Electrosmog

Electrosmog refers to a non-ionizing radiation
from man-made sources. It permeates our surrounding environment and may cause harm to living organisms.

 

Although the resulting effects are very diverse,

all follow this simple path:

1. Exposing body to EMF
allows absorption of its energy

 

e.g. Radio-frequency radiation (GSM)
or Microwaves (Wi-Fi)

2. Mechanism of interaction
between EMF and a biological system

e.g. Altering electron’s spin
via radical pair mechanism

3. Chemical changes
of affected molecules

e.g. Prohibited neutralization
of free radicals

4. Biological effects
alternating cellular processes

 

e.g. DNA mutations
/ Single-strand DNA breaks

5. Adverse health effects
when overwhelming body
compensatory mechanisms

 

e.g. Cancer, infertility, neurodegenerative diseases

CURRENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

 

The adverse health effects resulting from thermal effects (absorbed energy heats tissue) are usually well-anchored in health protection legislation (exposure limits) and international recommendations (ICNIRP).

 

There is a scientific controversy on adverse health effects resulting from non-thermal effects (absorbed energy causing other changes) that leads to neglecting risks not only by the general public, but even by expert organizations.

 

Therefore, I have dedicated more than 7 years to answer one essential question in the light of current scientific knowledge:

 

 

 

"Has EMF health risks
under current legislation?"

YES

75%

NO

25%

This clear conclusion is based on a massive review of available scientific literature scrutinized by the Analysis of Competing Hypothesis (ACH): an analytical approach recommended by the Central Intelligence Agency for particularly difficult and highly controversial issues.

 

 

Analysis of Competing Hypothesis:

Let's explore the analytical journey:

Shock

Electro

Biological effects of EMFs are clarified
in the animated educational film:

  • 1) ALTERNATIVES

     

    At the beginning, I had formulated 3 hypotheses:

     

    H1: Yes, EMF has biological effects that may result
    in adverse health effects, when body compensatory mechanisms are overwhelmed (by biological effects
    of EMF or other agents).

     

    H2: No, EMF has no adverse health effects.
    It may have biological effects which are
    always compensated by body repair mechanisms
    (thus not resulting in adverse health effects).

     

    H3: No, EMF has neither biological effects
    nor adverse health effects.

     

  • 2) EVIDENCE

     

    Gathering and listing significant evidence
    – both for and against each hypothesis.

     

    Primary sources were systematic reviews,
    research articles, recommendations of scientific committees and health protection policies.

     

  • 3) CORRELATION

     

    Each evidence was correlated
    with all hypotheses (e.g. H1 corr.).

     

    Diagnostic sensitivity of each evidence
    was evaluated (evidence helpful to judge
    likelihood of individual hypotheses).

     

  • 4) REFINEMENT

     

    Weak, flawed and diagnostically insensitive evidence was deleted: e.g. “Occurrence of hypersensitivity syndrome” which positively correlated with
    all hypotheses and could not be dissociated
    from unrelated factors.

     

  • 5) CONCLUSION

     

    Evaluating hypotheses based on eliminating them
    by their inconsistencies with diagnostically
    sensitive evidence led to disproving H3
    (neither biological nor health effects).

     

    The H2 (biological effects never resulting
    in health effects) has been refuted, while H1 (biological effects may result in health effects) has been tentatively accepted as it could not been refuted.

     

  • 6) EVALUATION

     

    Diagnostically sensitive evidence was again scrutinized against the scientific literature (systematic reviews) and further investigated for quantifying
    its correlation with remaining hypotheses.

     

  • 7) PROBABILITY

     

    Multi-attribute Utility Analysis was used to
    quantify the resulting probability of each hypothesis.

     

    This included weighting the linchpin items of evidence, distributing 10 probability points (pp) between both hypotheses, calculating the score for each evidence (weight x pp) and summing up both scores to gain
    the overall probability of each hypothesis.

     

  • 8) DISCUSSION

     

    Based on this extensive analysis,
    the H1 (EMF may result in adverse health effects)
    is the most likely hypothesis (75% certainty).
    Both epidemiological and experimental studies
    suggest an increased risk of adverse
    health effects caused by EMFs.

     

    Childhood leukaemia has not been included
    in the probability quantification as it is
    usually used politically (arousing emotions)
    and not for a constructive evidence-based discussion.

     

    Regarding the scientific controversy, a particular interest should be focused on the source of funding. Excluding industry funded and poorly designed studies alleviates the controversy and reveals the current state of scientific knowledge (congruent with the H1).

     

  • 9) OUTLOOK

     

    From the future perspective, assessing the
    impact of EMF complexity could be helpful
    for future safety guidelines re-evaluation
    (research suggests increased field complexity
    leads to decreased organism adaptability).

     

    Synergistic effects of EMF and other agents
    would deserve more attention as their better understanding can help protecting the sensitive populations and refine occupational exposure limits
    in certain environments (where is increased risk
    of exposure to synergistic agents).

     

    As the new scientific evidence of EMF capability to cause adverse health effects is continually emerging, the scientific committees and responsible authorities should conscientiously adjust EMF safety guidelines in accordance with the precautionary principle to ensure safe use of electronics and emerging technologies.

     

Refers to a non-ionizing radiation from man-made sources. It permeates our surrounding environment and may cause harm to living organisms.

 

Although the resulting effects are very diverse, all follow this simple path:

Shock

Electro

  • 1) ALTERNATIVES

     

    At the beginning,
    I had formulated 3 hypotheses:

     

    H1: Yes, EMF has biological effects that may result in adverse health effects, when body compensatory mechanisms are overwhelmed
    (by biological effects
    of EMF or other agents).

     

    H2: No, EMF has no adverse health effects. It may have biological effects which are always compensated by body repair mechanisms (thus not resulting
    in adverse health effects).

     

    H3: No, EMF has neither biological effects nor adverse health effects.

     

  • 2) EVIDENCE

     

    Gathering and listing significant evidence – both for and
    against each hypothesis.

     

    Primary sources were systematic reviews, research articles, recommendations of scientific committees and health
    protection policies.

     

  • 3) CORRELATION

     

    Each evidence was correlated with all hypotheses (e.g. H1 corr.).

     

    Diagnostic sensitivity of each evidence was evaluated (evidence helpful to judge likelihood
    of individual hypotheses).

     

  • 4) REFINEMENT

     

    Weak, flawed and diagnostically insensitive evidence was deleted: e.g.“Occurrence of hypersensitivity syndrome” which positively correlated with all hypotheses
    and could not be dissociated from unrelated factors.

     

  • 5) CONCLUSION

     

    Evaluating hypotheses based
    on eliminating them by
    their inconsistencies with
    diagnostically sensitive evidence led to disproving H3 (neither
    biological nor health effects).

     

    The H2 (biological effects never resulting in health effects)
    has been refuted, while H1 (biological effects may
    result in health effects)
    has been tentatively accepted
    as it could not been refuted.

     

  • 6) EVALUATION

     

    Diagnostically sensitive evidence was again scrutinized against the scientific literature (systematic reviews) and further investigated for quantifying its correlation with remaining hypotheses.

     

  • 7) PROBABILITY

     

    Multi-attribute Utility Analysis was used to quantify the resulting probability of each hypothesis.

     

    This included weighting the linchpin items of evidence, distributing 10 probability points (pp) between both hypotheses, calculating the score for each evidence (weight x pp) and summing up both scores to gain the overall probability of each hypothesis.

     

  • 8) DISCUSSION

     

    Based on this extensive analysis,
    the H1 (EMF may result in adverse health effects) is the most likely hypothesis (75% certainty).
    Both epidemiological and experimental studies suggest an increased risk of adverse health effects caused by EMF.

     

    Childhood leukaemia has not
    been included     in the probability quantification as it is usually used politically (arousing emotions) and not for a constructive discussion.

     

    Regarding the scientific controversy, a particular interest should be focused on the source of funding. Excluding industry funded and
    poorly designed studies alleviates
    the controversy     and reveals
    the current state of scientific knowledge (congruent with the H1).

     

  • 9) OUTLOOK

     

    From the future perspective, assessing the impact of EMF complexity could be helpful for  safety guidelines re-evaluation.

     

    Synergistic effects of EMF
    and other agents     would deserve
    more attention as their better understanding can help protecting
    the sensitive population and refine occupational exposure limits.

     

    As the new scientific evidence of
    EMF ability to cause adverse health effects is continually emerging,
    the scientific committees and responsible authorities should adjust EMF safety guidelines in accordance with the precautionary principle
    to ensure safe use of electronics
    and emerging technologies.

     

1. Exposing body to EMF
allows absorption of its energy

 

e.g. Radio-frequency radiation
or Microwaves (GSM / Wi-Fi)

2. Mechanism of interaction
between EMF and an organism

e.g. Altering electron’s spin
via radical pair mechanism

CURRENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

 

There is a scientific controversy on adverse health effects resulting from non-thermal effects (absorbed energy causing other changes than heating) that leads to neglecting risks not only by the general public, but even by expert organizations.

 

Therefore, I have dedicated more than 7 years to answer one essential question in the light of current scientific knowledge:

 

 

Has EMF health risks
under current legislation?

Shock

Electro

Biological effects of EMFs are clarified in the animated educational film:

  • 1) ALTERNATIVES

     

    At the beginning, I had formulated 3 hypotheses:

     

    H1: Yes, EMF has biological effects
    that may result in adverse health effects, when body compensatory mechanisms are overwhelmed.

     

    H2: No, EMF has no
    adverse health effects.
    It may have biological effects which are always compensated by body
    repair mechanisms.

     

    H3: No, EMF has neither biological effects nor adverse health effects.

     

  • 2) EVIDENCE

     

    Gathering and listing significant evidence
    – both for and against each hypothesis.

     

    Primary sources were systematic reviews, research articles, recommendations of scientific committees and health protection policies.

     

  • 3) CORRELATION

     

    Each evidence
    was correlated
    with all hypotheses (e.g. H1 corr.).

     

    Diagnostic sensitivity of each evidence
    was evaluated
    (evidence helpful
    to judge likelihood of individual hypotheses).

     

  • 4) REFINEMENT

     

    Weak, flawed and diagnostically insensitive evidence was deleted:
    e.g. “Occurrence of hypersensitivity syndrome” which positively correlated with
    all hypotheses and
    could not be dissociated from unrelated factors.

     

  • 5) CONCLUSION

     

    Evaluating hypotheses based on eliminating them by their inconsistencies with diagnostically sensitive evidence
    led to disproving H3 (neither biological
    nor health effects).

     

    The H2 (biological effects never resulting in health effects) has been refuted, while H1 (biological effects may result in health effects) has been tentatively accepted as
    it could not been refuted.

     

  • 6) EVALUATION

     

    Diagnostically sensitive evidence was again scrutinized against the scientific literature (systematic reviews) and further investigated for quantifying its correlation with remaining hypotheses.

     

  • 7) PROBABILITY

     

    Multi-attribute Utility Analysis was used to quantify the resulting probability of
    each hypothesis.

     

    This included weighting the linchpin items
    of evidence, distributing 10 probability points (pp) between both hypotheses, calculating the score
    for each evidence
    (weight x pp) and
    summing up both scores
    to gain the overall probability of
    each hypothesis.

     

  • 8) DISCUSSION

     

    The H1 (EMF may result in adverse health effects) is the most likely hypothesis (75% certainty).

     

    Childhood leukaemia has not been included in the probability quantification as it is usually used politically and not for
    a constructive discussion.

     

    A particular interest should be focused on
    the source of funding. Excluding industry funded and poorly designed studies alleviates
    the controversy     and reveals the current state of scientific knowledge (congruent with the H1).

     

  • 9) OUTLOOK

     

    Assessing the impact
    of EMF complexity     could
    be helpful for safety guidelines re-evaluation.

     

    Synergistic effects of
    EMF and other agents     would deserve more attention as their better understanding can help protecting the sensitive populations.

     

    The scientific committees and responsible authorities should
    adjust EMF safety guidelines in accordance with the precautionary principle to ensure
    safe use of electronics and emerging technologies.