A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation

News Center: Main Articles Archive

January 20, 2004

Today it may be more of historical than scientific interest, but EPA’s 1990 evaluation of EMF cancer risks is now available on the Internet at no charge.

Back then, the draft Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields was a hot item. A team led by Dr. Robert McGaughy had recommended that power-frequency EMFs should be classified as “probable human carcinogens” and that RF/MW radiation be considered a “possible human carcinogen.”

January 20, 2004

On January 15, the Health Council of the Netherlands issued its EMF update, for the period May 2001 through May 2003. The report addresses both ELF and RF EMFs. (The complete text is available in Dutch and English; the English section begins on p.63.) It does not cover the TNO findings, published last September, which point to subjective health complaints following exposures to GSM mobile phone signals as low as 1 V/m (implicating SARs of less than 0.078 mW/Kg). 

Update on Landmark U.K. Stewart Report

January 20, 2004

A U.K. panel has concluded that health research on RF/MW radiation published over the last three years “does not give cause for concern.” In a report released on January 14, the Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) found that, “The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels.” But the committee also cautioned that the available literature has “limitations” and that “mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time.”

July 1, 1995

The irony is astonishing. On the very day that a committee of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) completed its 800-page draft report asking regulatory agencies to pay “serious attention” to EMFs, public television station WGBH aired a one-hour show across the country comparing EMFs to cold fusion. While the NCRP committee called for “a national commitment to further research,” the June 13 Frontline, “Currents of Fear,” asked whether it was time to close down the research effort.

Pages