This blog was first posted on 15.5.2009 on the website of STUK http://www.stuk.fi/ ,thereafter it was removed and re-published here
I started research on mobile phone radiation in 1999, ten years ago. Shortly after, in 2001, I began to speak about the possible biological effects of mobile phone radiation not only on scientific forums but also with the media and the general public. Since I considered my opinions as fact-based and moderate, I got surprised that this activity landed me “between a rock and a hard place”. I began to be criticized by those who interpret any piece of scientific evidence showing biological effect, as an indicator of health risk, and by those who interpret the same evidence as an indication of no risk at all. My opinions were considered as either not reaching far enough or reaching too far. In spite of it, I have continued the moderate line and I will do so also in my blog. In my opinion, the published science does not permit to make the final judgment on the possibility of health risk associated with the use of mobile phones. Furthermore, in my opinion, the available scientific evidence is insufficient to reliably support and justify the present no-health-risk-claims and the safety standards.
On March 30, 2007 I was appointed for the 3-year-period as Guangbiao Professor at the Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Chinese universities, in their quest for rapid improvement of the level of science in China, have begun to recruit international experts to make this transition as easy and as fast as possible. In this capacity I spend at least one month a year in Hangzhou (180 km south-west of Shanghai), where Zheijang University is located, and assist my Chinese colleagues with bioelectromagnetics research projects and with the education and training of graduate and post-graduate students.
One of the campuses of the Zhejiang University in Hangzhou (photo DL)
Being Guangbiao Professor I recently co-organized and co-chaired, with my Chinese host Prof. Zhengping Xu (see photo), the 5th International Seminar in China “Electromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects”, which took place in Hangzhou on April 17-19, 2009. One of the main topics of the conference was the health safety of mobile phones.
In respect to mobile phone safety issues China is very much player on its own. Like Russia it has its own safety standards that differ from standards used by numerous Western countries. At the meeting in Hangzhou, one of several invited key-presentations got my special attention. It was presented by Prof. Zhaojin Cao (co-authored by Qian Wang) from the National Institute of Environmental Health & Related Product Safety of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Beijing. The topic of this presentation was “EMF standards and administration in China”, and the presentation was in its content very critical of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Electromagnetic Field Project (EMF Project). One of the major criticisms concerned disregarding of the scientific evidence for the weak effects of EMF radiation by ICNIRP and WHO. ICNIRP has well-established formal procedure to evaluate scientific publications. However, the outcome of evaluation, though smoothly guided by the procedure, depends on what the experts will say about the scientific quality of individual studies. This evaluation of individual studies seems to cause problems that lead to the claims of “disregard for weak effects of EMF” mentioned by Prof. Cao. It is not only my personal observation that the negative studies seem to get accepted as such, without too much scrutiny, whereas the positive studies are examined in every detail to determine why the result is positive. Hence, the positive studies are not treated equally with the negative ones, even though also the negative studies might include erroneous results or interpretations. Moreover, only the positive studies are demanded to be replicated before they can be accepted as valid evidence. This replication requirement is of course the correct approach, but it should be applied, at least to some degree, also to negative studies. At least the negative studies that are considered as providing the crucial evidence of no-effect should be replicated. An error in study design, execution, data analysis or interpretation might lead not only to positive but also to negative result. Furthermore, many of the positive studies are not even being attempted to be replicated and of course negative studies are not replicated at all. However, if the replication of the positive study is attempted then, commonly, the protocol of the replication study has so many modifications, introduced to improve the quality, that the outcome of such study is difficult, if not impossible, to compare with the original one. As often happens, the outcome of the so-called replication study differs from that of the original study. However, the failed replication might be either because of incorrect (unreliable) result of the original study or because of the modifications introduced in replication study. Usually, this question remains unanswered but the final result is claimed to be – in summary, the original study has not been replicated (= is not valid evidence). This practice, in my opinion, introduces bias into the otherwise clear-cut evaluation process of ICNIRP.
Another issue, mentioned at the conference was the “weight of evidence”. To me this term is abused by those who wish to disregard scientific studies showing that mobile phone radiation can induce biological effects. We continuously hear that there were done thousands of studies on mobile phone radiation. However, this number is grossly exaggerated because it refers to research at all microwave-frequencies. For example the applicability of the results obtained using radiation frequency of microwave ovens might not necessarily be directly applicable to the mobile phone-emitted microwaves. There is still ongoing discussion whether it is possible to transpose results of experiments done with one frequency of microwaves to other frequencies. To me, in order to be relevant, the studies should be performed using actually mobile-phone-emitted microwaves. The number of such studies, which were done using mobile phone-emitted microwaves, is available from the EMF-Portal database (http://www.emf-portal.de/) that is maintained by the Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction at the University Hospital of the Aachen University in Germany. This specialized database lists as of May 15th, 2009, total of 499 studies that explicitly investigated the biological and health effects of mobile phone-related microwave frequencies. Therefore, in my opinion, the number of the executed studies is not sufficiently large to create reliable basis for any conclusive statements about the existence or the absence of the health risk associated with the use of mobile phone. These 499 studies include studies that do not show any biological effects of mobile phone radiation but also studies that show induction of such effects. However, because the majority of the published studies (these thousands of articles with all microwave frequencies) show no effect, it is commonly suggested that this “weight of evidence” supports the notion that there are no biological effects and no health risk. This issue was also mentioned in a presentation in Hangzhou. One renowned scientist, C. K. Chou of Motorola, had stated that the newly designed, and about to start in the USA, large animal study is unlikely to have impact on science concerning mobile phone effects because of the “weight of evidence” provided by the earlier published studies. In short it means that, in his opinion, even well designed, well executed state-of-the-art study with best available radiation exposure dosimetry, is not sufficient to cause any change in thinking about mobile phone radiation effects. Why? Because the earlier published studies, of which many were poorly designed or executed or had poor dosimetry design, provide “weight of evidence” against any effects. In the discussion period, my question to Dr. Chou was whether, in order to make any impact, we need to produce another large number of new studies to overcome the already existing “weight of evidence”. I did not get any straight answer but just a defensive statement that the “weight of evidence” is a commonly used approach. Yes, it is commonly used and commonly abused. Single well done study is not enough but also a bunch of poor studies should not be enough too.
So, what do we need to do, to account for the weak effects of EMF, that in my opinion exist, and to outbalance the “weight of evidence” in our evaluation of possible health effects of mobile phone radiation? We need a few well designed studies, executed by consortia of scientists, not by single research groups. These studies should be aimed at proving or disproving whether human body responds to mobile phone radiation and whether the response is of sufficient magnitude to alter normal human physiology. Surprise, surprise, in spite of years of research into human health risk of mobile phone radiation, we still do not have unbiased answer to the fundamental question: whether human bodies (tissues, organs) react to mobile phone-emitted microwaves. If they do not, then there will never be any health problem. But, at present, we are still missing science to prove it. This question will not be answered by epidemiological, animal or in vitro laboratory studies. We need studies where human volunteers will be exposed to mobile phone radiation and, thereafter, examined for changes on molecular level (gene and protein expression and activity using transcriptomics and proteomics) and for changes in organ physiology by e.g. sampling various body fluids. Such studies should be well funded so that scientists will not need to make short-cuts in science because of the lack of funds to perform all of needed experiments and in a sufficient number of replicates. This is often the case now and that is why so many poor quality and non-informative studies have been published… and provide the distortion to the “weight of evidence”. However, getting funds might be a problem. Continuous assurances from WHO and ICNIRP that thousands of studies have been done and that mobile phone radiation does not cause any known health risk and the safety standards protect us all, have caused that the funding agencies are not interested to sponsor new projects. If there is no problem, as WHO and ICNIRP are saying, then why to spend more money. At the same time one may ask why WHO and ICNIRP are so sure that there is and will be no health problems when we still do not know if living human tissues and organs react to mobile phone radiation or not. Surprisingly, such studies have not been done yet.
Night magic of the West Lake in Hangzhou (photo DL)
This are copy/pasted 15 comments that were received by this blog between May 15th and June 16th, while the blog was displayed on http://www.stuk.fi/
Although I do not agree with many of your points in your blog, I will only comment on the part that mentioned my presentation as quoted here:
“One renowned scientist, C. K. Chao of Motorola, had stated that the newly designed, and about to start in the USA, large animal study is unlikely to have impact on science concerning mobile phone effects because of the “weight of evidence” provided by the earlier published studies. In short it means that, in his opinion, even well designed, well executed state-of-the-art study with best available radiation exposure dosimetry, is not sufficient to cause any change in thinking about mobile phone radiation effects. Why? Because the earlier published studies, of which many were poorly designed or executed or had poor dosimetry design, provide “weight of evidence” against any effects. In the discussion period, my question to Dr. Chou was whether, in order to make any impact, we need to produce another large number of new studies to overcome the already existing “weight of evidence”. I did not get any straight answer but just a defensive statement that the “weight of evidence” is a commonly used approach. Yes, it is commonly used and commonly abused. Single well done study is not enough but also a bunch of poor studies should not be enough too.”
It is obvious that you meant C.K. Chou, not Chao, that you corrected later. The presentation you mentioned was a paper I presented at the 5th International EMF Seminar held at Hangzhou on April 17, 2009, on behalf of my colleague Dr. Joe Elder on “EXTRAPOLATION OF THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE OF ANIMAL STUDIES INVESTIGATING EFFECTS OF RF EXPOSURE ON CANCER, SURVIVAL AND GENERAL HEALTH TO HUMANS.” I remember one of your comments that you did not like the statement on slide 17 reading “Due to the extensive database, it is unlikely that the results of ongoing animal cancer studies will shift the weight of evidence.”
I did not say “…even well designed, well executed state-of-the-art study with best available radiation exposure dosimetry, is not sufficient to cause any change in thinking about mobile phone radiation effects.” I said we have to take the whole data base to make the judgment based on the weight of evidence. I also showed the definition of “Weight of Evidence” the next day in my IEEE standards talk. Every piece of study must be judged by its own value, and added to the weight of evidence. Since the NTP study is not done yet, I cannot predict the results; however, it is logical to think that the results will support the current weight of evidence because of the high quality of a number of the 44 tumor studies. Elder’s analysis shows “The weight of scientific evidence in 44 tumor studies shows that RF exposure up to lifetime exposure (2 years) does not adversely affect carcinogenic processes (initiation, promotion or co-promotion)”. It will take a few very convincing positive animal studies to show the large number of previous animal studies were wrong. So Joe’s conclusion says “it is unlikely that the results of ongoing animal cancer studies will shift the weight of evidence.” As scientists, we should make our judgments based on the whole data base (not selected), and also on the quality of the studies, not merely counting percentages of positive or negative. We have too many cannot be repeated studies in this field. A valid study must be able to be confirmed by others. Since we want to protect against health effects, it is most logical to attempt to confirm the positive studies instead of the negative studies. It is difficult to prove the negative. I can easily prove that I have money, but you cannot prove that I have no money. WHO has said “Scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals.” and “….current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.” http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
Science should look for consistency and not uniqueness, which belongs to art. As I said before, “it takes one person to throw a rock into the well, and it will take 10 people to get it out.’’ Let us make sure what we do is robustly correct before we publish it. We should avoid both false positives and false negatives. Either way is not good for public health. As one Chinese doctor (中里巴人) says in his popular book “求医不如求己 (It is better to take care of yourself than seeking for medical help)”: FEAR IS THE MOST PROMINENT DISEASE. Nocebo effects are proven hazardous to human health. There are many Chinese stories on this topic.
C-K. Chou, Ph.D.
Sorry for mispelling your name. It was apparently some cross between Cao and Chou. Sorry for that. It is corrected now.
As for your comments, I certainly agree that we need to look at the evidence globally. However, we differ in opinions how this should be done.
As to the replication of negative studies, indeed you can not prove negative. However, you can replicate negative study and see if the negative result is still valid or not. This approach is used to validate positive studies and I do not see the reason why negative studies should not be validated in the same way. In fact I think that it should be done. At least with some of the most prominent of the negative studies.
What are you speaking about? Both negative and positive influence start at about 1 µW/m2 ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/10955581/Influence-of-High-Frequency-Electromagnetic-Radiation-at-Non-Thermal-Intensities ).
Is it strange? But it has worked over 20 years(see f.e. Professor Sergiy Sitko treatment devices). You could replicaite all studies… and Motorola will create the best devices with low radiation.
By the way, you can read in short about mobile phone radiation just from neihbouring blog http://www.stuk.fi/blog/paajohtajan_paivakirja/fi_FI/2008_01_12/ , unfortunately in Finnish only.
Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. in the field of microwaves only, but I love the Chinese stories 🙂
Please, note also this blog on mobiles & health
(Do not miss the video “ICNIRP – History and Industry connections”)
The Lancet criticized WHO for neglecting evidence
A study published in The Lancet in 2007 revealed that when developing evidence-based guidelines, the World Health Organization (WHO) routinely forgets one key ingredient: Evidence. The study was based on interviews with senior WHO officials and analyses of various guidelines to determine how they were produced.
It was conducted by Dr. Andrew Oxman and Dr. Atle Fretheim of the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services, and Dr. John Lavis at McMaster University in Canada. The results showed a distinctly non-transparent process.
WHO’s Director of Research Policy, Dr. Tikki Pang, explained that time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work. (The history of asbestos and tobacco completes the picture.) WHO is lacking credibility when it comes to mobile phone health issues, too.
In my opinion, WHO should stop cooperating with ICNIRP. ICNIRP standards recognize only the immediate heating of cells and tissues – evaluated in fluid-filled plastic dolls. Most members of ICNIRP have, however, key positions as leading authorities. ICNIRP experts have all the power over the WHO, which prevents development and transparency. Many countries do not expect much from the WHO´s EMF-project and conduct an independent policy. Nine EU member states have followed the precautionary principle (like China, Russia and Switzerland) by adopting tighter safety standards.
The Finnish authorities should adopt a more critical attitude towards the matter. I am expecting a new policy from Jukka Laaksonen, head of STUK. The duty of the radiation authorities is to protect the public. However, research professor Kari Jokela is minimizing the value of the risks in a stubborn way and continuing to support the thermal effects theory only. Who is benefitting from Jokela´s comments? At least, not the public. Jokela is a long-term member of ICNIRP.
New well-designed research projects – independently funded – are necessary. Funding is complicated. Many of the present organizations have ties to industry. At the beginning of 2009 Tekes announced that it`s giving out 1,8 million euros for a new project WIRECOM. I believe the results can be foreseen. One group of the project is studying: ”the possible thermal effects of mobile radiation on tissues in human head.”
Leszczynski is making research on biological effects and did not get any funding. Operators like TeliaSonera are involved in Tekes funding projects. Mobile industry is not supporting ”the discovering science approach to determine biological effects” by Leszczynski. Director Jouko Rautio of TeliaSonera formulated the position of Leszczynski in a private e-mail-conversation. ”Dariusz Leszczynski will never be nominated to ICNIRP.”
As to EHS-reviews I believe ”the weight of evidence” is based on a poorly designed science. E.g. Rubin & al excluded in their study all the biologically sensitive frequencies (1-100 herz): Additionally, electromagnetic fields of other frequencies were present in the test laboratory during the exposure to GSM 900-signals which one should have recognized. The same mistakes happened in the study performed by prof. Maila Hietanen of the National Institute of Health in Finland. (Hietanen has been vice-president to ICNIRP and is the contact person to WHO.) These reports of poor protocol are included – time after time – in the published scientifical journals as an evidence of EHS not existing. Qualified research around EHS is more than welcome. According to inquiries, 3-10 per cent of people get symptoms of their mobiles and other devices. This is more essential than cholesterin, which is being discussed as a remarkable health problem on a national level.
New research methods with EHS and mobile phone radiation should be of great interest to WHO, too.
It is an important step for Finns that you have undertaken this blog. Maybe there is room for open discussion on EMF-related health risks also in Finland after all.
I just wish you did the right thing instead of pondering which actors in the field you should please. I believe you want the truth, and so do we, as consumers and potential victims of telecommunications industry.
For long, I have found the passive and defensive policy of Stuk very problematic. It just doesn’t make sense that Stuk keeps on referring to industry-driven guidelines which are not based on science as you have many times pointed out. It is clear now how studies showing risk are systematically suppressed. Still, people, especially Finns, naively rely on the authorities. What a mess.
Is there not at least an ethical dilemma as the national safety authority lets younger and younger children use mobile phones and silently approves that the industrial actors wrap up national landlines so that people are forced to use wireless technology?
In order to reassure the general public, Stuk has come up with the mythical term of precautionary principle or ALARA. What does that mean? We have apartment buildings and schools filled with mobile phone and Wi-Fi base stations. We have numerous overlapping wireless networks invented during very recent years and tested on us without our consent. Some of these applications are not even used by that many people –still, all get their share of radiation, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on where one happens to live. Chaos theory in action.
Finally, we have exposure limits that are among the most permissive in the world and have not been updated for decades. Many nations have already lowered those limits, not Finland. Why not and who bears responsibility for this inaction?
Time will eventually show the true extent of this potentially enormous national health hazard. For now, we got this blog. I wish you well.
You Dariusz and C.K. emphasised replication. One area where there has been a long history of replication studies and evidence … is the effect of EMFs on fertility. Starting from chicken embryos (Grigoriev 2003; Ingole &Ghosh 2006) and insects (Panagopoulus & Margaritis 2002; Balmori 2009 ), going through reduced fertility in military personnel (Weyandt et al. 1996, Baste et al. 2008) and ending to infertility of mobile phone users (Fejes et al. 2005; Erogul et al. 2006). Dr Ashok Agarwal just recently wrote a nice article about this ‘bigger picture’ of infertily (www.clevelandclinic.org/reproductiveresearchcenter/docs/agradoc295.pdf). Chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage are problematic, since their consequences will become visible in the following generations. So, the risk of various tumours (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19328536) is just a tip of ice berg, the scene may be much murkier after 10 years when men and women exposed in childhood may get children with deformations and when their children (perhaps unsuccessfully) try to get children.
Sorry to paint so dark pictures. I just met professor Yuri Grigoriev of RNCNIRP in Moscow and he shares my concern. I see that we have enough evidence to immediately (legislatively and by informing parents) limit the exposure of children, at least. Maybe we should also stop talking about thermal effects (only) and start actively fund independent research of biological effects.
P.S. Talking about China: Acupuncture using meridians is thousands of years old Chinese practise. In China they early understood that a human being is an electro-magnetic entity, not just a bag of chemicals. Dr Robert O. Becker in his books Cross Currents and Body Electric (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5360459/The-Body-Electric-Dr-Becker
) nicely describes this electric communication between our cells and provides insights how acupuncture works. I also welcome you to look at Cyril Smith’s acupuncture chapter in Clements-Croome (Ed.) 2003). Interestingly, the Russian research tradition has also investigated meridians and emphasises research on frequency-windows (an example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12067094).
Can you receive mail in English ?
Dear Mr. Chou,
In your opinion, what is the fastest environmental change that the world has ever experienced?
Isn’t it reasonable to think that a sudden and violent change in our electromagnetic environment -will- have biological effects? That’s the idea that Russian scientists had when they first set out to explore the effects of artificial microwave radiation on living things as described in the report referenced by Mr. Ostroumov in his comment.
With such a mindset I agree with Mr. Leszczynski on the importance of replicating negative studies in order to discover why a living organism DIDN’T respond to violent change in it’s environment. The point of life is to ensure survival, right?
You write of avoiding false results and doing replication studies. Do you run your own studies more than once to be sure?
You write that uniqueness belongs to art and science looks for consistency. Since biological systems, like cells, are all unique in having different metabolic rates and thresholds for stress, then it seems like you are looking for consistency in petri dishes full of microscopic works of art.
I agree with Mr. Leszczynski when he writes how replication studies often modify the protocol and thus become entirely new studies that are difficult to compare.
You write: “As scientists, we should make our judgments based on the whole data base (not selected), and also on the quality of the studies”. You reference the WHO as a credible source, so I wonder if you will support the WHO when they issue conclusions to the public about mobile-phone and cancer based on the forthcoming INTERPHONE study while ignoring the Hardell studies.
You write: “It is better to take care of yourself than seeking for medical help”. Wise words. I once heard that, traditionally, Chinese doctors only got paid as long as the patient stayed healthy. It’s interesting how traditional Chinese medicine is based on an understanding that disturbance of the subtle energy flows in the body cause disease. Even though the ancient Chinese did not know the underlying mechanism of acupuncture, they found it worked consistently enough. For more insight into this I also, like Mr. Ahonen, recommend “The Body Electric” and “Cross Currents” by Robert O. Becker. That said, I think that when Mr. Leszczynski writes: “whether human bodies (tissues, organs) react to mobile phone-emitted microwaves” it is equally important to study the how mobile phone-emitted microwaves affect the energies that govern the human bodies tissues and organs.
Stuk is responsible
One more thing: I keep on hearing of people forced to move out of their homes because of base stations nearby. The levels of RF radiation enormously vary from home to home. Certainly doesn’t sound fair to me. How can you in Stuk not see this problem?
It is kind of understandable that the industrial actors conceal risks, but what strikes me most is that the national authorities with the official duty to protect citizens trivialize the risks as well.
You have on many occasions pointed out that “based on the available scientific evidence the situation is not as clear as ICNIRP and WHO present it”, “claims of ICNIRP and WHO of human safety are not supported by science”, “it is not possible to claim that present safety standards set by ICNIRP protect every user”, “presently available science is not sufficient to support no-effect claims”.
Seems to me that Stuk is knowingly playing with people’s lives. We are not laboratory animals, and this is not a test. How long do you think you’ll be able to pass the buck?
Dear “Stuk is responsible”
I have indeed expressed the cited by you opinions (e.g. in scientific presentation in April 2009 in Hangzhou, China). However, these were opinions concerning mobile phone radiation, not the radiation emitted by the base stations.
For me, as an experimental scientist, it is very difficult to determine what could be the risks of such low level exposures as those coming form base stations. As I have said numerous times in the past, finding biological effects of mobile phone radiation at 2 W/kg (maximum permitted exposure level for mobile phones) is difficult. Biological effects observed in experiments are small because the radiation energy is very low.
Radiation reaching us from base stations is at least thousand times lower as compared with radiation we expose ourselves using mobile phone. I can not imagine that using such low level radiation in laboratory experiments or in short-term human volunteer study would show any biological effects. Therefore, as an experimental scientist I am not convinced that such extremely low exposures as these caused by base stations have biological significance. Of course I am aware of the argument that the exposures to base station radiation are 24/7. Examining such long exposures is not possible in laboratory, except for the animal studies. However, I have serious doubts whether animal study would be sufficiently informative and applicable to human situation.
There is also another issue to consider. If the numbers of base stations would be reduced then, simultaneously, our mobile phone handsets will begin to emit more radiation. It will be below the permitted 2 W/kg but it will be more than now because phones will adjust their energy emissions to reach more distantly located base stations. So, in practice, it might be so that by reducing the density of base stations the mobile phone users might be more exposed to mobile phone radiation.
Finally, as I have said numerous times in the past, I understand your concerns but addressing them is very problematic because of lack of scientific evidence of any measurable biological effect coming from base stations exposures.
Dear professor Leszczynski,
you write that we don’t know yet if mobile phone radiation causes harm to human health. And you are absolutely right – there should be more real scientists like you.
In my opinion we need new legislation that consider the possible health issues of mobile phone radiation. Currently the legislation of radiation is fragmented and insufficient in Finland. For example our Health protection law requires that it isn’t allowed to cause health risk to people in their homes. Also our Adjoining properties act provides that it is prohibited to cause unreasonable radiation harm to somebody else’s real property.
According to 20th paragraph in our constitutional law, everyone should have right to healthy environment and right to take part in decision-making concerning their environment. In practice our present laws don’t work. For instance if mobile phone tower radiates to someone’s home, it is almost impossible to get protection of law. A big problem is that we don’t have open register in which one can see the location and power of the local towers. That kind of register could significantly improve citizen’s protection of law.
It is also unbelievable that one can construct a mobile phone tower without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In this procedure, decision makers consider natural, social and economic aspects of a proposed project. To build up such tower one needs only a building or a construction permission. This licence is permitted by municipal authority. We can’t be sure if mobile phone tower is health risk or not. That’s why we should follow EIA-procedure when we are building mobile phone towers. As far as we can’t be sure how mobile phone radiation affects us, we should exercise carefulness principle.
Master of Political Science, law student
I very much doubt that — even though China’s standards are more stringent than most other countries in the world — they are actually enforced. I also predict that China will see a major brain tumor epidemic in the next five to ten years.
First of all I think Mr chou knows the game is up, after all Motorolla has disbanded their misinformation labs, i note on the blog comments that base stations are low power compared to phones, I have 2.5v/m outside my home 24/7 and am now Electrohypersensitive, I took part in the Essex study which used a field strength of 1.9v/mI got all the double blind tests correct, and as a bonus identified the signal type, I have in my possesion data from Prof Elain Fox that was never published, it shows quite clearly that the sensitive group were correct 70.45% of the time when the signal was on, the data I have clearly shows that it was presented in such a way as to play down the effects.
Phillip Watts. Trustee http://www.es-uk/info
one more article to help the understanding of the situation