 2006; Falzone et al., 2008; De Iuliis et al., 2009; Agarwal et al., 2009; p.102). All 4 find damaging changes in the sperm which would be expected to decrease male fertility. Some studies were omitted (listed below, B). Of those omitted, 2 found damaging effects and 1 didn't.
For possible damage to DNA/genotoxicity of sperm the report mentions 2 studies: Falzone et al 2010 (p.85, human sperm) which found no damage to DNA and De Iuliis et al 2009 (p.102) where there was damage to human sperm DNA following mobile phone exposure. The report missed out Aitken et al 2005 which found DNA damage in mice sperm following mobile phone exposure. The report also failed to mention damage to human sperm DNA found following exposure to a Wi-Fi-enabled laptop (Avandaño et al. 2012). Of the 2 studies mentioned 1 found damage to human DNA and 1 didn't. If the 2 missing papers are included, there are 3 finding DNA damage and 1 finding no effect.
Male fertility studies in animals listed (p.179-181) included 14 studies, 10 of which found damage to fertility and 4 found no effect (Ozguner et al., 2005; Ribeiro et al., 2007; Yan et al., 2007; Dasdaǧ et al., 2008; Yilmaz et al., 2008; Mailankot et al., 2009; Salama et al., 2010a; Salama et al., 2009; Salama et al., 2010b; Otitoloju et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2010; Subbotina et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2011; Kesari and Behari 2010). Some studies were omitted (listed below, D). In the studies left out, 6 found damage to fertility or sperm and 2 had no effect.
So of the studies listed in the present report, 18 found decreased measures of male fertility or damage to sperm (78%) and 5 found no effect. If the omitted studies are included in the data then 32 found damaging effects (80%) and 8 didn't (20%). Astonishingly, the conclusion was that there remains no convincing evidence that radiofrequency fields below current guidelines have any effect on male fertility. The word 'convincing' is a very subjective one and is mentioned a lot throughout the report. The authors were not convinced by the 18 papers finding measures of decreased male fertility, but were more convinced by the 5 which had found no effect. It isn't just about numbers, considering the quality of the studies is also important. But it is hard to understand how an honest assessment of the scientific literature could possibly conclude that there remains no (convincing) evidence that radiofrequency radiation can decrease male fertility.
Admitting that there may be effects on male fertility from radiofrequency radiation does not mean that we have all of the answers or that further research is not needed. It would however give the public a more honest view of the scientific literature and allow them to take measures to reduce their exposure if they chose to. Protecting public health means being honest about risks so that people can make informed choices. Telling people that everything is OK when the majority of studies are finding decreased fertility is not honest.
No comments:
Post a Comment