Perrin Anne, Soques Martine (eds.) Electromagnetic Fields, Environment and Health

175 Pages·2016·2.88 MB·English

Electromagnetic Fields, Environment and Health
Anne Perrin Martine Souques
•
Editors
Electromagnetic Fields,
Environment and Health
123
Editors
AnnePerrin Martine Souques
CRSSA,Département de Radiobiologie Service desÉtudes Médicales
Institutde Recherche Biomédicale EDF-DRH Groupe
des Armées Levallois-Perret Cedex
La Tronche France
France
Translation from the French language edition ‘Champs électromagnétiques, environnement et santé’
byAnnePerrinandMartineSouques(Eds.),(cid:2)Springer-VerlagFrance,Paris,2010;ISBN:978-2-8178-
0132-2
ISBN 978-2-8178-0362-3 ISBN 978-2-8178-0363-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-2-8178-0363-0
SpringerParisHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2012952673
(cid:2)Springer-VerlagFrance2012
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor
informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purposeofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthe
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of
theCopyrightLawofthePublisher’slocation,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalways
beobtainedfromSpringer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyright
ClearanceCenter.ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor
anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with
respecttothematerialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Thisbookisanupdatedandrestructuredversion
ofthework‘‘LesEffetsbiologiquesdes
rayonnements non ionisants’’ (The biological
effects of non-ionising radiation) published in
2001 (A. Duchêne and J. Joussot-Dubien,
Flammarion,coll.‘‘Médecine-Sciences’’).
It is dedicated to Jacques Joussot-Dubien,
who died on the 28th May 2009. President of
the Non-Ionising Radiation Section of the
SFRP (French Society for Radiation
Protection) from 1999 to 2003, he was
always a faithful and dynamic member of the
section office and constantly willing to share
his knowledge
Foreword
Electrosmog.Electromagneticpollution.Termsthathavebecomeacommonusein
many countries and reflect the awareness that, with the continuous and rapid
spreadingofnewtechnologies,ourlivingenvironmentismoreandmorepermeated
byelectromagneticwaves.But,evokingsmogandpollution,thesetermsalsoreflect
thediffusedconvincementthatsuchpresencerepresentsathreatforhumanhealth.
Whiletechnologicaldevelopmentshavealwaysbeenaccompaniedbyconcerns,
few agents have created as many controversies and worries as electromagnetic
fields. But are these worries really justified? And are they same for all kinds and
sources of non-ionising radiation? We often forget that also visible light, ultra-
violet radiation and infrared radiation are electromagnetic waves.
Thesequestionswereraisedbyscientistslongtimebeforetheybecameasocial
issue. Human bodiesare fullofelectric charges and most physiological processes
are regulated by electrical mechanisms. It is quite obvious that any electromag-
neticstimulusnecessarilyevokessomebiologicalresponse.Anditisalsoobvious
that,iftheexternalfieldishighenough,theseresponsesresultinanadversehealth
effect: according to Paracelsus’ famous sentence ‘‘the dose makes the poison’’.
Ahugenumberofstudieshavebeenperformedinthepastdecades,andhealth
effects that have been clearly identified occur as an immediate consequence of
exposure above certain thresholds. Based on this knowledge, protectionstandards
have been developed by international protection bodies, and adopted by several
countries all over the world.
Themainreasonforconcern,however,isthepossibilitythatchronicexposureto
lowlevelofnon-ionisingradiationmayleadtolong-termeffects,suchascanceror
degenerativediseases.Thequestionrequirestheconcourseofdifferentdisciplines,
fromepidemiologytobiologyandphysics,andtheanswersarenecessarilyaffected
by some uncertainty, that is also reflected in the classification by IARC (the
International Agency for Research on Cancer) of both low- and high-frequency
electromagneticfields as‘‘possibly’’carcinogenic inhumans.
The interpretation of data, and the evaluation of health risk, is a matter of
debate among experts, as is common in science, but what is most relevant is the
discrepancy between the general consensus of the scientific community and the
vii
viii Foreword
feeling of lay people. While the World Health Organisation, as well a number of
recognised scientific institutions conclude that there is no clear and convincing
evidenceoflong-termadverseeffectsofelectromagneticfields,astrongopposition
continues against powerlines, broadcasting antennas andbase stations for mobile
telephony. In contrast, though UV radiation has been classified by IARC as
definitelycarcinogenic(apartfromothernegativeeffects),thepopularityofnatural
and artificial sunbathing is far from decreasing.
Why such a big difference between the evaluation of risks by experts and the
perceptionofthesamerisksbythegeneralpublic?Sociologistsandpsychologists
have widely investigated the matter, identifying several factors that affect risk
perception. Some factors help to explain the different attitude toward optical and
non-optical radiation,for examplethe familiaritywith the agent anditsnaturalor
artificial origin. However, most are in one way or another related to information:
attention by media, knowledge of the agent, understanding of interaction mecha-
nisms, appreciation of uncertainties.
The need for correct and clear information is deeply felt by citizens, as indi-
cated by several surveys including the recent Eurobarometer of the European
Commission. That may sound paradoxical if we consider the huge number of
documents that may be found in bookshops or in the net. But rigorous scientific
reports are generally written in a technical language, while plain texts are often
authored by people without adequate knowledge and qualification.
The book edited by Anne Perrin and Martine Souques is unique inthis regard,
andfillsagapintheexistingliterature.Itcoversinasystematicwayalltheareas
ofnon-ionisingradiation,allowingcomparisonandappreciationofsimilaritiesand
differences in both the scientific knowledge and the protection approach. Such
comprehensive review covers parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, namely
intermediate frequency and infrared radiation, often neglected in spite of the
increasing applications. And it also highlights possible beneficial effects of elec-
tromagnetic fields and their potential for application in medicine.
The authors of individual chapters are internationally recognised experts, who
have succeeded in the difficult task of conjugating scientific rigor with a plain
language.
Thebookcanbereadinitsentiretytogetacomprehensiveviewofissuesthat
havebecomecrucialinthepresenttechnologicalworld.But,itcanalsobeusedas
atextbookinschools,orasareferencemanualforemployers,medicaldoctorsand
health officers or as a guidance for regulators and decision makers.
Finally, and most important, thanks to its balanced view and presentation of
scientific evidence, it may substantially help to create a common ground of
knowledge and understanding, as a necessary basis for the solution of contro-
versies and mitigation of worries.
P. Vecchia
Chairman of the International Commission
on Non-Ionising Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) from 2004–2012
Preface
Scienceistodaythebestmeansofapproachingreality
atagivenmoment.Althoughitsaimisnottoenlighten
us on the meaning of life or to provide us with ‘the
Truth’,itcancontributetoprovidingdecisionmakers
and the general public who make the effort with the
foundations on which to form their own opinion.
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
Human beings, like all living organisms, have always been exposed to natural
radiations,someofwhichhaveenabledthedevelopmentofbiodiversityandwhich
remain indispensable for life. Nowadays, our exposure to electromagnetic fields
comes from numerous sources, both natural and artificial. The multiplication of
artificial sources is linked to technological development. In particular, daily
exposure to electromagnetic waves has diversified since the installation of elec-
trical power grids and the development of radio broadcasting at the beginning of
the past century. This electromagnetic environment is sometimes known as
‘‘electrosmog’’. The natural or artificial nature of the exposure occupies a pre-
ponderantplaceincurrentconsiderationsonthepotentialenvironmentalrisksand
the controversies that accompany them.
Therangeofelectromagneticwaves,orradiations,isvast.Theelectromagnetic
spectrumextendsfromzerofrequencywithstaticelectricandmagneticfieldsupto
infinity(cosmicradiations).Although,theyallhaveacommonphysicalbasis,the
energy conveyed by the waves is highly variable. In propagating, they invest a
space known as an electromagnetic field, where the term ‘‘field’’ refers more
generally to an area where forces are exerted, in the same way as one refers to a
gravitationalfield,ormoremetaphorically,anactionfield.Ithasbeenknownfora
little more than a century that these radiations result in a large range of physical
phenomena as different as static magnetic fields, electricity, radio waves, micro-
waves, visible light, Sun’s rays, X-rays, radioactivity etc. As a result of their
curious and inventive nature, humans have not failed to explore their properties
andquitenaturallyputthemtousefulpurposes,togracetheirdailylivesortouse
ix
x Preface
them inmanydifferent medical, industrial ormilitary applications. Ourqualityof
life has become so heavily dependent on the technological advances due to our
masteryofthesedifferentwaves,itwouldnowbedifficulttoimaginereturningto
an everyday life without electricity, television, remote controls of all types, radio
or wireless telephones.
Biological or health effects result from the nature of the wave-matter interac-
tions, depending on the type of wave and associated with a sufficient power of
emission. In fact, the physical variables to take into account vary as a function of
thefrequency.Inthehigherfrequencyrangesofthespectrum,radiationknownas
ionising radiation has sufficient energy to modify the molecules by tearing off
electrons through a phenomenon of ionisation*. This mechanism may result in
modifications stemming from poorly repaired breaks within DNA* molecules
which are the support for genetic information (mutations). This confers a muta-
genic* character to the radiations concerned, which can, as a consequence, prove
to be carcinogenic. This is the case for example with gamma rays.
In contrast, electromagnetic fields and radiations whose energy is too low to
lead to ionisation in the media that they pass through are grouped together under
the generic term of non-ionising radiation (NIR). Their mode of action on the
organism is different, based on the circulation of currents and/or heating phe-
nomena, depending on the frequency. Ultraviolet radiations lie at the interface
betweenionisingandnon-ionisingradiation,buttheyareclassedwithinthefamily
of NIR even though they are established mutagens. A common error consists in
thinking that the potential hazardousness of a NIR increases the higher its fre-
quency,whichisnotthecasesincewave-matterinteractionandpoweralsohaveto
be taken into account.
Withtheexceptionoflight,theradiationsofthewholerangearenotperceived
immediately by our senses under normal conditions. In fact, all the radiation
frequencies are often difficult to conceive in their physical reality, which some-
timesmakesusdemonisethemor,quitetheopposite,ignorethemandnottobeon
our guard against them when it is necessary.
ThisworkonlycoversNIRand,inparticular,thosewhicharepartofourdaily
environment.
Extravigilanceisnecessarywithregardtothepossiblerisks,evenminor,ofsuch
exposures, because they concern a large number of people. Consequently, it is
necessarytoenvisageobjectivelythepotentialeffectsofsuchexposuresonhealthin
ordertobeabletoprotectourselveswithfullknowledgeofthefacts.Thisjustifiesa
meticulousanalysisoftheeffectsofNIRonbiologicalsystemsandtheinfluencethat
they are likely to have on humans themselves in order to establish maximum
exposure limits, guaranteeing the absence of any risks to health (regulations, rec-
ommendations).Thestudiesaregenerallyverycomplextosetup.Suchstudiescall
onexpertiseinbothphysicsandbiomedicalsciences,resultingincross-disciplinary
collaborationsbetweenteamsofresearchers.Itisinthissensethatresearchprojects
are currently being conducted all over the world. These may involve epidemio-
logical studies inreal environments orlaboratory experiments. Thelatter requires
specialisedandoftencostlyequipmentandcallondifferenttechniques,depending
Preface xi
on the type of wave and the effects considered. Consequently, the specialists
themselvesfocustheirexpertiseonpartofthespectrumandarenotexpertsforall
typesofradiation.
Standardsexistthataimtoaverttheharmfuleffectsthatcouldbebroughtabout
byexposuretoNIRundercertainconditions.InEurope,thesestandardsarebased
on the works of the ICNIRP,1 which defines the basic restrictions (recommended
thresholds)usedtoestablishEuropeanrecommendationsanddirectives,whichare
inturnemployed ineach country to draft appropriate decrees aiming toapply the
regulationsinapracticalmanner.Fortheevaluationofrisks,theICNIRPbasesits
conclusions on a critical review of the scientific literature and keeps a permanent
track of the bibliography. The United States follow the recommendations of the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for electromagnetic
radiation with the exception of optical radiation.2 In parallel, expert appraisal
reportsandopinionscanbedeliveredbyinstitutionssuchastheWHO3onaglobal
level, or Afsset4 (now known as Anses5) in France. Such organisations make it
possibletoensurethatthelimitvaluesaresufficientlyprotectiveregardingtheuse
of NIR, particularly by new technologies, and promote avenues of research if
necessary.Onanationalscale,theseopinionsprovidegovernanceaidsintermsof
risk management. Governmental authorities are responsible for taking the mea-
sures considered necessary to protect the public on the basis of the scientific data
whiletakingaccountofsocietalaspects,whichdoesnotalwaysnecessarilyleadto
decisions founded on scientific rationality.
In the present context, where communications are dominated by short and
mediatisedmessages,itisnoteasytoprovidethepublicinformationofascientific
nature on electromagnetic fields, nor on their biological and health effects, in a
language that can easily be understood by everybody. Biological effects found in
experimental studies are sometimes directly assimilated with health effects,
although this is not necessarily the case. In addition, in order for an effect to be
established, it must be able to be reproduced not only when the experiment is
repeated, but also in several different studies giving consistent results. Numerous
false or preconceived notions circulate concerning the effects of NIR. There is
sometimesanexcessivesimplificationofthequestion,unfortunateamalgams,ora
1 ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, is an non-
governmentalorganisation(NGO)stemmingfromInternationalRadiationProtectionAssociation
(IRPA), officially recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International
LaborOrganisation(ILO)inthefieldofnon-ionisingradiation. http://www.icnirp.org/.
2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (2005) IEEE standard for safety levels with
respecttohumanexposuretoradiofrequencyelectromagneticfields,3kHzto300GHz.IEEEStd
C95.1.
3 WorldHealthOrganisation.
4 Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail (Afsset), French
AgencyforEnvironmentalandOccupationalHealth&Safety.
5 Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail
(Anses),FrenchAgencyforFood,EnvironmentalandOccupationalHealth&Safety.