**3. Summary of expert group evaluations**

Table 2 gives a summary of the different expert group evaluations together with the main topics to which this evaluation refers and eventually formulated advises. The main result is

WHO published different fact sheets on electromagnetic fields and their effects on human health. An update of the "mobile phone fact sheet 193 (June 2011) is not very different from the previous version(s). It still states that to date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use. It also says that it is still too early to fully assess long term effects in humans but that results of animal studies consistently show no

**2.34 Council of Europe's Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and** 

*Committee on the Environment, Agriculture, and Local and Regional Affairs of the Council of Europe. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the nvironment.* 

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc11/edoc12608.ht *Jowitt T. GSMA slams Euro call for ban on wireless in schools. eWeek Europe. 2011 May 16.*  www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/gsma-slams-euro-call-for-ban-on-wireless-in-schools-29363 http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta11/ERES1815.htm This committee referred to the precautionary principle in order to ask for a reconsideration

This committee consists of 47 members. It can influence decisions of the European Union but is not entitled to adapt existing regulations or to adopt new ones. According to the committee several measures should be taken. These include (1) adoption of reasonable measures to reduce exposure of children to electromagnetic fields, (2) a reconsideration of the ICNIRP guidelines and advises, (3) adoption of campaigns to alert the public, especially concerning health effects on children and adolescents, (4) adoption of measures to protect hypersensitive subjects, (5) encourage new scientific research to develop new less hazardous technologies, (6) A 0.6 V/m exposure limit for radiofrequency technologies such as wifi, WLAN, wiMAX, DECT and mobile phones and indication of SAR-values on the appliances, (7) increasing public information to protect children and a ban on RF-sources in schools (DECT, mobile phones, wifi, WLAN, WiMAX), (8) siting of antenna for wireless communication devises only after a public consultation and all antennas should be at a reasonable distance from dwellings, (9) creation of risk assessment procedures and protection of "early warning scientists", and (10) research in biological effect studies should

The report does not take into consideration the many other reassuring reports. Its conclusions are not based on a weight of evidence evaluation. The report has the merit that it brings forward the concerns of the public and that it proposes a number of measures that can be taken into consideration. Some of the proposed measures are however not very

Table 2 gives a summary of the different expert group evaluations together with the main topics to which this evaluation refers and eventually formulated advises. The main result is

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html

increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.

**Regional Affairs (2011)** 

of the existing guidelines or exposure standards.

be encouraged by increasing research funds.

**3. Summary of expert group evaluations** 

realistic, especially on the short run.

*2011 May 6.* 

formulated as "-" when the group concluded that there is no strong or insufficient evidence in favour of adverse health effects, or "+" when in their opinion evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a real health risk.



**EXPERT REPORT CONCLUSION ADVISES +/-** 











RF-radiation





effects

uncertain yet


+






ones are needed

Exposure standards should be 3V/m based on

the precautionary

principle (+)

reduced -


also be highlighted



7. BIOINITIATIVE REPORT (2007-2010) (all topics

8. BELGIAN SUPERIOR HEALTH COUNCIL (2009-2010) (exposure standards for fixed antennas for mobile communication)

9. AFSSET (2010) (Effects of mobile phones, especially on the blood-brain-barrier

10. FRENCH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (2009) (all topics covered)

11. FRENCH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND

12. FRENCH MINISTRY OF HEALTH (2009) (all topics

13. OPEST (F) (2009) (all topics covered)

14. BUNDESTAG (D) (2009) (all topics covered)

15. SSK (D) (2009) (Genetic

effects)

covered)

TECHNOLOGIES (2009) (all topics covered)

and brain cancer)

covered)



Table 2. Summary of the expert group reports (scientific disciplines, conclusions and advises; -/+: overall conclusion in terms of respectively absence of sufficient evidence for adverse health effects (-), or sufficient evidence for adverse health effects (+).

It can be seen from the table that the vast majority of the reports *do not* consider that radiofrequency fields at current exposure levels (especially from mobile phone base-station antennas and handsets) pose a serious health risk to humans. The only exception comes from the Bioinitiative report. All reports, except the Bionitiative report, conclude that there is so far no clear indication of adverse health effects from RF-exposure from applications for wireless communication purposes. They usually remain prudent with regard to long-term bio-effects, not because of strong indications that such effects might occur, but only because there are so far not enough data available to draw a sound conclusion. The same holds true for the IARC evaluation on carcinogenicity where the conclusion "possible carcinogenic" (group 2B) only means that, despite overall reassuring data, there is some limited evidence for carcinogenicity at long term exposures that cannot be ruled out so far. The Belgian Superior Health Council recommended more severe exposure limits (compared to most limits in application) but this recommendation is based on the precautionary principle rather than on solid arguments in favour of hazard or risk.
