More info on the dangers of EMF Exposer

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: Howard

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

--- At 09:44 AM 28, 28 02 2011, HowardM 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: Howard
>
>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%202010b%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, Morgan 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. [hidden email]

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







>