 |
| International EMF Scientist Appeal |
According to the Appeal:
"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."
"The Appeal urgently calls upon the United Nations, the WHO, UNEP and the UN Member States to: Address the global public health concerns related to exposure to cell phones, power lines, electrical appliances, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in residential homes, schools, communities and businesses.
The scientific findings identified by the signators and others justify this appeal. The World Health Organization (WHO) is encouraged to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, to call for precautionary measures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly risks posed to children and to normal fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfil its role as the preeminent international public health agency."
--
July 22, 2019
U.N. Environment Programme Urged to Protect Nature and Humankind from Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
4G/5G antenna densification is escalating health risks - a global crisis
New York, NY, July 22, 2019. The Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, representing 248 scientists from 42 nations, have resubmitted The Appeal to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director, Inger Andersen, requesting the UNEP reassess the potential biological impacts of next generation 4G and 5G telecommunication technologies to plants, animals and humans.
There is particular urgency at this time as new antennas will be densely located throughout residential neighborhoods using much higher frequencies, with greater biologically disruptive pulsations, more dangerous signaling characteristics, plus transmitting equipment on, and inside, homes and buildings. The Advisors to The Appeal recommend UNEP seriously weigh heavily the findings of the independent, non-industry associated EMF science.
See video of spokesperson for The Appeal, the late Martin Blank, Ph.D. of Columbia University, and read the recent letter to the UNEP and The Appeal.
The Appeal highlights the World Health Organization’s (WHO) conflicting positions about EMF risk. The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B “Possible Carcinogen” in 2011, and extremely low frequency fields in 2001. Nonetheless, the WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German NGO with industry ties long criticized for promoting guidelines not protective of humans, and falsely assuming authority. In addition, it should be noted that no nation has established EMF exposure guidelines aiming to protect animals and plants.
The Appeal calls on the United Nations to resolve the inconsistencies among its sub-organizations and to seriously address the rapidly escalating health and environmental crisis caused by man-made EMF pollution. Leadership is needed now, especially in light of urgent warnings from international scientists about 4G/5G antenna densification, the Internet of Things (IoT), and plans for significant radiation from space emitted by tens of thousands of satellites now being launched.
The Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal - Annie Sasco, MD, Dr.PH., Henry Lai, Ph.D., Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. and Magda Havas, Ph.D., call on the UNEP to be a strong voice for the total environment of the planet, and an effective catalyst within the United Nations with regards to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic pollution.
In the letter to UNEP, Dr. Havas, Professor Emeritus, Trent University's School of the Environment, Canada, details serious effects on plants, insects and wildlife from electromagnetic fields that are well documented in the scientific literature.
Ronald Melnick, Ph.D., Advisor to The Appeal and former scientist at the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who managed the design and development of the NTP's recently published $30 million animal study showing a clear link between radio frequency radiation (RFR) and cancer, states: “Results from the NTP study show that the previously held assumption that radiofrequency radiation cannot cause cancer or other adverse health effects is clearly wrong.”
Policymakers the world over should take note.
Policymakers the world over should take note.
Contacts:
Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director
EMFscientist.org
info@EMFscientist.org
EMFscientist.org
info@EMFscientist.org
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health, UC Berkeley
jmm@berkeley.edu
jmm@berkeley.edu
July 1, 2019 (updated September 1, 2019)
More than two hundred forty scientists from 42 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health -- totaling more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. In addition, ten scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on related topics have signed this petition.
The Appeal calls on the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) including all of its member states and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to adopt more protective exposure guidelines for EMF and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of health risks.These exposures are a rapidly growing form of worldwide environmental pollution.
Quotes from 21 Experts Regarding Electromagnetic Fields
July 10, 2018
Two hundred forty-two (242) scientists from 41 nations including 38 from the U.S. have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. In addition, ten scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on related topics have signed this petition.
Two hundred thirty-five (235) scientists from 41 nations including 33 from the U.S. have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health.
Over one hundred EMF advocacy and education nongovernmental organizations from 23 nations have signed a letter in support of the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The letter was prepared by the IEMFA, the International Electromagnetic Fields Alliance.
The letter calls upon all governments throughout the world to ... recognize that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is an emerging health and environmental crisis that requires a high priority response; review currently available EMF exposure information that demonstrates harm to humans and nature; revise current EMF exposure guidelines and propose how they can be lowered; and adopt precautionary measures to reduce EMF exposure.
Feb 8, 2016
Two hundred and twenty scientists from 41 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. In addition, nine scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on related topics have signed this petition.
The nations with the most signatories are the United States (with 29), Italy (19), South Korea (15), Turkey (15), India (12), China (11), United Kingdom (11), Canada (9), Brazil (8), Iran (8), Australia (7), Spain (7), Germany (6), Sweden (6), Finland (5), Greece (5), and Russia (5).
Dec 22, 2015
The European Journal of Oncology published the text of the International EMF Scientist Appeal in its December edition. The journal publishes contributions in the various areas of oncology including biology, epidemiology, pathology and clinical medicine.
International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European Journal of Oncology. 20(3/4): 180-182. 2015.
Abstract
We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).
http://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/Europeanjournalofoncology/article/view/4971
Oct 15, 2015
Two hundred fifteen scientists from 40 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal.
Jun 25, 2015
WHO: It's time for a change
The World Health Organization promotes the radio
frequency radiation guidelines adopted by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Many
countries have adopted these guidelines to serve as their regulatory standards
for wireless radiation exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless
devices.
ICNIRP has 14 members on the commission. ICNIRP
recently announced that is calling for nominations to
serve on the Commission from 2016 to 2020. To be eligible for membership, one
must be nominated by the Executive Council of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) or an IRPA Associate Society.
IRPA, the international professional society for radiological protection, was created by
health physicists with expertise in ionizing radiation. The Executive Council consists
of 12 members including seven physicists, two engineers, a nuclear
technologist, a biochemist, and an M.D. biologist. Their expertise and the
primary focus of their association has been on protection from ionizing radiation.
So it is reasonable to question why the eligibility criteria for ICNIRP
membership requires that ICNIRP members be nominated by IRPA or its affiliates
since ICNIRP’s domain is non-ionizing radiation protection.
Do the selection criteria for ICNIRP membership explain why ICNIRP has not adopted biologically-based guidelines to protect people from non-ionizing radiation?
Do the selection criteria for ICNIRP membership explain why ICNIRP has not adopted biologically-based guidelines to protect people from non-ionizing radiation?
ICNIRP should be composed of members who possess
a comprehensive and deep understanding of the scientific literature regarding chronic,
low intensity exposure to non-ionizing radiation and biology or health. In
addition, these experts should be unbiased and should not have even the
appearance of a conflict of interest.
Recently, 206 scientists signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a
petition which claims that "the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term
exposure and low-intensity effects" and "they are insufficient to
protect public health." All of
these scientists have published peer-reviewed research on non-ionizing
radiation protection.
"The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”[1]." These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields."http://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
Perhaps, it is time for the WHO to replace ICNIRP with an expert committee
that has greater expertise regarding non-ionizing radiation protection and use
this committee to establish the WHO guidelines for wireless radiation.
Jun 8, 2015
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. submitted the International EMF Scientist Appeal along with the Press Release and a description of the Appeal to the Federal Communications Commission in response to an FCC request for input regarding its radio frequency radiation regulations which were adopted in 1996 (Proceeding Number 13-84).
These three documents can be downloaded from FCC web site at http://bit.ly/FCCappeal.
A summary of key documents submitted to the FCC under Proceeding Number 13-84 is available at http://bit.ly/FCCkeydocs.
Jun 4, 2015
The "International EMF Scientist Appeal" has generated more than 48 news stories in 26 nations written in 21 different languages attesting to the global reach of this petition.
May 16, 2015
On Monday, May 11th, 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, the UN member states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology* in the face of increasing evidence of risk.These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide.
*(e.g., cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, wireless devices, cell towers, wireless utility meters).
The “International EMF Scientist Appeal” asks the Secretary General, UN affiliated bodies and all member nations to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.
To date, the petition has been signed by 200 EMF scientists from 40 countries -- each has published peer-reviewed research on non-ionizing EMF and biology or health -- about 2,000 scientific papers in all.
The EMFscientist.org web site launched last Monday has been visited by people in 119 countries attesting to the global reach of this emerging public health crisis. The site contains information about this "wake up call" from the scientific community including a 3-minute video announcing the Appeal by Dr. Martin Blank, a past president of the International Bioelectromagnetics Society who has had over 30 years of experience conducting EMF research at Columbia University.
The International EMF Alliance has begun to collect endorsements of the Appeal from non-governnmental (i.e., non-profit) organizations around the world.]
May 11, 2015
PRESS RELEASE
International Scientists Appeal to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology
WHO’s conflicting stance on risk needs strengthening, says 190 scientists
The “International EMF Scientist Appeal” asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.
The Appeal highlights WHO’s conflicting positions about EMF risk. WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B “Possible Carcinogen” in 2011, and Extremely Low Frequency fields in 2001. Nonetheless, WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines, developed by a self-selected group of industry insiders, have long been criticized as non-protective.
The Appeal calls on the UN to strengthen its advisories on EMF risk for humans and to assess the potential impact on wildlife and other living organisms under the auspices of the UN Environmental Programme, in line with the science demonstrating risk, thereby resolving this inconsistency.
Martin
Blank, PhD, of Columbia University, says,
"International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA. The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.”
Joel
Moskowitz, PhD, of University of California, Berkeley, says,
“ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds. These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today. Scientists signing the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population and wildlife from EMF exposures.”International EMF Scientist Appeal, Description of the Appeal and Spokesperson Quotes: EMFscientist.org
Video Statement (3 min.) by Spokesperson Martin Blank, PhD: EMFscientist.org
(An HD version of the video statement is available on request.)
Contacts:
Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Director Joel Moskowitz, PhD
EMFscientist.org School of Public Health, UC Berkeley
info@EMFscientist.org jmm@berkeley.edu
