Chapter 11

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT

By the early 1970s, the great forests of West Germany were dying. The Germans suspected the cause was industrial pollution that resulted from the tremendous post–World War II economic growth. Eventually, research studies would reveal the link between industrial pollution, acid rain, and deforestation. But in the face of potentially irreversible damage to an irreplaceable national treasure, the Germans decided to act before they had definitive proof by passing the groundbreaking Clean Air Act of 1974 to limit industrial emissions. In doing so, the Germans adopted a new approach to countering environmental risks. The subsequent decades have seen Vorsorgeprinzip (literally, the “precautionary principle”) become an underlying principle of German environmental legislation.

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The Precautionary Principle instructs us that in the face of serious threats, a lack of scientific certainty never justifies inaction. As the United Nations–hosted 1992 Earth Summit explained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”¹

While, in a court of law, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, the Precautionary Principle places responsibility on those who trade in, and profit from, the risky product to prove the safety of their product. As the 1998 Wingspread Consensus Statement on the Precautionary Principle (issued by the Science and Environmental Health Network at the Wingspread Conference Center in Wisconsin) states, “when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.”²

The Rio Declaration and the Wingspread Statement are just two of the many different expressions of the Precautionary Principle. All share these key elements:

• Those in authority must anticipate harm before a harmful activity occurs.
• It is the responsibility of those performing an activity to show that the activity will not result in significant harm.
• Those in authority must act to introduce cost-effective control measures to prevent or minimize harm resulting from the activity, even in the absence of scientific certainty.
• The need for control measures increases with the degree of uncertainty and level of possible harm resulting from the activity.

The Precautionary Principle is a proactive environmental policy designed to protect citizens from potentially adverse environmental influences in the face of incomplete information about the risks these influences present. The estimated costs of immediate action must be compared with the estimated potential cost of inaction. If the potential cost of inaction is plausible, significant, and irreversible, the Precautionary Principle tells us to act.

In other words, the Precautionary Principle is how policy makers say it’s better to be safe than sorry.

PRECAUTIONARY REGULATION

Recall from chapter 5 that during London’s 1854 cholera outbreak the town council did not wait until scientific proof existed to conclusively link the Broad Street pump to the deaths. Instead, in an early application of the Precautionary Principle, the council acted immediately, removing the pump when reasonable evidence of a threat to public health was found (it was only later that the precise cause—an infected baby’s diaper contaminating the pump—was identified).

Imagine if the Precautionary Principle had been applied to tobacco. How many lives would have been saved had the burden of proof been placed on the cigarette makers when smoking was first linked to lung cancer and other diseases? The same question could be asked of asbestos, PCBs, X-rays, and many other environmental pollutants.

As one approaches the question of regulating EMF emissions and exposure, the Precautionary Principle can provide an instructive perspective. The World Health Organization (WHO) supports the ICNIRP safety standards (discussed in the previous chapter) and discourages its member states from deviating from them, until and unless weight-of-evidence levels of exposure lower than the ICNIRP permits are demonstrated to result in adverse health effects. Specifically, WHO EMF standards state:

The existence of biological effects and health hazards can only be established when research results are replicated in independent laboratories or supported by related studies. This is further strengthened when:

• there is agreement with accepted scientific principles
• the underlying mechanism is understood
• a dose-response relationship can be determined.³

The Precautionary Principle indicates precisely the opposite!

The Precautionary Principle has been applied before to product regulation in the United States. The ban on CFCs in aerosols is just one example. The Endangered Species Act applies a standard of evidence that is less than scientific proof in order for the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate a species as endangered; after all, once we have definitive proof that a species is extinct, it’s too late to prevent extinction.

The evidence assembled to date on the health risks of exposure to non-ionizing EMF radiation, along with the exponentially growing scope of EMF emissions in the environment, meets the standard for application of the Precautionary Principle in devising regulations for product emissions and human exposure. This belief spurred a group of scientists closely involved in research on biological effects of EMF and actively involved in the Bioelectromagnetic Society (BEMS) to conduct the grassroots project known as the Bio Initiative Report (BIR). BEMS is the major international scientific society dedicated to this area of research.

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FOR EMF

The BIR had its origins among members of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS), where I served as president in 2007. Many members participated in a 2006 symposium that I helped organize to introduce our membership to the Precautionary Principle. I contacted Professor Michael Kundi from the University of Vienna, who agreed to act as cochairman and also present a talk on epidemiology studies of various environmental pollutants as a context for EMF studies. For the final speaker, we chose Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, a well-known EMF consultant, who reported on practical applications of the Precautionary Principle.

The Symposium Summary
2006 Bioeletromagnetics Society
Minisymposium of EMF Research and the
Precautionary Principle

Chairman: Martin Blank
Cochairman: Michael Kundi

The Precautionary Principle is a proactive policy to protect citizens from potentially adverse environmental influences when information about the risks they present is incomplete. Generally, we rely upon epidemiology studies to provide information about risk, but the results are often incomplete and ambiguous. Given the high cost of both overprotection and underprotection, we should use all available information for estimating the potential risks to society. It is from this broader perspective that we consider what can be learned about the potential risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields from:

• Scientific mechanisms (physiological systems affected, biological thresholds, biological variability, etc.) Speaker: Martin Blank
• Responses to previous environmental and occupational hazards (smoking, asbestos, etc.) Speaker: Michael Kundi
• How the Precautionary Principle has been implemented in connection with EMF (e.g., Switzerland, Italy, etc.) Speaker: Cindy Sage

The minisymposium took place at the annual BEMS meeting in Cancun, Mexico. The schedule consisted of three 25-minute presentations (for descriptions, see the symposium summary above), each followed by 15 minutes of discussion. When the time allotted for discussion had expired and questions remained, we extended the session until the end of the day. Even then, the discussion wasn’t finished, and following the symposium, the speakers were joined by a small group who talked on through dinner and into the night. We then scheduled an additional session for the following day—and once again, the time ended long before the discussion did.

From the scheduled talks and from the discussions, we had learned that:

• Safety standards built around protecting humans from thermal effects of EMF radiation completely fail to con
• sider the many fundamental biological processes, well documented to be affected by EMF at nonthermal levels.
• The energy thresholds for biological damage are very low, and so the thresholds for potentially negative health effects are probably also very low.
• Simultaneous exposure to different frequency ranges could have additive effects on the exposed humans; similarly, effects of cumulative exposures must also be considered.

Further, we realized that the above-cited fundamental flaws in our approach to EMF safety cannot be addressed by tweaks or adjustments to current regulations. Instead, the entire approach to regulation must be reconsidered. The membership’s interest in this topic was clear, as was their desire to use their expertise on EMF issues to inform a wider audience of their assessment. Those of us who had participated in the symposium and the discussion realized that something had to be done, and that we were the ones who could start the process.

THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT

The spark set off at the symposium led the participants to form the BioInitiative Working Group that eventually organized the BioInitiative Report (BIR). The BIR (which you can download and read at http:// www.bioinitiative.org) reviewed a wide collection of scientific evidence obtained in connection with studies of biological effects of EMF. The data was primarily focused on studies of RF/MW exposure (which are rapidly increasing), but also included studies of power-line ELF. The studies included both laboratory results as well as epidemiological research. Over 2,000 references were reviewed and listed, including results that indicated biological and health effects, as well as results that did not. It should be emphasized that (unlike many of the committees that were critical of the BIR) the authors of the BIR reports were scientists who were involved in the research they were reviewing, and they also included three presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society.

As the BIR explains:

This Report is the product of an international research and public policy initiative to give an overview of what is known of biological effects that occur at low-intensity EMFs exposures (for both radio-frequency radiation RF and power-frequency ELF, and various forms of combined exposures that are now known to be bioactive). The Report examines the research and current standards and finds that these standards are far from adequate to protect public health.

Recognizing that other bodies in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, many European Union and eastern European countries as well as the World Health Organization are actively debating this topic, the BioInitiative Working Group has conducted an independent science and public health policy review process. The report presents solid science on this issue, and makes recommendations to decision-makers and the public.

The report was edited by Cindy Sage and David Carpenter, and was published online in August 2007. It was updated most recently in 2012. All contributors to the BioInitiative Report played their parts in helping to achieve the goal of reviewing and evaluating a wide range of the literature on EMF. However, I must single out Cindy Sage, who as coeditor, realized the importance of the goal from the beginning and shouldered the major burden of coordinating the effort (as well as a disproportionate and undeserved portion of the criticism targeted at the BIR, discussed below). Above all, she encouraged us to stick to the science as well as to our timetable, and she, together with coeditor David Carpenter, brought the project in on schedule.

BIR CONCLUSIONS

The BIR concludes, as has been described in this book, that there is substantial known and accepted science indicating biological effects resulting from low, nonthermal levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (levels currently considered safe by regulatory agencies). Among the documented damage resulting from EMF exposure in laboratory studies are genotoxic effects including DNA damage and DNA activation of the stress response, as well as adverse effects on immune function, neurology, human behavior, and melatonin production. The epidemiological studies included focus on brain tumors, acoustic neuromas, salivary gland tumors, leukemia, Alzheimer’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and breast cancer.

The BIR finds that “the existing ICNIRP and FCC limits for public and occupational exposure to ELF and RF are insufficiently protective of public health” and recommends that international agencies and organizations adopt the Precautionary Principle in establishing a new regulatory framework for EMF-generating technologies. In September 2008, the Parliament of the European Union agreed, citing the BIR when it decided by an overwhelming vote of 522 to 16 that the current EMF safety standards were obsolete and must be reviewed.⁴

The scientific papers included in the BIR were updated, and with several additional contributions, were peer reviewed and published in 2009 in a special issue devoted to EMF of Pathophysiology, a widely read and respected scientific journal. It covered the same general areas as the BIR, emphasizing molecular interactions with DNA and harmful effects on the function of the brain. Beyond the BIR, that journal issue also included articles on EMF effects on animals in the environment, effects on reproduction, and the surprising ability of human limbs to react to EMF signals. Additional evidence was presented from epidemiology and laboratory studies of significant biological effects due to EMF at levels far below the safety standards.

CRITICAL RESPONSES TO BIR

Despite a positive response to the BIR in many circles, there were some strongly negative reactions as well.

The BIR immediately generated criticism due to the manner in which it was released. Generally, scientific papers go through a formal publication process, in which the science, methods, and analysis of the paper are analyzed by other scientists before publication. The authors of the BIR felt the information to be so revelatory and the subject matter so pressing that the public should have immediate access to the report. This is why the authors, myself included, chose to publish online initially. Because this publication method did not include formal peer review, we organized a panel of prominent experts to review the BIR before it was released online and published their names along with the report on the website. Following this unconventional peer review prior to release, the BIR was later published as a conventionally peer-reviewed publication in the 2009 issue of Pathophysiology. The BIR papers are now a part of the regular scientific literature.

Other criticism of the BIR is based on the fact that the report’s conclusions differ from the official recommendations of entities such as ICNIRP and IEEE. For example, in response to the BIR’s conclusion that “RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits,”⁵ the IEEE’s Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) responded that “this conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions from weight-of-evidence assessments by the UK Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP 2000), called the Stewart Report, and the U.S. National Research Council Expert Panel (NRC 2008).”⁶

IEEE’s “weight-of-evidence” approach to evaluating the EMF science is the same method applied by the wireless industry itself, which sponsors so much of the research demonstrating no biological or health effects from low levels of EMF exposure that “outweighs” the science linking EMF to bioeffects. You will note that such objections do not dispute the validity of the science covered in the BIR, or the manner in which that science is covered—the IEEE criticism is, in essence, that the BIR should be disregarded because its conclusions are in disagreement with the scientific consensus of other groups.

The now-defunct Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) reached similar conclusions from their review of the BIR, noting that the authors of the BIR “each have [sic] a strong belief that does not accord with that of current scientific consensus.”⁷ The ACRBR continues: “This does not mean that what is written in the Report is invalid, but it means that we need to evaluate the content of the report itself.” Such statements are intended to cast doubt on the scientific validity of the BIR, without actually criticizing or challenging any of the BIR’s scientific coverage and conclusions. The ACRBR also initially objected to the fact that the BIR had not undergone peer review in the publication process.

Privately funded industry groups offered similar responses. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) noted that the BIR’s conclusions were not “cost-effective” and implied that the BIR should be dismissed given that its conclusions are at odds with prevailing wisdom:

Unlike the expert panels that conducted previous EMF health risk evaluations for IARC, the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the World Health Organization (WHO), the BioInitiative Working Group was not convened by any govern-mental bodies or recognized health risk assessment organizations. Moreover, its conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are not consistent with those reached by previous panels.⁸ I have no doubt that the expertise of the contributors to the BIR regarding biological effects of EMF exceeds that of most members of the expert panels mentioned.

Similarly, the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum noted that the recommendations from the BIR differed from “conclusions drawn by the 100-plus reviews, reports and government statements that have been published in this area from countries around the world.”⁹

The Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN) had many complaints with the BIR, but to my reading, their primary disagreement was with the fundamental assumption that the Precautionary Principle should be applied to the issue of EMF emissions. Though this group acknowledges that “some experimental studies found indications that certain biological effects may occur upon exposure,” the HCN adds that, “it is not known whether such effects may lead to health effects.” It then concludes: “The BioInitiative report argues that any effect of electromagnetic fields on biological systems should be avoided, thereby ignoring the distinction between effect and damage. The Committee does not agree with this approach.”¹⁰

That the conclusions of the BIR differ from those of the EMF standard-setting bodies is true—indeed, this was the primary reason the BIR was written. The spokesmen of industry and many scientists reject the idea of nonthermal effects from EMF exposure out of hand (just as doctors once scoffed at the notion that disease could result from invisibly tiny creatures called “germs” living on dirty hands). The BIR compiled a significant amount of evidence to the contrary. Instead of confronting this evidence, the BIR’s critics tended to dismiss its findings without actually addressing them.

IMBALANCE

A common criticism of the BIR is that it lacks balance. For instance, the Dutch HCN stated that “the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge.”¹¹ Similarly, the French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health Safety noted that “some sections do not present scientific data in a balanced fashion . . . and [the BIR] is written in militant style.”¹² And the ACRBR commented that the BIR did not present “an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge.”¹³

These criticisms do not acknowledge that the BIR included data from over 2,000 studies and noted contrary findings among them. Many of the authors were active contributors to the research areas they wrote about, with hands-on experience—unlike many of the critics. Additionally, the BIR was subsequently updated and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal—a process that underscores the scientific validity of the BIR’s content and conclusions.

As mentioned earlier, the full text of the BIR is available at www.bioinitiative.org, and I recommend that all interested take the time to read the science. Do the BIR authors have opinions? Yes, most definitely. But this does not mean that the science itself, which has undergone peer review, is unbalanced. Whether the authors of the BIR are balanced or not does not alter the underlying science presented in the BIR in any way—or make the potential risks to humans and the environment any less dangerous. Given the histories of other products such as tobacco, mercury, asbestos, and lead, we know that the human and financial cost of ignoring the rising tide of scientific data rises with each passing day.

SO FAR, SO GOOD

As editor of the special edition of Pathophysiology devoted to EMF (published one year after the BioInitiative Report), I introduced the issue with a classic joke about our indifference in the face of overwhelming evidence of risk: A man has just fallen from the 86th floor of the Empire State Building in New York. As he passes the 30th floor, he is heard saying to himself, “So far, so good . . .”

I ended that piece with: “Overall, the scientific evidence shows that the risk to health is significant, and that to deny it is like being in free-fall and thinking ‘so far, so good.’ We must recognize that there is a potential health problem, and that we must begin to deal with it responsibly as individuals and as a society.”¹⁴

There certainly is room for discussion regarding the specific levels of the standards to be adopted. But I flatly disagree with those who are unwilling to face the need for significant changes in our approach to EMF regulation following repeated scientific demonstrations of biological and health effects from EMF exposures—at levels far below existing standards. I am confident that time will reveal these individuals to be as wrongheaded and destructive to the public health as the defenders of cigarette smoking proved to be.

Application of the Precautionary Principle is one means that can help society address complex challenges such as the science underlying the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Given the continued questions and uncertainty on the precise links between exposure to low-frequency EMF and negative health outcomes, regulations should be formulated out of an abundance of caution. The indications from known science are that existing safety standards are grossly inadequate, dating from a time when our understanding of this issue was far more limited than it is today.

What might application of the Precautionary Principle look like? Some specific steps, indicated by the European Environment Agency, include:

• Consumers, especially young adults and children (who are at the highest risk for brain tumors) should stick to texting and hands-free sets to avoid exposing their brains to EMR.
• Manufacturers should design hands-free phones that are easier for consumers to use.
• Cell phones should carry warning labels.
• Corporate-funded research needs to be more broadly focused on biological effects, rather than being limited to the “heating” effects of microwaves.
• Governments should place a research levy on cell phones to fund independent research.
• Governments need to better protect cell phone researchers from retaliation by the industry opponents.¹⁵

This list is focused on cell phones but one must also consider other EMF sources, such as WiFi in schools and smart meters, as well as usage behaviors. Accordingly, one could add many other recommendations, including:

• All cell phones should have a hardware-level button to enable and disable airplane mode (so turning off connectivity, and EMF transmissions, is a simple and quick action).
• All WiFi routers should have power switches, so they may be easily and rapidly turned off when their use is not required.
• Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA), which prohibits any restrictions on placement of cell towers due to health concerns, must be repealed.
• The minimum permitted distance between residences and sources of extremely high levels of EMF (such as high-voltage power lines and cell phone towers) should be significantly increased.
• Electrical utilities should be required to run residential power lines underground to minimize ambient EMF emissions.
• Employees in certain high-risk careers (such as powerline workers) should be required to wear outfits made with EMF-resistant fabric while on the job.
• WiMAX installations should be banned in cities, and WiFi should be banned in primary and secondary schools.
• The rollout of smart meters should be prohibited.

It is important to remember that application of the Precautionary Principle is designed as an interim step—a stopgap measure. The risks of continued inaction are simply too great.

While many of us continue to push for improved regulatory scrutiny of EMF emissions, you should not wait for such action. As we will see in the next chapter, there are steps that you can and should take as an individual to minimize your exposure to potentially harmful EMF radiation, without going back to the stone age.