Re: More info on the dangers of EMF Exposer

[Guest guest]

--- At 09:44 AM 28, 28 02 2011, M wrote:

>

>Hi Everyone: Here is a link that is worth a serious read. I look forward to

reading all your comments on this very important topic. As Always:

>

>http://mcs-america.org/march2011pg12.pdf

Below is the abstract of the document they are referencing,

plus another important abstract from the same publication:

The full PDF document (of the first) is here:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/17085420/610309257/name/Fragopoulou%20et%20al%20201\

0b%2Epdf

JD

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268443

Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):307-17.

Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points,

recommendations, and rationales.

Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, L, Richter E,

Sage C.

University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Abstract

In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of

intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health

implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromagnetic

fields (EMF). EMF exposures (static to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric

power and from wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and data

transmission, energy, security, military and radar use in weather and

transportation. The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF

requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and

development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative

actions. New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed

to protect public health worldwide.

PMID: 21268443

~~~~~~~

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268445

Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):325-33.

Health risk assessment of electromagnetic fields: a conflict between the

precautionary principle and environmental medicine methodology.

Dämvik M, Johansson O.

Unité Law Firm, Kungsbacka, Sweden. mats@...

Abstract

The purpose of the precautionary principle is that legal requirements are to be

made to safeguard against the possible health risks that have not yet been

scientifically established. That a risk is not established cannot, therefore, be

used as an excuse for not applying the principle. Yet, that rationale is exactly

what is happening in the case of the possible health risks from exposure to

electromagnetic fields (EMF). The scientists, representing both the World Health

Organization and the European Commission, do not have at all the precautionary

principle in mind when they report on health risks. Their starting point is

instead to determine whether new research findings have been scientifically

established and thus cannot be the basis for an amendment to the existing

exposure limits. Uncertain indications of risk are ignored or played down. This

approach is in conflict with European Union (EU) law, which requires that the

degree of scientific uncertainty should be presented correctly. A thorough

examination of the state of research shows many serious indications of possible

health risks from exposure very far below existing limits for EMF. Case law, for

other types of exposure, also shows that the precautionary principle can be

applied on the basis of weaker evidence than that. Our investigation shows that

the precautionary principle is not being used for its intended purpose in

relation to exposure to EMF. The reason for this position is that

decision-makers are being misled by inaccurate risk assessments.

PMID: 21268445

>