The WHO does not set limit values itself, but describes how this should be done. In the publication Framework for Developing Health-Based EMF Standards , the WHO outlines its recommended approach to setting limits for electromagnetic fields (EMF), i.e. radio waves, mobile phone radiation and electric and magnetic fields.
The biology
In the publication Establishing a dialogue on risks from electromagnetic fields , the World Health Organization (WHO) explains that 'electrical currents exist naturally in the human body and are an essential part of normal bodily functions. All nerves relay their signals by transmitting electric impulses. Most biochemical reactions, from those associated with digestion to those involved in brain activity, involve electrical processes.'1 Logically, we should therefore have limits in place to protect the electrical currents on which our biological processes depend. In other words, we need standards based on biology. However, in the publication Framework for Developing Health-Based EMF Standards the World Health Organization takes a different view.
Unreasonable
A biological approach 'will result in an unduly conservative standard which could not only restrict technological advances but would be unacceptable in terms of the loss of benefits accruing from technology; all for protection against questionable risks'.2 In short, technology takes precedence over health.
When are the risks not questioned?
The WHO points out that evidence is stronger if the effects of electromagnetic fields can be demonstrated in laboratory animals rather than in cells because animals as a whole can amplify, attenuate or neutralise these effects.3 Even if all the conditions are the same for all the animals, changing which rats are used in an experiment can change the results.4 This was clear already in 1970.7 The impact of the forces of electromagnetic fields and radiation is governed by the laws of physics, but the reactions of living things are not. Their reactions are governed by their own laws which are different for each individual. This is why the results of research can vary. How does the WHO deal with this?
- Dismiss the different results and keep searching until until a reaction that is common for all is found,
- or accept the variable results as they are in line with how nature works,
- or try to find out how the laws of living things can give variable results?
The right answer is a combination of number 1 and 3. Option
one adheres to the gold standard of research, whereby
results must be replicable to be considered valid. This
approach is used in mathematics and physics, but the WHO
applies it to biology.5
Option two has fewer supporters and prioritises health over
technology, a view that the WHO considers to be
unreasonable.
The WHO has chosen option three by promoting mechanisms.
Mechanisms
The WHO places great importance on understanding the mechanism that triggers negative health effects, as this makes it easier to interpret ambiguous results.6 For deadly diseases such as cancer, the WHO therefore needs to understand how electromagnetic fields transform normally functioning cells into cancer cells. This only happens occasionally. However, knowing the cause of a disease does not necessarily mean understanding the mechanism behind it. In fact, it is unusual for the mechanism that triggers a disease to be known. To date, research has only been able to demonstrate that EMF increases the risk of cancer, which is not sufficient for the WHO for setting exposure limits.
Dose-responce
As with other types of exposure, the dose depends as much on time as on the intensity or strength of the electromagnetic fields. The WHO is aware of this relationship but does not utilise it. The limits used in the West are based on thresholds below which there should be no risk, ever. The WHO writes that these limits require a good understanding of the mechanisms that create the effects, and assumes that thresholds really exist and that there are no cumulative effects, meaning they do not build up over time.
To prove that cumulative effects exist, the WHO requires evidence 'that small amounts of damage may be occurring from low level (sub-threshold) exposure and that an accumulation of this damage is necessary before it becomes detectable. Further, there is a dependence on information from extensive research, including long-term followup studies. Without such studies, it is possible that illnesses or effects which manifest themselves after a long latency period would be excluded from consideration'.8 However, the research on which the WHO's recommended exposure limits are based does not include any such studies.
The result
Adopting the WHO's guidance to setting exposure limits has resulted in protection against the stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, as well as elevated tissue temperature.9 In short, they only protect against accidents, not diseases, but only in humans. Plants, animals and insects are not covered.
The question is whether the WHO's approach is intended to protect people from the adverse effects of technology, or if it is actually the other way around. Was it created to safeguard the decisions made in the 1950s that protected people in the armed forces and workplaces, and are now being used to protect us from birth to death?
The answer lies in the WHO's initial stance that a biological approach is unreasonable. Whether technological advances or health should come in the first place is a philosophical and political question.
Anchored in politics
The WHO's handling of electromagnetic field limits has solid political backing. In its EMF project, the WHO collaborates with various organisations, including the European Commission, NATO and the International Labour Organization (ILO).10 The ILO is made up of government representatives (50%), trade union representatives (25%) and industry representatives (25%), which gives it significant political influence.
Engineering and marketing
The ICNIRP has a central position among WHO's collaborators. The ICNIRP sets the limits and the WHO promotes them internationally.11 ICNIRP stands for International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. The Framework for Developing Health-Based EMF Standards refers to both ICNIRP and IEEE ten times each. Often simultaneously. IEEE stands for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers . The basis for the ICNIRP radiofrequency exposure limits is inherited from the IEEE.
More reading on our page Limits and levels about