I.1. The concept and reality of electromagnetic biocompatibility
“Electromagnetically biocompatible” describes any process, item, device, factor, which emits an electromagnetic field of low or high intensity in the various frequency ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum and does not directly or indirectly adversely affect the health or the balance of a living organism, be it in the short, medium or long term. It respects the hippocratic principle : “Primum non nocere”. A fortiori : Any EM emitter that maintains or improves health is deemed “ biocompatible ”
This concept concerns and should be applied to :
- all devices, systems, equipments, installations and electrical/electronic components, which are capable of inducing biological disturbances - be it in the short, medium or long term - in a living organism exposed to their radiation;
- medical devices that emit radiation as well as therapeutic methods that use irradiation;
- all electromagnetic protection devices marketed to protect users from electromagnetic fields (including those emitted from video display units, mobile phones and GSM base transceiver station (BTS) : these devices are protective only if they create EM biocompatibility with the related polluting EM field.
The setting of electromagnetic biocompatibility is the suppression or the maximum possible reduction of any biological disruption induced by an irradiating process, item, device or factor. This biocompatibility can be established through the correction of these noxious effects by devices, techniques or processes creating EM biological compatibility for the exposed living systems.
(CMO-Tecno AO technology meets this new concept)
***
Today the WHO considers that the increase in electromagnetic pollution at home and in the workplace is a factor that is increasing the general level of stress for the population.
The International Agency Research in Cancer (IARC) has classified ELF (Extremely Low Frequencies from 0 to 3000 Hertz) as a “carcinogenic factor, with limited or possible evidence”.
The population is continuously submerged in the ever-expanding fields of technological origin. Man is affected by these fields, as are other living organisms. These assumptions have been confirmed by a huge amount of scientific evidence (Bersani, 1999).
However, at the same time, many authors have noted that the physical origins of this phenomenon are not yet clear, with biological phenomena often seeming to be paradoxical. This enables certain people to speculate on the safety aspects of EM radiation in directions that are not always compatible with Science. In particular, the manufacturers of everyday electrical appliances, such as mobile telephones, computers and televisions continue to confirm that their products are risk-free, based on the fact that the radiation emitted by their products is not intense enough to provoke the deleterious heating of biological tissues.
Simultaneously, however, a great number of experiments demonstrate that weak and hyperweak EM fields may have an impact on living tissues and even on whole organisms and that the effects of these fields on the living body are characterised by “windows” for biological responses.
Such observations contradict the paradigm on which existing safety standards are based, which is that EM fields can only induce biological effects if they cause a heating of tissues or - for extremely low frequencies (ELF) - if their intensity exceeds fixed limits.
I. 2. The inadequacy for living organisms of current non-ionising radiation standards
Current safety standards, which have been fixed for the exposure of people, consist of limiting the intensity of radiation. They are exclusively established by the same physical measure of the quantity of energy radiated from the emitter or absorbed by the inert material that is exposed to it (SAR).
Safety standards in Western countries do not provide an appropriate level of protection, in comparison with Eastern countries (for example, Russia), which are much more restrictive, resulting from their experience of non-thermal and ELFs effects.
“More generally, current UK and European Community Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) legislation requires that all electronic goods offered for sale in the EU continue to operate satisfactorily up to an electric field exposure of 3V/m.
Unfortunately, however, the same concern does not currently extend to the alive human organism, which is generally considered immune from adverse influences of GSM radiation, on account of its intensity* being far too low to cause any deleterious degree of heating of body tissue (as quantified through the so-called specific absorption rate, or SAR); indeed for humans, contrary to the case of electronic instrumentation, this heating is generally considered to be the only adverse effect possible. Furthermore, paradoxically some thermally based safety guidelines (such as those of ICNIRP or CENELEC) actually permit users to be exposed to electric fields over ten times stronger than the EMC standard of 3V/m (for electronic devices) ! [G.Hyland]
*Intensity is expressed either as an electric (magnetic) field strength in V/m (Tesla), or as a power density, in units of Watts/cm2, according as whether near or far field conditions obtain - the former being relevant to handset use, and the latter to public exposure in the vicinity of a Base-station.”
- about extremely low frequencies (ELF) and non-thermal effects
In a scientific analysis carried out by Western and the former Soviet Union experts in 1998 regarding works that had been completed in Eastern countries and which to that date were unknown in the West, experts recommended that the establishment of standards protecting humans against radiation should take into consideration very low and extremely low frequencies (Grigoriev, 1998). This recommendation came at an appropriate moment, in particular because extremely low frequencies have been recently classified amongst potentially carcinogenic agents (Portier and Wolfe, 1998).
In 2001, standards would have to take into consideration the decision taken by the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC), an agency belonging to the World Health Organisation, of classifying the range of frequencies of ELF in the category “class 2B”, that is a “carcinogenic factor, with limited or possible evidences”.
This classification of carcinogenicity for the ELF range shows that the athermal effects should be generally taken into consideration (as ELF belong to a range of frequencies that have no thermal effects).
- paradoxes between the standards specified for different radiation emitting machinery
EM standards are established according to frequency ranges and by the level of exposure (intensity, power), although that results in certain paradoxes:
- no standard is established for the ELF emitted from cellular telephones, whilst the intensity of ELF given off by mobile handsets (which are held next to the ear) may reach a power between 10 and 25 times higher (1.8 µT to 5.2 µT; Linde T. and Mild Kh.) than that of MPR3 standards which relate to the ELF emitted by computer screens (0.2 µT at 50 cm)
- whilst residents have continuous exposure to emitting relay masts and base stations of mobile telephony, as well as their micro-wave radiation being modulated in ELF, there is no recommendation, guideline or directive which takes into consideration the non-thermal effects of ELF signals from a relay station.
Furthermore, it is ironic to note that current legislation in the EU on ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requires that all electronic devices that are on sale should function satisfactorily until being exposed to an electrical field of up to 3V/m;
- however, for the living organism, human safety standards (which are still absurdly based on strictly thermal considerations [i.e. exclusively considering intensity], such as the ICNIRP or CENELEC standards), permit users to be exposed to electrical fields that are over ten times stronger than the level set by EMC standards of 3V/m for electronic items.
- about micro-waves, thermal effects, mobile phones and S.A.R.
Standards, or rather recommendations, for mobile telephony only concern exposure levels that could lead to heating effects in tissues, of acute level and in the short term, as a direct response to “high doses”.
Standards for emissions from cellular telephones, which are valid for the range of micro-wave frequencies of 0.8-0.9 to 1.8-1.9 GHz are based on heating, as quantified by the evaluation of the Specific Absorption Rate (S.A.R.) of energy by the tissues.
Therefore they only take into consideration the thermal effect.
“Most of the time, SAR measurement is applied either to animal cadavers or to synthetic equivalents of tissues or “phantom” organs, whose physical and chemical properties are compared to those of living tissues. As SAR cannot be measured in a living human brain in its “electromagnetic” activity : the probe is submerged in a liquid that is meant to simulate the electrical properties of biological tissues.
The “phantom” is only the synthetic replica of the volume of a human head filled with a saline liquid which corresponds to physiological serum. However, phantoms and bodies are inert objects, which by their very nature are lifeless, and are therefore unable to give any measurable biological response. As a result, the SAR is only the physical signature of the electrical component of micro-waves and in this respect has no biological meaning, since its measure is not contemporaneous of the observation of a biological effect on the living organism. Of course, the measure of the SAR on the living organism presents technical problems that are more than difficult to solve ! We may therefore question the validity and the usefulness of the SAR as it is currently measured or calculated, except as a simple indication of the quantity of energy deposited in tissues.” [B.J.Youbicier-Simo]
- Reducing radiation is not a solution given biological results
For computer screens, the MPR3 standards take into consideration the non-thermal effects of ELF on health (as ELF belong to a range of frequencies where there is no thermal effect and that standards require a maximum reduction in the intensity of their emissions, which corresponds to an attempt to regulate non-thermal or athermal effects).
However, despite this standard for a minimum intensity of ELF, biological disturbances and health problems result (Youbicier-Simo 1997; Bastide 2001), as will be demonstrated in the published studies that are described later on in this document.
For the “guidelines or recommended limits” regarding mobile telephones (any legal standard does not yet exist) , only the thermal effect (SAR) of micro-waves is quantified, whilst the ELF and their non-thermal effects are not taken into consideration.
However, despite this limitation (SAR) – or the progressive reduction - of the intensity of micro-waves by the manufacturers and even after the total removal (experimentally) of micro-wave radiation, biological disturbances are seen with the same degree of intensity (Youbicier-Simo 2000-2001; Bastide 2001).
The Extremely low frequencies (ELF) of computer screens, mobile telephones and base stations for mobile telephones cannot be removed : neither the reduction in intensity, nor the techniques used to filter the other frequency ranges, are able to provide a solution for the effective protection of living organisms.
As the quantitative and proportional relationship of the “dose-effect” is not linear, i.e. the intensity of the electromagnetic field, its increase or reduction does not lead to proportional biological response (either increases or falls) in living organisms that are exposed to these fields, we cannot systematically expect a reduction in the symptoms of biological stress (or prevent the onset of stress processes at the cellular and organs levels) through reducing the intensity or the power of the ELF radiation or micro-waves.
It is clear that the increased number of relay antenna of lower power than those in existence does not guarantee that there will not be any biological reaction or response, nor the safety of residents’ health guaranteed. No studies by the industrial or governmental research networks have been published on biological reactions to exposure to a base station of strong or weak intensity.
However, the results of a study on embryo mortality carried out by TECNOLAB for three levels of BTS (Base Transceiver Station) exposure : at 41V/m, 6V/m and 2V/m show that the highest level of toxicity is found at 41V/m (79% mortality) it falls at 6V/m( 51% mortality), and that, although lower, toxicity is still present at 2V/m (32% mortality).
- Where biological protection is concerned, why are the principles of these standards questionable?
Because a protection standard for living bodies should mainly rely on biological responses. But at present these standards are established according to theoretical values and conventional physics, obselete criteria that are inappropriate for living organisms.
Indeed, theoretical works in biophysics and the most recent experiments in animals or human beings have shown that:
1) There is no limit for a lower theoretic intensity limit with a non-ionising effect on the cell of a living being”, (Dr.V. Binhi in “Magnetobiology” - Academic Press).
Living organisms are sensitive to ultra low intensities of external fields because the organism itself functions by using extremely low electromagnetic energy.
This sensitivity implies:
- Either at atomic level : the capacity for example for the eye to detect a single light photon. (For the record : the photon is the elementary particle carrying the smallest amount of electromagnetic energy specific to each frequency).
- Either at cellular level : the capacity for the proteins and the genome to respond, to be affected or to react at ultra weak intensity and extremely low frequencies;
- Either, at organ level : e.g. the capacity of the brain or the heart, to enter into resonance with similar external frequencies and intensities. The heart emits at the intensity of 100 000 femtoTesla for electrical frequencies of 1 to 2 Hz. The strength of magnetic emission of a human brain is around 150 femtoTesla for electrical frequencies of 0 to 31.5 Hz. The magnetic storm induced in the brain by an epileptic seizure produces an induction of 1000 femtoTesla for frequencies close to 17-18 Hz. Remember that the ELF magnetic field of a video screen is 250 nanoTesla at a standard work station, which is one million times higher than those developed by the above mentioned organs.
2) the duration of exposure and its chronicity are key factors in determining biological reactions (Pr. Y. Grigoriev).
3) the prolonged usage of standard apparatus does not exclude the possibility of either acute toxicity expressions or the symptoms of chronic stress (Bastide; Canavan; Clements-Croome; Stepanov; Miyata; etc. ).
(1)See biblio. ref. “1. Standards”
