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.