“It is available, the first ICEMS’ Monograph, “Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter“, edited by Livio Giuliani and Morando Soffritti for the “European Journal of Oncology” – Library Vol. 5 of the National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases “Bernardo Ramazzini”, Bologna, Italy, 2010, Part I and Part II.
The hard copy of the ICEMS monograph is available for ICEMS members 2010/2011. You can enroll in ICEMS, paying the yearly fee of 50 euro for 2010/2011 for total euro 100 + mail expenses, in the hands of the mailman who will deliver the book, at the address you will specify. The bylaws is in on line the present web site.”
Download the Summary (Adobe Acrobat PDF format) 
Download the first part (Adobe Acrobat PDF format)
Download the second and last part (Adobe Acrobat PDF format) 
———————
Excerpt from Summary:
8. Implications of biology for current safety guidelines and test
methods
Current guidelines on EMF safety from IEEE and ICNIRP (endorsed by
the EU) are only based on short term EMF exposures that are high
enough to cause thermal effects. These are inadequate to provide
protection to the public against long term effects from lower levels of
exposure. Neither do they account for the pulse-like exposures modulated
at low frequencies that are common from the modern 2G and 3G
appliances. (p. 314)
Blackman of the US EPA has observed elsewhere that:
‘These (current) standards rely primarily on biological responses to
intensities within an arbitrarily defined engineering based frequency
bands, not biologically based response bands, and are solely based ion
energy deposition determinations. Current standards have ignored
modulation as a factor in human health impacts and thus are inadequate
in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms
of ELF modulated RF signals…particularly new technologies that are
pulse modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony’.17
The biological evidence concerning the non thermal effects of EMF
(indications of head cancer, permeability of the brain/blood barrier (p.
319, 333); expression of shock proteins; genotoxic damage, neurological,
and possibly reproductive effects), though still limited and controversial,
is sufficient, on a precautionary basis, to justify biologically based and
lower safety limits for the public.
Such evidence also justifies more realistic test methods for RF absorption
from RF.
Recommendations for such lower limits have been proposed by the
BioIntiative group; the Selatun Scientific Panel18 and others. These have
been adopted in some cities and regions of Europe.
Whilst the state of the science does not predict obvious choices of
particular lower limits it does allow the choice of pragmatically based and
more biologically relevant limits which would provide better protection
of health.
17 Blackman C., Cell phone Radiation: evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive
risk identification and assessment’, Pathophysiology, 2009.
18 Reviews on Environmental Health V 25 n 4, 2010
16
David Gee, Feb 24th 2011.
Comments are closed.