Safe mobile network
zaterdag, 29 augustus 2015 - Categorie: Artikelen
Bron 1: www.safemobilenetwork.info/
2007 (maar nog steeds zeer relevant, voor de Nederlandse tekst, met extra informatie, zie de link onderaan, bron 4)
Knowledge Base Safe Mobile Phone Network
A properly functioning mobile network is feasible with much lower radiation levels in homes. The levels could be lowered to such an extent that no-one living in the vicinity of mobile phone masts needs to suffer from neurological effects such as headaches and migraine. This is (probably) also true for the higher cancer incidence around mobile phone masts, which has been found in several studies. In the present - polarised - public debate regarding the public health effects of phone masts, this fact is largely ignored. We propose here to adopt such a more modern mobile phone network (see safe network), as is already functioning in a number of regions in Europe.
Mobile telecommunications based on radiation in the Gigahertz region have increased dramatically since their introduction in the 1990s. However, this has taken place without regard to the biological effects. It was, and still is, assumed by the operators that it can do no damage provided that the absorbed radiation does not heat the brain by more than one degree Celsius in 30 minutes. Unfortunately, today’s exposure standards in the Netherlands are still based on this, despite mounting evidence that biological effects, some of which are deleterious to health, occur at levels well below this.
Recent research by TNO and the University of Zurich suggest that there is no need to worry about the neurological effects of short term exposure (30-45 minutes) to the radiation from the antennas of either GSM or UMTS base stations. While these two studies have been given much media coverage, little attention, has been paid to the ever increasing volume of studies and reports demonstrating clear neurological symptoms after longer periods of exposure. This is especially serious in the case of people suffering chronic exposure to radiation from neighbouring GSM masts. Many epidemiological studies published in international journals, as well as anecdotal reports from a multitude of physicians and individual citizens have revealed a wide range of adverse effects. These include headaches, migraine, problems with concentration and an unpleasant jittery feeling. These effects begin at radiation levels as low as 100-500 microwatt/m2 (pronounced microwatts per square meter) corresponding to 0.2-0.4 V/m (see Neurotoxic effects).
Despite this, the actual levels experienced since the growth of the UMTS network peak at around 10000-20000 microwatt/m2 in hundreds of thousands of homes in the Netherlands, and many millions of houses in the whole of Europe.
At first sight, there seems to be an unbridgeable gap between the economic and social importance of having a good mobile phone network and the need for a healthy living environment. However, this is a false premise; current radiation levels are many times higher than those needed for functional mobile networks. Most mobile equipment will already work with signal strengths of the order of 0.001 microwatt/m2 and, with a relatively small adjustment to the height and power of the antennas, no citizen should be burdened with a radiation level greater than 100 microwatt/m2. Indeed, with even greater but still practicable modifications (e.g. still taller masts) the maximum radiation could be brought down to well below 10 microwatt/m2 (see Safe network)
The most important message to come from this website is that there is no conflict between having a good functional mobile phone network and the need for a healthy environment. It just needs careful planning and an appreciation of the adverse biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.
Bron 2: www.safemobilenetwork.info/1607198.htm
Safe mobile network
What is a safe radiation level for chronic exposure?
From the peer-reviewed literature (see: Neurotoxic effects, particularly Hutter et al. 2006, and also Navarro et al., 2003) it is concluded that chronic exposure levels of 100-500 microwatt/m2 (0.2-0.4 V/m) already lead to a (small) increased incidence of headaches and other complaints in residents living near mobile phone masts. The lower value of this interval (100 microwatt/m2) was proposed as the European limit for chronic exposure in a document of the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) of the European Union (Hyland, 2001) and was adopted by the car manufacturer BMW in 2004 (in an effort to reduce sick-leave) as the maximum permitted exposure in the workplace for its 105,000 employees.
The upper level of this interval (500 microwatt/m2) is close to the limit of 600 microwatt/m2 set for brief exposure to GSM and UMTS antennas in Tuscany. When we apply the customary safety factor of 100 to the results of Hutter et al. we end up with a limit of 1 microwatt/m2 (0.02 V/m). This value corresponds to the target formulated by the Governmental Health Department in Salzburg and achieved in large areas of the city (Dr Gerd Oberfeld, personal communication).
Our knowledge platform considers such a target value of 1 microwatt/m2 in combination with a statutory exposure limit in homes (chronic facade burden) of 100 microwatt/m2 (0.2 V/m) reasonable for all stakeholders involved: it can then be expected that in 99% of the homes the levels will be at least 5 fold lower. In these houses where this level of 100 microwatt/m2 is closely approached, residents may, if desired, further reduce the exposure indoors with a factor of 10-100 through a number of simple protective measures.
Furthermore, a chronical exposure (facade burden) limit of 100 microwatt/m2 is excellently workable for the telecom industry (see next section).
note: a conversion table from microwatt/m2 to V/m and vice versa is available as a pdf-file.
What signal strength is needed for mobile devices?
Most mobile devices will work with signal strengths of the order of 0.001 microwatt/m2 . Given a loss of 90% due to reflection and absorption by the building (the building penetration loss) an external signal strength of 0.01 microwatt/m2 is needed. Where the penetration loss is more like 99%, such as in deep basements or reinforced concrete structures with radiation reflecting windows, signal strengths of around 0.1 microwatt/m2 per provider may be needed. It is technically difficult to achieve uniform signal strengths of 0.01-0.1 microwatt/m2, but with today’s technology, a variation in signal strength at street level by a factor 100 should be feasible.
This would involve a maximum signal strength at street level (at the so-called hotspots) of 1 or 10 microwatt/m2 (assuming penetration losses of 90 or 99% respectively). In the case of buildings with high penetration losses or where the mast is relatively distant, it should be possible to install repeaters, which consist of external receivers that pick up the signal, boost it and send it to small transmitters inside. If this were done, there should be no need for any signal at street level to exceed 1 microwatt/m2 per provider.
What are the current continous exposure levels in the Netherlands (similar to the situation in many parts of Europe)?
Radiation levels of 10,000-20,000 microwatt/m2 are commonly found in homes around antennas on low masts
(see www.antennebureau.nl). Figure 1 gives the reason for these high radiation levels. The closest homes are in the main beam of the antenna, which has to be powerful enough (typically 20 watt per transmitter) to reach the basements of houses 10 blocks away. Only a very small proportion of the radiation will reach these basements because the masts are too low and much of the signal is lost by having to pass through the walls of many houses where it may be absorbed or reflected.
Fig. 1 Antenna plan of many Dutch residential areas. Relatively powerful transmitters (often 10-20 watt) on low masts give nearby homes chronic high exposure levels (10,000-20,000 microwatt/m2, corresponding to 2-3 V/m) which lead to many neurological complaints such as migraine and headaches.
Fig. 2 Alternative antenna plan (already standard practice in some places, e.g. Salzburg and parts of Switzerland). Tall masts with relatively weak transmitters give the radiation a much better spread and the upper exposure limits (10-100 microwatt/m2, corresponding to 0.06-0.2 V/m) are 100-1000-fold lower than in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, the network coverage is still excellent because most mobile devices will work with signal strengths as low as 0.001 microwatt/m2.
The alternative: tall phone masts with low power transmitters (the Salzburger antenna plan).
When much taller masts are used; e.g. 20-30 meter above roof level, there are two advantages. Firstly, the transmitters can be less powerful (0.6 watt rather than 10-20 watt) because the radiation now comes from above and can penetrate even to basement level without passing through too many walls. Secondly, the main beam (where the radiation level is highest) can be angled to miss the nearest homes. With this plan, the highest radiation levels are not in nearby houses but in homes 300 meter away, where the maximum signal strength is lower at 10-50 microwatt/m2. The radiation is also spread much more evenly (see Fig. 3, at the bottom of this page). The reach of this system (how far a useful signal will travel) is about the same as with high power transmitters on low masts. The penetration into basements and buildings with radiation-reflecting windows is broadly similar and, as before, boosters (repeaters) can be used in difficult cases where signal penetration is poor and the use of landlines is not an option (the provision of these is normally the responsibility of the buildings’ owners or tenants). This kind of antenna plan is already standard practice in several places; e.g. Salzburg, Austria.
In the short term, a hybrid system can be created using relatively simple measures:
The power of all transmitters in residential areas (now mostly 10-20 watt) should be reduced to 1-2 watt. Existing masts in residential areas should be raised from 5 meter to 15 meter (permit unnecessary). This will reduce exposure levels in almost all nearby residences to under 500 microwatt/m2. Antennas should no longer be angled downwards if this causes exposures above 500 microwatt/m2 in any nearby home.
Mast-sharing should be (temporarily) allowed in cases where the coverage level is endangered.
Buildings with high penetration losses such as offices situated far away from a mast should be provided with repeaters.
The agreement of telecom companies with each other on roaming (foreign visitors using the Dutch network) should be adjusted so that the provider with the nearest mast gets the call rather than the one with the strongest signal. The current situation rewards the telecom providers that set their transmitters to the highest level (often more than a million times higher than necessary) in tourist areas, airports and business centers.
ALARA is the correct approach
The formalities of EU guidelines pertaining to the application of preventive measures for environmental factors are so specific that there is very little room for discussion. These guidelines emphasize that the absence of a known mechanism for the occurrence of adverse health effects is no reason not to take preventive measures. Furthermore, the entire scientific community does not need to agree on these health effects.
Scientific proof (for which there is no stated definition) is not a requirement. It is required that the researchers who have demonstrated the health effects of a certain environmental factor should come from an “unsuspicious” source. The last requirement will be met for the most part. In the case of the radiation burden on people living near transmission masts and who may suffer neurological effects (see health effects) it is logical to follow the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle. In practice, this means that the telecom industry is obliged to place their transmitters in such a way (and adjust them in such a manner) that there is just enough reach within their service areas, but at the same time the radiation burden on nearby residents is minimal. The use of the ALARA principle will have no detrimental effects on competition between telecom companies since they will all have to meet these requirements. Ultimately, they will all be better off since they will all be working with less powerful transmitters that use less energy. The costs of these changes to the antenna plan will be more than offset by the lower cost in health care and absence from work due to continual headaches and other neurological disturbances in people living near the masts. In addition, there will be significant energy savings as a result of the lower wattage of the transmitters.
The use of the Salzburg antenna plan, as described above, will comply with the ALARA principle. In combination with a compulsory legal exposure limit of 100 microwatt/m2, the current problem will be mostly solved.
Fig. 3. Model calculation of the radiation levels (at 15 meter height) around and between a threesome of GSM masts (45 meters high) each with three 0.6 watt transmitters. The yellow areas have exposure levels of 10-50 microwatt/m2 and the green areas have less than 10 microwatt/m2 (source: Dr Gerd Oberfeld, Salzburg).
Bron 3: www.safemobilenetwork.info/1454252.htm
Health effects from exposure to radiation from GMS and UMTS phone masts
Short-term neurological effects.
TNO and Zurich University have been exposing test persons during 30-45 minutes to high frequency radiation of levels comparable to exposure levels in houses neighbouring phone masts. By means of questionnaires the effect on well-being, concentration etc. were estimated. In short, these studies pointed out that TNO found relatively mild neurological effects (Zwamborn et al., 2003), and Zurich University did not find any significant effect (Regel et al., 2006). The general conclusion one can draw from these studies is that one doesn’t have to worry too much when bringing a 45 minutes visit to someone living close to a phone mast.
Neurotoxic effects in the mid-long term (chronic exposure).
The interpretation from former State Secretary van Geel based on the abovementioned Swiss study however, was broader: based on this research, he stated that UMTS radiation in general is without any danger. (see press report from June 6 2006 titled “No effect UMTS radiation on health”). The Swiss researchers themselves disagreed with this extrapolation of their study data to long-term exposure. The last line of their scientific paper from August 2006 states: “Regarding the implications for public health because of widespread exposure in the living environment, no conclusions about long-term effects of UMTS base station-like EMF can be drawn from the present study, since only a short-term exposure was applied” (Regel et al, 2006). So which studies then are relevant for people who don’t get exposed 30-45 minutes, but 4000-8000 hours a year, such as neighbours from phone masts (also during sleep)? Our knowledge platform considers the following epidemiological studies and reports from groups of physicians the most relevant in this regard.
Epidemiological studies: In the (peer-reviewed) scientific literature, eight articles have been published, reporting on five independent epidemiological studies carried out in France, Spain, Egypt, Austria, and Cyprus. All five studies find a statistical connection between the incidence of headache and the degree of chronical exposure to the radiation of a phone mast closeby.
In the first study of Santini et al. from 2002, people were asked by a questionnaire to indicate how often they experience certain complaints, and how far they live from a send station. Santini et al. found a significant link between the distance to a mast and the incidence of headache: people living close to a phone mast had a headache much more often than people living more than 500 m away from it (see Fig. 1). Those results from Santini et al. (2002) were criticised (e.g. by the Dutch Health Council , 2003, see www.gr.nl), because the questioned persons knew about the goal of the research: the relation between the distance between a phone mast and the incidence of health complaints. This can lead to a distortion of the answers (the socalled ‘reporting bias’). To what extent this ‘reporting bias’ effectively has lead to a distortion of the results is impossible to say.
Navarro et al. (2003) did a similar study among inhabitants from a Spanish urban area, and used a similar questionnaire as Santini et al. (2002). Also this study might therefore show the ‘reporting bias’, but the researchers did a little extra here: they additionally brought a visit to the circa one hundred respondents to measure radiation in their bedroom. In the open field, radiation potential decreases exponentially with distance, but can strongly differ locally among and within buildings. Navarro et al. also found a statistical correlation between the measured radiation load and a series of health complaints, namely headache, tiredness and irritability. Although as said this study can suffer from bias, the correlation found between radiation load and health complaints strengthened the previous results.
Fig. 1: Relation between the distance from houses to a phone tower and the incidence of a number of selected health symptoms (reported as ‘very often’, Santini et al. (2002), table 1).
Fig. 2: The relative risk to get different neurological problems as a consequence of electromagnetic radiation from GSM phone masts for three groups of people who (measured in the bed room) are exposed to less than 10 µW/m2 (green), 100-500 µW/m2 (blued) and more than 500 µW/m2 (red). (Source: Hutter et al., 2006, Table 4): the increased incidence of headaches is the most obvious observation.
The best study so far is Hutter et al. (2006), with 365 respondents in two different regions in Austria, around ten phone masts in different communities. Also they questioned people and measured the radiation load in the bedroom, and apart from that they carried out a number of cognitive tests. They selected their locations carefully: base stations that had been the subject of protest were not allowed in the study. In contrast to Santini and Navarro they did not tell the respondents that the study had anything to do with send masts, but said that the study was about the influence of a number of environmental factors, among others traffic noise, fine dust and base stations. In that way the researchers avoided a reported bias, from which the results from Santini and Navarro could possibly suffer. In the questionnaire, Hutter et al. did not only ask about the experienced health complaints, but also about the judgement of people about the influence of these environmental factors on the human health. In this way it would be possible to correct later on for the subjective negative ideas that people already might have about the radiation of phone masts. Most people (ca 60%) turned out not to worry about that anyway.
Despite those precautionary measures and the correction for the subjective fear for phone masts, Hutter et al. still found a correlation between the radiation load at one hand and headache/migraine and concentration problems at the other hand (see Fig. 2). From levels from 100-500 µW/m2, the researchers found an increased risk for mentioned symptoms. This is actually 0.5 to 3% of the levels regularly measured in houses and is acceptable according to the current Dutch norms (see www.antennebureau.nl). Hutter et al. formulate their main conclusion as:
''Exposure from mobile phone base stations is orders of magnitude below current guideline levels. Self-reported symptoms like headache and difficulties in concentrating show an association with microwave exposure from base stations, not attributable to subjects' fear of health effects from these sources''.
In a simple study in Egypt, Abdel-Rassoul et al. came to the conclusion of a more than twice as high incidence of headache for residents near mobile phone masts compared to a matched control group (Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2006).
Finally, in a study by Preece et al. (2007) from Bristol University (UK), the health situation of inhabitants of three villages in Cyprus was compared. One village had no mobile phone masts in its vicinity (exposure less than 1 µW/m2), while exposure levels within the two ‘‘exposed’’ villages were up to 5000 µW/m2. Compared with the control village there were highly significant differences in the reporting of migraine (OR 2.7, p,0.001), headache (OR 3.7, p,0.001), and dizziness (OR 2.7, p,0.001).
In conclusion: although the methodology from Santini and Navarro (and undoubtedly also from Abdel-Rassoul’s simple study) has rightly been criticised, these studies are not fundamentally weakened. The methodological set-up from the recent study from Hutter was better (also the Health Council has – as far as we know – a positive judgement about the quality of this study), and comes to the same conclusions. Moreover, no epidemiological studies in the scientific literature have been published that do not show a statistical correlation between the distance to a phone mast and complaints such as headache. This is relevant, because four years is more than enough time to put up , carry out and publish a counter study. Thus, it is justified to state that there exists a consensus in the scientific professional literature, that the chronic exposure to radiation of GSM phone masts leads to headache and migraine in a part of the population. Taking into account the large similarities in terms of frequency and signal shape, there is no reason to believe that this is much different for UMTS phone masts.
Research in the early 20th century: Just for the record: the aforementioned scientists were not the first ones seeing a link between chronic exposure to short-wave radiation and the occurrence of neurological complaints. As far as we know, this honour is due to the German physician Dr. Erwin Schliephake, who in the year 1932 described an increasing degree of headache after prolonged exposure to microwaves (Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 85th volume, nr 32, 1932):
''Der Gesamtorganismus wird schon im Strahlungsfeld von starken Kurzwellensendern durch die freie Hertzsche Welle deutlich beeinflusst. Das empfinden alle Personen, die längere Zeit hindurch an solchen Sendern ohne genügende Schutzmittel haben arbeiten müssen. Es treten Erscheinungen auf, wie wir sie bei Neurasthenikern zu sehen gewohnt sind: starke Mattigkeit am 'Tag, dafür in der Nacht unruhiger Schlaf, zunächst ein eigenartig ziehendes Gefühl in der Stirn und Kopfhaut, dann Kopfschmerzen, die sich immer mehr steigern, bis zur Unerträglichkeit. Dazu Neigung zu depressiver Stimmung und Aufgeregtheit.''
Worth to be mentioned here is that this Dr. Schiephake propagated the use of radio-emission for therapeutic purposes. Hence these side-effects were unfavourable for him, but he had enough scientific integrity to report it anyway.
During studies on the health of personnel of radar stations (which also use radiation in the lower gigaherz frequency range, just like GSM and UTMS) during the Second World War, headache was described as a reproducible health effect. In that time, this was seen as a necessary sacrifice in the efforts of the war. In a review from Cook et al. (1980) it is stated as follows (p. 332):
''Thus, by the end of the war, the published reports from the military indicated that no harm would come to its technical personnel involved with radar operations. The few confirmed effects - headaches and flushing - were certainly not very serious in light of the importance of radar to the war effort.''
In the same review from Cook et al. (p 336) also mention is made of a ''universal complaint of headaches by personnel working in the vicinity of microwave radiation'' during medical interviews of personnel from Hughes Aircraft Corporation in Culver City, California.
Also in Russian research (Simenenko et al., 1998) studying the effects of chronic radiation to microwaves, headache is mentioned as an important effect: “Nearly all the persons studied complained of: headache and dizziness; irritability; fatigability; general weakness; sleep disturbance; daytime sleepiness; pain in the region of the heart; difficulty breathing; and stomach pains and indigestion.”
Appeals by groups of doctors: With a certain regularity, groups of physicians report clusters of similar cases of diseases around GSM and/or UMTS phone masts. The first report is from 2002, where more than 1000 physicians and professors indicated that to their experience, there is much too often and too systematically a link between certain complaints, such as headache, and the degree of radiation load. In this so-called Freiburger Appel, it is stated as follows:
· too often we establish a conspicuous accumulation of certain diseases headache is mentioned in the document to be the most important sympotome – red. in areas or neighbourhoods with similar radiation load
· too often the disease gets better, or complaints that have been going on for months or years disappear in relatively short time after reducing or removal of the radiation load in the neighbourhood of patients.
Similar appeals from (mainly) physicians are the Bamburger appel, the Benevento resolution and at the beginning of 2007 the Brusseler appel.
In a relatively recent questionnaire by the University from Bern among 342 Swiss physicians (Huss and Röösli, 2005), 61% said that according to them this kind of radiation can influence the health of people. Also they report headache to be the most often occurring complaint (see table 1).
These reports/appeals from physicians agree very well with the conclusions from above scientific studies. All individual members of our Knowledge Base estimate the chance that the results of all mentioned studies are caused by imagination and mass hysteria on zero.
Table 1: The health complaints/diseases mentioned by Swiss physicians, which according to them are linked to exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (source: Huss and Roosli, 2005).
Headache as a complaint/condition/disease:
The Health Council and other health instances use a double defence against the reported neurological effects. First, they state that the mentioned studies are too weak to function as an indication for the real existence of neurological effects such as headache. Second, they have a tendency not to take headache as a serious health complaint. They are right when stating that headaches don’t fall into the category ‘irreparable health damage’ (when people move away from phone masts, they indeed declare themselves that complaints such as headaches disappear after a few days or weeks). In our opinion these two issues need to be considered separately i) in which cases they consider an increased incidence of headache as a consequence of an environmental factor as acceptable, and ii) how they judge the quality and credibility of the individual studies (and all of the studies together).
Sceptics often state that headache is an unspecific complaint which moreover can’t be qualified as a disease, and therefore can’t be used as a ground for reducing the radiation load. Hereby they ignore how disrupting chronic headache can be for the social and economic functioning of an individual, and the quality of its life. Accepting headache with personnel at a radar station during war may have been justified. Accepting headache with residents in houses around phone masts in peace time clearly crosses an ethical border, in our view.
Different sensitivity of individuals: A complicating factor is that every individual responds differently to a certain level of radiation. Some people get complaints like headache after only a couple of weeks of chronic radiation, while this can take months or years for others, and some others will never experience these complaints. Also the required level of radiation that will cause complaints differs between individuals. Some people are extremely sensitive and are called ‘electrosensitive’ (for more information, see: www.electroallergie.org). Such differences in sensitivity occur also with other environmental pollutions such as the concentration of solvents in the air.
Effects on the incidence of cancer
A number of published epidemiological studies show a higher incidence of different kinds of cancer in the neighbourhood of phone masts. If there is indeed a causal link here is not clear yet. It is plausible that an increased rate of DNA breakages (shown in in vivo studies) and a decreased functioning of the immune system play a role here, obvious evidence is however lacking. For this reason, we focusmainly on the neurological effects from continuous exposure (shown with much higher certainty, as described above). The – justified – call from citizen groups and politicians to do more research in the area of cancer should in our opinion not be used as a reason to wait with taking action (for diminishing exposure) until the results of such studies are available.
Literature (can often be requested from the authors):
G. Abdel-Rassoul et al., Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations, NeuroToxicology (2006), doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012
Cook, A.J. et al (1980) Early Research on the Biological Effects of Microwave Radiation: 1940-1960 ANNALS OF SCIENCE, 37: 323-351 (pdf-file)
Huss, Anke, Martin Röösli. 2005. Befragung von Ärztinnen und Ärzten zum Thema elektromagnetischer Felder in der hausärztlichen Praxis. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Gesundheit (BAG), Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin, Universitat Bern (pdf-file).
Hutter, H-P, H Moshammer, P Wallner and M Kundi. 2006. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup. Environ. Med 63;307-313 .
Hyland, G. 2001. The physiological and environmental effects on non-ionising electromagnetic radiation - Final study. Brussels, STOA. Working Document EP/IV/A/STOA/2000/07/03 (pdf-file)
Navarro, E.A., J. Segura, M. Portolés, and C. Gómez-Perretta. 2003. The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22 (2&3): 161-169
Regel, SJ, Negovetic, S, Roosli, M, et al. 2006. UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive performance. Environ Health Perspect. 114(8): 1270-1275.
Preece, A.W., A G Georgiou, E J Dunn and S C Farrow. 2007. antennae in Cyprus, Health response of two communities to militaryOccup. Environ. Med. 64:402-408
Santini, R., P. Santini, J.M. Danze, P. Le Ruz, M. Seigne. 2002. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. Incidences of distances and sex. Pathologie Biologie 50: 369-373
Santini, R; Santini, P; Danze, JM; Le Ruz, P; Seigne, M. 2003. Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of base stations: II Incidences of age, duration of exposure, location of sub-jects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors. Pathologie Biologie 51: 412-415
Santini, R; Santini, P; Le Ruz, P; Danze, JM; Seigne, M (2003). Survey study of people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations
Source: ELECTROMAGNETIC BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 22 (1): 41-49
Santini, R; Santini, P; Danze, JM; Le Ruz, P; Seigne, M (2002). Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of basestation: incidences of distance and sex PATHOLOGIE BIOLOGIE, 50 (10): 621-621
Simonenko,V.B, Chernetsov, A.A. & Lyutov,V.V. (1998) Influence of electromagnetic radiation in the radio-frequency range on the health condition of an organized collective. Voenno-meditsinskiy zhurnal CCCXIX(5):64-68
Zwamborn, APM, Vossen, SHJA, Leersum, Bv, et al. 2003. Effects of global communication system radiofrequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints. The Hague: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory; FEL-03-C148.
Bron 4: www.kennisplatformveiligmobielnetwerk.info/
en i.h.b. www.kennisplatformveiligmobielnetwerk.info/1085103.htm
De link naar de Nederlandse tekst die ons door Beperk de Straling werd toegestuurd
Lees verder in de categorie Artikelen | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie