The following is a treatise regarding technical language yet understandable of another important environmental concern, this concerns data already accepted which links Leukemia to some form/s of propagated energy... lately but not mentioned in this article which are Cell Phones.

Even the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council Report (quoted later in this draft WHO document), while not finding a proven association with measured fields, concluded: "The most important aspect of this report is that it does establish and agree that even under the strictest possible standards of proof, there is a reliable, though low, statistical association between power lines and at least one form of cancer (childhood leukemia). How can Chadwick & Sienkiewicz's statement "Some have found an increased incidence of illness close to power lines, many have not" be regarded other than negatively biased and misleading reporting? Actually the biased standpoint of this draft report becomes clear at the end of the same paragraph where it refers the reader to the later section on "Managing public concern".

Released 23 May 1999

Panorama (an established BBC TV investigative documentary series) interviewed Dr Lennart Hardell, George Carlo of WTR and others on Monday in a program raising yet again the issue of cellphone safety, and concluding that there may be a risk of brain tumors. This was followed by a talk on Radio Five Live with guests including Louis Slesin, myself, a Scottish bacteriologist, and several environmental journalists. Peter Horrocks the Panorama producer also joined in by phone. Figures given of radiation levels were compared with the NRPB standard (10W/kg whole body SAR) but the program did not point out that the NRPB level is over five times the US level, or that the figures given for individual phones (showing up to 20 field differences) could not be described as accurate, since " sometimes even the thermal levels are exceeded in certain operating conditions" according to Kuster and Balzano, experts in this field.

The Panorama program offered little new material, so one can only assume it is yet another Government effort to alert the public about cellphone handset risks without actually having to carry out any monitory legislation.

RELEASED 22 May 1999

For the latest NRPB monthly lecture meeting at Didcot, Sir Richard Dol presented a lecture on cancer, neuro-degenerative disease and electro magnetic fields. He seemed to accept that the evidence is getting stronger that exposure to high occupational a.c. magnetic fields or electric shocks may have an association with Alzheimer's Disease and ALS. He then moved on to talk about childhood leukemia. A announcement two and a half years ago that the results of the long awaited UK Childhood Cancer Study were to be published imminently was a significant factor in derailing the Simon Studholme Court Case - the Expert Witness were not prepared to file their Statements only a few months before this large study was published. In the event we are STILL waiting, with Sir Richard soldiering on, and bets now being placed as to who will appear before his peers first, the knight or the study he has been procrastinating for since its announcement in 1990. The current date for announcement of the preliminary results of the UKCCS is now December 1999.

In his lecture Sir Richard claimed (erroneously) that there are only eight data-logged child leukemia measured field studies, having omitted the study from our laboratory which uncovered a clearly significant dose-response relationship between childhood leukemia and chronic nocturnal exposure to ELF electric fields. Indeed, Sir Richard did not discuss electric fields at all. When asked by his audience about the omission of our now oft-cited study, his reply was that he had questions over its possible selection bias and preferred to just ignore it (in the same way that he has consistently ignored Alice Stewart's seminal work). Since most of the other 8 studies he cited fell under similar criticisms, one might suspect that our fully peer reviewed study - published in no less than three reputable journals in various forms - is only prey to non-selection bias. In fact the NRPB Non-ionizing Radiation Advisory Committee that he chairs has been remarkably silent about its views on most positive EMF studies published in the last five years.

Did Doll dodder? When asked about 'typical' UK ambient domestic exposure levels of power frequency EMFs, he answered they were about "0.5 microtesla". No-one had the discourtesy to correct him (it is 0.04 to 0.05 mT) - after all, the old milliGauss units are so easy to confuse with microtesla. It's difficult to keep up to date with progress these days.

He stated that, in his opinion, only about 1% of the 2000 childhood cancer cases in the UK each year might be due to the influence of EMFs. When asked what the other 99% might be due to he laughed that "wouldn't we all like to know" and then stated that "population mixing" was a prime suspect, followed by antigen exposure after birth. Genetic factors he thought played a very small part. HE COMPLETELY FAILED TO MENTION BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY FROM ATOMIC BOMB TESTING FALL-OUT AND NUCLEAR POWERSTATION AND RESEARCH FACILITY DISCHARGES. ... see the excellent site:

Interestingly the recent NRPB Cancer study on radiation workers by Prof. Muirhead et al has apparently still not yet been released in its entirety. The Press release issued on 15 March 1999 stated that it was available price Ł22.50 from HMSO or NRPB. However even when Muirhead gave his talk on 23 April the full report was still not available. We understand that parts of it may be still being rewritten. We know that NRPB worked very hard at the wording of the Press Release because of an overheard conversation on the matter at the 26 Feb lecture!

John Swanson, who has taken of the mantle of David Jeffers at the National Grid's Leatherhead offices (erstwhile bioeffects research laboratories) was also present. Swanson clearly is adopting a far more aggressive style than Male or Jeffers, who have been looking forward to retirement for sometime now. Male and Jeffers have manfully borne the brunt of scientific dissent from the NGC line, that there are no serious health hazards from exposure to electro magnetic fields at power frequencies. Now Swanson is aggressively maintaining this increasingly isolated position on behalf of his paymasters. He was seen talking earnestly over a friendly lunch with Gerald Draper (who is featured on the web site cited above).

Released 19 May 1999
Released 15 May 1999

At the Royal Society of Medicine, 1 Wimpole Street, W1 on May 26 (continental breakfast at 0800hrs for early birds, followed by two separate briefings at 1000hrs and 1130hrs) Tecno AO will present evidence to interested media, from three scientific experts confirming the protective effect of their devices against low level radiation from cellphones and Visual display units. Professor Bastide from Montpellier University, Dr Gerald Hyland, lecturer in physics from Warwick University, and myself will all contribute to the meeting. I my case I shall be presenting the results of our latest work on the adverse effects on lymphocyte viability and the effects of ambient radiation on endogenous fields. Prof Bastide will speak on her work with chick embryos, and Dr Hyland will give an overview of EM radiation health hazards. Contact Jill Phillipson at 0181 341 0558 (Fax 0181 for further details.

The cellphone industries (and the NRPB) do not accept there is yet enough evidence that excess exposure to cellphone radiation below that likely to cause thermal effects is harmful to health. Our recent 500 user survey showed that 1.8 percent respondents use a cellphone more than 2hrs each day. Extrapolation to the 13 million UK users suggests that over 250,000 people may be adversely affected if claims are supported by research programs presently in progress. In consequence a number of devices have appeared on the market, though usually not in cellphone distributors retail outlets. Like the cellphones themselves, most have not been tested for efficacy in protecting against any likely health hazards from usage. Meanwhile anecdotal evidence of serious and minor ill health from excess cellphone use continues to surface. Can we afford to get this issue wrong?

WHO Draft Document: Electro magnetic Fields by Philip Chadwick & Zenon Sienkiewicz
Response by Alasdair Philips, Director of Powerwatch

I hereby submit my response to this draft document as comments on individual paragraphs.

[page 2: Summary] In the second paragraph there is this completely unjustifiable statement:
"No adverse health effects have been found to occur in people exposed to these everyday background levels". This should be re-worded along the lines of: "No adverse health effects have been proven to occur in people due to exposure to everyday background levels of EMFs". In industrialized countries we are all surrounded by man-made EMFs and so there is no non-exposed control population. A recent re-analysis of the data presented in Doll and Hill's seminal paper on smoking and cancer (BMJ;2;1071-1081;1956) by Dr Sam Milham (Carcinogenicity of EMFs;Eu.J.Oncology;3;93-100,1998) shows than when heavy smokers were compared with non-smokers the original relative Risk (RR) of 23.7 was obtained. When they were compared with light smokers this fell to 3.5 and with moderate smokers it fell to an RR of 1.9. These are the sort of RRs seen in EMF studies. If the ELF EMF effect on cancer is real, then the evidence is that it starts to occur at somewhere around 0.2 to 0.3 m T. As most people are daily exposed to levels around 0.1 m T then we are comparing very close levels and it is hardly surprising RRs of around 2 are often found. The current statement in this draft cannot be justified by research and needs to be re worded.

[page 3:Table] Strictly speaking "LF magnetic fields" should either be written "LF magnetic Flux Fields" or the next words should read "are measured as magnetic flux density in teslas (T)."

[bottom page 5] "unable to break molecular bonds" should read "unable to directly break molecular bonds", as there is evidence that man-made electro magnetic fields can influence chemical reactions and can affect DNA transcription processes in living biological cells. Recent work in the USA, India and Sweden in four different laboratories have shown increases in DNA damage when rodents are exposed long-term to chronic power frequency EMFs. 7.5 and 10 m T fields were used in Sweden and 100 m T in the US work - both within the strictest world public exposure guidance. (UK Guidance is 1600 m T ).

[page 6; E&M Fields, para 3] The end of this paragraph does not read well. The last sentence should be better constructed along the lines of "The magnetic field tends to decrease rapidly with distance from buried cables as the magnetic fields produced by equal currents carried in conductors that run close together tend to cancel each other".

[page 7] The statement "Frequency is used up to the top of radio frequency/microwave, then wavelength is used" is misleading. What about the Long, Medium, and Short Wave Bands on many radios. Also many radio stations give out their wavelength along with their frequency.

[page 8; end of second paragraph] The statement "Prior to this time [1976], there had been no significant co-ordinated research effort in the field of EMF and health" is very misleading. The Soviets started serious research on the biological effects of microwaves and pulsed low frequency EMFs in 1953 and considerable work was done on electro magnetic fields and human bio-effects by the American military from 1965. In February 1975 the New York Academy of Sciences ran a complete Conference on "Biologic Effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation" at which over 50 papers were presented including the following categories: Effects on the Nervous System (9 papers); Effects of Special Senses (9 papers); Biochemical and Biophysical Effects (11 papers); Effects on Genetics and Development (6 papers); Effects on Behavior (6 papers); and Dosimetry (9 papers). Changing the date to "about 1970" and adding "in the public domain", or words to that effect, would correct this section.

[page 8; last paragraph] This paragraph is very misleading. It is typical of the biased reporting that this WHO paper warns against. It results in the confrontational debate with 'alternative sources' such as Powerwatch. It implies that a very small number of studies have found adverse health effects whilst the vast majority have not. In fact, almost all the well conducted studies have found elevated RRs or (Odds Ratios, ORs), albeit many are not at a statistically significant level. What this paragraph implies is that these have not found any increased incidence when, at higher residential EMF exposure levels most have elevated RRs. In the table on page 43 of '50Hz Electro magnetic Fields - Is there a case for Prudent Avoidance in the UK?', [Grainger & Preece, Medical Physics Research Center, Bristol University, November 1996] we see a median RR of 1.5 (0.9-2.50 over 16 studies of childhood leukemia; 1.7 (0.9-2.7) over 7 studies of childhood brain cancer; and 2.0 (0.8-5.0) over 6 studies of childhood lymphoma.

Even the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council Report (quoted later in this draft WHO document), while not finding a proven association with measured fields, concluded: "The most important aspect of this report is that it does establish and agree that even under the strictest possible standards of proof, there is a reliable, though low, statistical association between power lines and at least one form of cancer (childhood leukemia)." How can Chadwick & Sienkiewicz's statement "Some have found an increased incidence of illness close to power lines, many have not" be regarded other than negatively biased and misleading reporting? Actually the biased standpoint of this draft report becomes clear at the end of the same paragraph where it refers the reader to the later section on "Managing public concern".

[page 10; bottom of the box] This follows on from my point 7, above. The authors quote the finding of the NAS/NRC report: "the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to [electric and magnetic] fields presents a health hazard" and fail to mention my quotation (above) about the confirmed association with power lines. In fact, from the planning point of view a real physical association with power lines is more important than a numerical link with actual field values. Maybe simple magnetic field exposures (which is all most studies have used) is not the correct metric to use. Electric fields have not been measured nor has the notational component of magnetic fields which is found near three-phase overhead and underground electricity transmission and distribution systems.

[page 16; Electro magnetic Hypersensitivity (ES)] It is good to see this included but it only refers to magnetic fields whereas in my experience of seeing many 'ES' people it is the electric field component that most react to. I have no doubts that the phenomena is real in a small, but increasing, percentage of the public. In many cases it seems to be triggered by chemical exposure or by a gross insult like electric shock or extensive mobile phone use.

[page 17; Conclusions from past research] Once again we have unwarranted negatively biased comments. However, when examining NRPB literature, we find a document written by one of the authors of this draft WHO document, Dr Zenon Sienkiewicz, for the NRPB Training Section entitled "Biological Effects of Time Varying Electro magnetic Fields" (1997). This includes (on page 5):
"There are in addition a large number of biological effects that have been reported in cell cultures and in animals, often in response to relatively low field levels, which are not well established but which may have health implications and are the subject of much ongoing research." [my bolding] "These include research on the effects of ELF fields on the body's daily (circadian) rhythms and on growth and development of the embryo and fetus, on the effects of ELF fields and RF radiation on carcinogenic processes, on the existence of specific frequency and amplitude "window" effects, and on effects of low level pulsed RF radiation. "The possibility that only certain combinations (windows) of EMF frequency and amplitude could elicit biological effects has been reported in studies in which exposure to very low levels of amplitude modulated RF radiation, too low to involve heating, altered the brain activity in cats and rabbits, the activity of an enzyme involved in tumor promotion, and to affect calcium ion mobility in brain tissue in vitro and in vivo." ... ... "Recent well-conducted studies by one group of research workers suggest that the retina, iris and corneal endothelium of primate eyes are susceptible to low-level microwave irradiation, particularly to pulsed radiation. Various degenerative changes, particularly of the light-sensitive cells in the retina, have been reported. ... Exposure to low levels of pulsed or continuous wave RF or microwave radiation have been reported to affect neurotransmitter metabolism and the concentration of receptors involved in stress and anxiety responses in different parts of the rat brain."

It is difficult to reconcile these statements with those set out by the same author in this draft WHO document. It is very clear that this document is written with a bias "to provide public reassurance".

[page 20; Table] Printing error column 2; mT should read m T.

[page 23; Prudent Avoidance] In the third paragraph the sentence "However, it is often the case that exposures from distant TV and radio transmitters may be higher than those from mobile phone masts" is incorrect. Near mobile phone base-station masts it is common to get signal levels of 1 volt/meter and not unusual to find levels of 3 volts/meter. These levels are confirmed by the report 'Possible health effects related to the use of radiotelephones', European Commission Expert Group (Chaired by the NRPB's Dr McKinlay) which calculates (page 17) worst case values of 27 to 53 volts/meter, but it goes on to say that, in practice, a total electric field strength of 3-4 Vm-1 is predicted for maximum public exposure. In my experience of measuring maximum fields strengths near to major TV and FM radio masts it is most unusual to measure values above 3 Vm-1, and the fields from distant masts rarely exceeds 0.1 Vm-1 and is usually orders of magnitude below this. In my field survey experience a cellular phone mast is the main signal in the range 30 to 2000 MHz up to at least 200 m from the mast.

[page 23; Prudent Avoidance] In the fourth paragraph we read "prudent avoidance cannot be justified scientifically" and we are forced to the conclusion that the authors are ignorant of the UK government's interpretation of the Maastricht Treaty and the UK document. The Maastricht Treaty introduced the cautionary principle as a legal obligation in article 130-r(2) of the treaty of Rome. This is generally understood as: When potential damage is both uncertain and significant it is necessary to act on the basis of the Precautionary Principle. This is to take precautionary action to limit the use of potentially dangerous pollutants, even where the scientific knowledge is not conclusive, if the balance of likely costs and benefits justifies it. Lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation or danger. Avoidance or mitigation of uncertain hazards, which present rational but inconclusive grounds for suspicion of associated health risks at a cost commensurate with the potential benefit is required. The evidence should be assessed and measures taken if some reason for suspicion is found but which falls short of scientific standards for proof of a cause. Measures may be interim pending further research and, in some circumstances, may consist of no more than appropriate warning notices. When a cause is proven then legislation is needed to protect the population.

The NRPB advice was summarized by Lord Inglewood in Parliament on 23 March 1995 as: "The NRPB .... has concluded that the evidence does not establish that exposure to electro magnetic fields is a cause of cancer, although it does provide some evidence that the possibility exists, which justifies moving forward with research". The NRPB have admitted that there is "some weak evidence" (1992), "weak evidence" (1993), "some evidence" (1994), of association, but not enough to prove a causal link between low levels of power frequency magnetic fields and some types of cancer.

Dr Roger Clarke, the Director of the NRPB, is on record [BBC1 Panorama, 31st January 1994] as saying that if they did recognize the reality of these effects the Guidance levels would have to come down by orders of magnitude. In the case of power frequency magnetic fields by a factor of about 8000, to about 200 nanotesla.

[page 23; Prudent Avoidance] In the final sentence we read "There is as yet no case history of trying to apply the Precautionary Principle to electro magnetic fields". Yet again the authors are mistaken. The High Court Judicial Review R. v. Secretary of State for Trade & Industry - exparte Dudderidge and Others, considered just this issue in great detail. Judgment was issued on 3rd October 1994.

[page 25; second line] We read: "Above all, the public seeks reassurance". Is this true? The members of the public who contact Powerwath seek the truth. They would rather know about a problem and deal with it than just be 'reassured'.

[page 26; section 8] Using "None" and "causes" is most misleading. Many known hazards can be denied if the word "cause" is used. See my point 7, above.

[page 27; para.2] Natural time varying fields above about 20 Hz do not exceed about 10m Vm-1 and so it is misleading to quote 500 mVm-1 which only applies to frequencies below about 5 Hz. As an aside, this section is inconsistent and uses V/m as opposed to V m-1 used elsewhere in the document.

[page 27; para.3] This quotes endogenous electric fields within the human body. A recent paper by Furse & Gandhi (Calculation of fields and currents induced in a human model at 60 Hz; Biolelectromagnetics 19:293-299; 1998) shows that standing in a (Guidance permitted) 10 kVm-1 field causes induced internal fields up to 20 times the endogenous values. Therefore the information in this paragraph needs supplementing and putting into further context, or this paragraph should be omitted.

[page 29; para.2] Under power lines fields over 30 m T (up to 40 m T according to the NRPB) can be found. It is not clear from where the 20 m T figure is obtained. The 'normal background range' in the UK home is 20 to 80 nT, with an average of about 50 nT. This is rarely achieved within 200 meters of heavily loaded 400 kV transmission lines. I suspect that I am also going to disagree with the (probably idealized) accompanying graph when I have sight of it.

[page 31; para.2] Magnetic fields in front of a modern low-radiation computer monitor, at the operator position 30 to 50 cm in front of the screen, rarely exceeds 250 nT, and is often lower than this.

[page 34; Table] Various figures in the table are questionable. The worst is the Microwave Oven maximum exposure which should read 50 Wm-2 (5 mWcm-2) and not the 0.5 Wm-2 given.

[page 36; para.2] Once again we have the incorrect statement "Prudent avoidance cannot be justified scientifically". This is not true and I discuss it in my point 13 (above).

[page 37-40] The Technical Annex should be completely re-written to give a more comprehensive and balanced view of the literature. The current attempt is completely inadequate and misleading. An alternative would be to delete it and to leave overall reviews to other more detailed reports.

[page 41; Further Reading] The listed documents are not up to date and of mainly historical interest. Three that I feel that it would be helpful to include are:

EMF Associated with the use of Electric Power; USA NIEHS & DoE, 1995; DoE/EE-0040 Handbook Of Biological Effects of Electro magnetic Fields; Eds.
Polk & Postow; CRC Press, 2nd Ed 1996, ISBN 0-8493-0641-8Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review.
Ed: Dr Jack Lee.,Dec.1996,

Pub: Bonneyville Power Administration, Portland Oregon. Tel: 001 503 230 3478
Released 14 September 1998

THE US NATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR HEALTH JUNE 1998 REVIEW

The NIEHS in June reviewed EMF literature on extra low frequency bioeffects and concluded that exposure could be a possible human carcinogen. Their full 400pp document is now published, and is available on their website (see our links page) but it has some deep deficiencies, which have weakened the Working Group's conclusions.
See the NIEHS document (as a pdf document).