BIOINITIATIVE REPORT 2012 PDF

adminComment(0)
    Contents:

The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are The BioInitiative Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten. Bioeffects are clearly established and occur at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. LOW EXPOSURE LEVELS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH BIOEFFECTS AND ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS AT CELL TOWER RFR EXPOSURE LEVELS. Studies of human sperm show genetic. The BioInitiative Working Group report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health effects from (This red icon indicates a link to a PDF file.).


Bioinitiative Report 2012 Pdf

Author:ERIK FINGADO
Language:English, Indonesian, Dutch
Country:Germany
Genre:Lifestyle
Pages:620
Published (Last):25.01.2016
ISBN:680-1-23557-187-2
ePub File Size:26.40 MB
PDF File Size:10.65 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Downloads:36851
Uploaded by: DREW

Today, the BioInitiative Report updates five years of science, Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer Doc. The BioInitiative Report is a report on the relationship between the electromagnetic fields (EMF) . on critical examination of the Bio-initiative Report, has observed that the report is not based on multi disciplinary weight – of Jump up to: "BioInitiative Report Issues New Warnings on Wireless and EMF" (PDF). A bad example is the BioInitiative Report (BIR), an egregiously slanted . The latest () version was released on the BioInitiative website early . towers is genotoxic and could cause DNA damage” (see P 73 of the PDF).

There are insufficient studies to formulate an opinion as to whether radiofrequency MF exposure is a risk or protective factor for AD.

The 2012 Update

There is now evidence that i high levels of peripheral amyloid beta are a risk factor for AD and ii medium to high ELF MF exposure can increase peripheral amyloid beta. There is considerable in vitro and animal evidence that melatonin protects against AD.

Therefore it is certainly possible that low levels of melatonin production are associated with an increase in the risk of AD. The coiled-coil structure of DNA in the nucleus makes the molecule react like a fractal antenna to a wide range of frequencies.

Bioinitiative Report

The EMF-activated cellular stress response is an effective protective mechanism for cells exposed to a wide range of EMF frequencies. EMF stimulates stress proteins indicating an assault on the cell.

EMF efficiently harms cells at a billion times lower levels than conventional heating.

Safety standards based on heating are irrelevant to protect against EMF-levels of exposure. There is an urgent need to revise EMF exposure standards. Research has shown thresholds are very low safety standards must be reduced to limit biological responses. Biologically-based EMF safety standards could be developed from the research on the stress response. Non-thermal effects of microwaves depend on variety of biological and physical parameters that should be taken into account in setting the safety standards.

Emerging evidence suggests that the SAR concept, which has been widely adopted for safety standards, is not useful alone for the evaluation of health risks from non-thermal microwave of mobile communication. Other parameters of exposure, such as frequency, modulation, duration, and dose should be taken into account.

Lower intensities are not always less harmful; they may be more harmful. Intensity windows exist, where bioeffects are much more powerful.

Related Post: 3D MAX 2012 BIBLE PDF

A linear, dose-response relationship test is probably invalid for testing of RFR and EMF as is done in chemicals testing for toxicity. Resonant frequencies may result in biological effects at very low intensities comparable to base station cell tower and other microwave sources used in mobile communications.

These exposures can cause health risk. The current safety standards are insufficient to protect from non-thermal microwave effects.

Most of the real signals that are in use in mobile communication have not been tested so far. Very little research has been done with real signals and for durations and intermittences of exposure that are relevant to chronic exposures from mobile communication. New standards should be developed based on knowledge of mechanisms of non-thermal effects.

Importantly, because the signals of mobile communication are completely replaced by other signals faster then once per 10 years, duration comparable with latent period, epidemiologic studies cannot provide basement for cancer risk assessment from upcoming new signals.

In many cases, because of ELF modulation and additional ELF fields created by the microwave sources, for example by mobile phones, it is difficult to distinguish the effects of exposures to ELF and microwave.

Therefore, these combined exposures and their possible cancer risks should be considered in combination. As far as different types of microwave signals carrier frequency, modulation, polarization, far and near field, intermittence, coherence, etc. The Precautionary Principle should be implemented while new standards are in progress.

It should be anticipated that some part of the human population, such as children, pregnant women and groups of hypersensitive persons could be especially sensitive to the non-thermal microwave exposures. Electrical rhythms in our brains can be influenced by external signals.

This is consistent with established weak field effects on coupled biological oscillators in living tissues. Biological systems of the heart, brain and gut are dependent on the cooperative actions of cells that function according to principles of non-linear, coupled biological oscillations for their synchrony, and are dependent on exquisitely timed cues from the environment at vanishingly small levels Buzsaki, ; Strogatz, The key to synchronization is the joint actions of cells that co-operate electrically — linking populations of biological oscillators that couple together in large arrays and synchronize spontaneously.

Synchronous biological oscillations in cells pacemaker cells can be disrupted by artificial, exogenous environmental signals, resulting in desynchronization of neural activity that regulates critical functions including metabolism in the brain, gut and heart and circadian rhythms governing sleep and hormone cycles Strogatz, The brain contains a population of oscillators with distributed natural frequencies, which pull one another into synchrony the circadian pacemaker cells.

Strogatz has addressed the unifying mathematics of biological cycles and external factors disrupt these cycles Strogatz, , They are continuously subjected to time-varying conditions in the form of both extrinsic driving from the environment and intrinsic rhythms generated by specialized cellular clocks within the organism itself. Relevant examples of the latter are the cardiac pacemaker located at the sinoatrial node in mammalian hearts 1 and the circadian clock residing at the suprachiasmatic nuclei in mammalian brains 2.

These rhythm generators are composed of thousands of clock cells that are intrinsically diverse but nevertheless manage to function in a coherent oscillatory state. This is the case, for instance, of the circadian oscillations exhibited by the suprachiasmatic nuclei, the period of which is known to be determined by the mean period of the individual neurons making up the circadian clock 3—7.

The mechanisms by which this collective behavior arises remain to be understood. The "studies" performed at Rudiger's lab are particularly noteworthy. A news article in the prestigious journal Science states that they are "the only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields EMFs from cell phones can cause DNA breakage".

Proof of DNA breakage would be cause for concern for possible health effects. The Rudiger et al. There is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is made in fact of reports that do not concur with authors' statements and conclusions. The results and conclusions are very different from those of recent national and international reviews on this topic" 1.

Two examples discussed here are a animal tumor studies and b genotoxicity DNA damage. For comparison, the ICES review, which was published before the BIR was written, included 35 studies on this topic and the weight of evidence of these studies showed no association between RF exposure and tumor development. Other research Malyapa et al.

The Stewart Report concluded that the evidence of Lai and Singh for DNA damage "is contradicted by a number of other studies in vivo and is not supported by in vitro work" 2. The effect has no clear health significance, and it is still an open question whether it is directly caused by exposure to RF fields or some other factor associated with exposure. The second, and politically more inflammable, issue is whether EMF exposure is linked to cancer.

This is based on weak epidemiological evidence that children living in homes near power lines, or long-term users of mobile phones, have a slightly increased risk of, respectively, leukemia and brain tumors. While acknowledging the epidemiology data, health agencies have generally found them to be unpersuasive for several reasons. The studies report small increases in risk, close to statistical variability.

The general lack of supporting evidence from the animal cancer tests showing no effect, and lack of generally accepted mechanism by which RF or ELF fields can cause any biological effects at the low level exposures considered here apart from heating are other stumbling blocks. Two additional comments are in order.

First, the epidemiology studies were simply not adequate to reliably detect small increases in risk after long term exposures to cell phones or powerline fields. Most of the cell phone-brain cancer studies determined exposure simply by asking subjects about their previous use of cell phones. What reader can say for sure how much he or she used a mobile phone a year ago, much less in the distant past? The studies show no change in incidence rates in the U. In the long run we will all be dead, but there is little indication so far that it will be from use of mobile phones.

To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

They imply that these fields are biologically active at all levels of exposure, and by presumption are hazardous to your health at even very low exposures. Health agencies, in response, sponsor massive reviews that find no convincing evidence for any health hazard at exposure levels below international exposure limits, even as they point to inconsistencies in the data and argue for more research. Making lists of reported effects, and conducting a proper weight-of-evidence assessment of potential health risks, are two very different things.

Excluding bias Scientific research on health, either concerning the effectiveness of treatments or possible health risks, is invariably subject to differing interpretations even by well-intentioned reviewers.

To improve the reliability of assessments, agencies generally insist on detailed protocols for admitting and evaluating evidence. It is important to determine how much a set of evidence changes the probability that exposure causes an outcome. Generally, studies must be replicated or be in agreement with similar studies.

This massive page report contains 28 sections, incorporating in toto the original version together with new sections. It was prepared by a group of 29 individuals, most of them scientists who have long held controversial positions on health effects of electromagnetic fields. Two individuals Carpenter and Sage wrote the introductory and concluding sections. Sage, the organizer of the BioInitiative project, also contributed sections on the inadequacy of current exposure limits and other topics.

As might be expected from a compilation of separately authored chapters done at two points in time, the BIR is inconsistent in approach and content.

Many pages consist simply of abstracts copied from the original papers or from Pubmed which may raise fair-use issues. But here again, the evidence is mixed and inconsistent among studies, and the endpoints studied are difficult to relate to health. Given the structure of the BIR, there is no way to tell how many of the 29 authors of the various sections agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the report itself — or with each other for that matter. There was no communication and discussion among the authors on the preparation of the Report.

Moreover, Sage and Carpenter, authors of the introductory and concluding sections, clearly have their own political axes to grind.

Indeed, the BIR presents many alarming health claims. Readers who are looking for reasons to fear electromagnetic fields will find plenty of material in the BIR to justify their concerns. This is roughly a million times below limits in effect in the US and most other countries at frequencies used by mobile telephone systems, Wi-Fi and other technologies.

Sunlight contains little RF energy, but about half of the solar energy that hits the earth is in the infrared part of the spectrum, which is just above the radiofrequency region considered by the BIR. Depending on how these limits would be implemented a matter not discussed in the BIR , their implications might be profound.

All urban areas have many places where RF signals from cellular base stations, television and radio broadcasting facilities, public safety communications systems, and other useful technologies will exceed these limits — sometimes by a very large factor. Signals from Wi-Fi devices, mobile phone handsets, cordless phones, and many other useful devices would also exceed the limits, as would transmissions from the police car driving through your neighborhood, and energy leaking from your kitchen microwave oven — the strongest RF source in most households.

Bioinitiative

Radar for air traffic control would be ruled out by the recommendations. Assessing compliance with the proposed BIR limits would certainly create a lot of work for Sage Associates Environmental Consultants, and undoubtedly for legions of lawyers as well.They said: The BfS conducted a preliminary review of the so-called "BioInitiative Report" immediately after its release and concluded that it had clear scientific shortcomings.

Patients who have been diagnosed with brain cancer are asked to fill in a questionnaire in which they are asked to remember how much they used their cell phones.

School districts that are now considering all-wireless learning environments should be strongly cautioned that wired environments are likely to provide better learning and teaching environments, and prevent possible adverse health consequences for both students and faculty in the long-term. Research has shown thresholds are very low safety standards must be reduced to limit biological responses.

The current safety standards are insufficient to protect from non-thermal microwave effects. This massive page report contains 28 sections, incorporating in toto the original version together with new sections.

Biologically-based EMF safety standards could be developed from the research on the stress response.

Researchers report headaches, concentration difficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents; and sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems in adults. IARC did neither. A linear, dose-response relationship test is probably invalid for testing of RFR and EMF as is done in chemicals testing for toxicity.

MARYLN from Abilene
Look through my other articles. I'm keen on cartooning. I fancy sharing PDF docs sharply.
>