----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Michrowski
For your records.
------- Original Message Follows -------
From: Elizabeth Kelley
Subject: European Parliament EMF Committee Votes
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:37:30 -0700
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
On Health Concerns Associated with Electromagnetic Fields
In a 43-1 vote, the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted OVERWHELMINGLY a Resolution urging the European Commission to recognize growing public and scientific concern over health risks from electromagnetic fields. The Resolution will be voted on in plenary by the full Parliament on 26 March 2009.
This vote by the Parliament's Environmental Committee on February 23, 2009 mirrors the 522-16 vote by the full Parliament last September on the EU Environment and Health Action Plan which called on the European Council to 'amend its Recommendation 1999/519/EC in order to take into account the Member States' best practices and thus to set stricter exposure limits for all equipment which emits electromagnetic fields in the frequencies between 0.1 MHz and 300 GHz'.
The Resolution identified existing conditions that have lead to the need for the Commission to take urgent notice and take action to address the exponential growth of new technologies that may place societies at increased health risks, and to review the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF limits.
Highlights of Adopted Motion (Summary of 29 Points Adopted in Resolution)
• Calls for review of adequacy of the existing EMF limits.
• Calls for specific consideration of biological effects.
• Calls for Member States and industry to address new technologies to reduce EMF exposure
• Encourages negotiation for new cell siting and transmission lines to avoid siting too close to schools, retirement homes, and health care institutions.
• Calls for studies on electromagnetic compatibility of artificial EMF with the living human body.
• Calls on the Commission to issue an annual report on EU levels of EMF and actions taken to protect human health and the environment.
• Calls for worker protection from EMF (steps to speed implementation of Directive 2004/40/EC)
• Deplores the delay in publication of the final Interphone Report, and asks the Commission to ask those in charge of the Interphone Project why no definitive findings have been published and, should it receive an answer, to inform Parliament and the Member States without delay.
• Requests the Commission to earmark funds for awareness campaigns for young Europeans who are cell phone users, including information on health risks and safer methods of use.
• Calls for ICNIRP and WHO to be more transparent and open to dialogue in standard-setting
• Proposes the EU's Indoor Air Quality policy should encompass study of wireless (indoor WIFI, DECT at home) and in public venues.
• Calls for improved consumer information and labelling on wireless devices.
• Calls for a single standard for ELF exposure along electric high-voltage grids.
• Calls on Member States to recognize persons that suffer from electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate protection as well as equal opportunities (as Sweden has done).
• Instructs its President to forward the Resolution to the Council, the Commissions, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Committee of the Regions and the WHO.
The full Report and result of final vote in Committee can be viewed at:
Prepared by Cindy Sage, Co-Faciliator, CHE-EMF and Genon Jensen, Executive Director, Health and Environmental Alliance
NCRP Report No. 160 on increased average radiation exposure of the US population
Average radiation exposure of the US population requires perspective and caution
COLLEGE PARK, MD (March 3, 2009) -- Scientists at the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) are offering additional background information to help the public avoid misinterpreting the findings contained in a report issued today by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a non-profit body chartered by the U.S. Congress to make recommendations on radiation protection and measurements. The report is not without scientific controversy and requires careful interpretation NCRP Report No. 160 updates the 1987 publication, NCRP report No. 93, on the sources of ionizing radiation to the general public in the United States. It examines the various sources of ionizing radiation in the United States, estimates the total amount of radiation delivered in 2006, and compares those amounts to the estimates published in 1987. Among other findings, the naturally-occurring amounts of radiation have changed little in the last two decades. However, a key finding of the report is that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of radiation from medical imaging procedures, including computed tomography (CT) and cardiac nuclear medicine examinations.
The report does not, however, "attempt to quantify the associated health risks nor specify the actions that should be taken in light of these latest data," and AAPM experts are cautioning that these data do not necessarily indicate that the U.S. population is at any higher risk due to this increased use of medical imaging. They caution that the new report should not deter patients from getting medically-appropriate imaging exams. The NCRP findings on average population dose could be easily misinterpreted if applied to an individual patient's medical situation.
"Tens of millions of CT scans are performed each year in the United States, and their benefits are enormous," says Gerald A. White, M.S., FAAPM, FACR, Chairman of the Board of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the premiere professional and scientific association of medical physicists, which is comprised of research scientists and board-certified health professionals who specialize in the use of radiation in medicine.
Medical imaging, which includes procedures such as CT scans, cardiac catheterization studies, and nuclear medicine positron emission tomography (PET) exams, has revolutionized medicine in the last few decades. For example, CT scans provide pictures from deep inside a patient's body with unprecedented clarity. These images help doctors diagnose unseen illnesses and injuries, and they guide treatment for millions of patients annually in the United States.
"The medical information derived from CT scans literally saves thousands of American lives on a daily basis," says John M. Boone, Ph.D., FAAPM, FACR, Chairman of AAPM's Science Council and professor and vice chairman of radiology at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. "CT scans are critical for guiding the treatment of people who are in car accidents, people diagnosed with cancer, people who have blood clots in their lungs, and a vast number of other symptoms and conditions."
Even so, in the last few years reports in the medical literature and in the popular press have affected public perceptions of CT scans by raising questions of risk related to the use of X-rays, which in very high doses have the potential to damage cells and cause cancer.
The new NCRP report falls squarely into this controversy because it estimates the total U.S. exposure to all sources of ionizing radiation has increased six-fold since 1980 -- with about half of this increase due to CT scans.
This increase is easily misinterpreted, however, because the report calculates the total radiation dose for all CT scans performed in 2006 and divides that by the U.S. population for that year. What is not considered in this global averaging approach is that CT scans are given disproportionally to certain people and groups -- for example, the elderly, people admitted to hospitals for serious trauma, and cancer patients having scans to evaluate their response to treatment. The vast majority of Americans receive no radiation from medical imaging at all, or they receive imaging exams that do not use ionizing radiation, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound procedures.
"Adding up all the doses and then spreading out the total over the entire population, no matter a person's age, occupation, location, or health status is not appropriate for assessing risk to the general population," says Cynthia McCollough, Ph.D., FAAPM, FACR, who is a professor of radiological physics at the Mayo Clinic and who chaired an AAPM Task Group that issued a CT radiation dose management report last year. "The NCRP report is very clear in this regard. The data summarize the sources and amounts of radiation exposure in the U.S. and the total values are normalized to the total U.S. population. The values reported are not appropriate for estimating potential health effects."
McCollough points out that the medical applications of CT have grown tremendously in the last few decades as the technology has become more and more sophisticated, often replacing more risky invasive or less accurate alternative tests. CT and other medical imaging procedures have nearly eliminated exploratory surgery and enabled minimally invasive surgery both which have shortened or eliminated hospitalization and reduced the risk of surgery related co-morbidity like infection. CT scanners have also reduced the volumes of radiation therapy fields, thereby reducing the probability of radiation harm, including second malignancies.
While the absolute number of CT exams has grown considerably since the 1980s, CT scanners can now tailor the radiation dose to the specific exam type and individual. All modern CT systems are now equipped with automatic exposure control systems that reduce patient dose levels to the minimum necessary for the examination.
In fact, adds McCollough, "The average dose per CT exam has fallen by a factor of 2-3 since the early 1980s. There are simply more people getting CT exams."
The AAPM strongly supports that appropriate utilization standards be applied for all procedures using ionizing radiation. AAPM members contribute to the safety and quality of CT imaging by developing reports such as Dr. McCollough's, which gives the most current standards for CT dose measurement techniques and discusses how facilities can reduce radiation dosages by adjusting the radiation exposure according to each patient's size. Steps like these are taken to ensure the maximum benefit to patients while minimizing their risk. In addition, medical physicists are required to be involved in ACR Accreditation programs, which ensure that radiation exposures are as low as reasonably achievable.
"For an appropriately ordered CT examination, an individual derives much greater benefit than risk," says AAPM past-president Richard L. Morin, Ph.D, FAAPM, FACR, who is a medical physicist and Brooks-Hollern Professor at Mayo Clinic Florida. "Ultimately, people who are scheduled to have CT exams should understand why their doctors have requested the exam – if the test will provide information to assist in their medical care, they should not worry about having the exam. There are likely higher risks associated with failing to have a needed medical test, as the correct diagnosis or treatment decision could be delayed or missed."
EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEWS
If you would like to schedule an interview with any of the following people, please contact Jason Bardi (American Institute of Physics) at 858-775-4080 or email@example.com.
Cynthia McCollough, Ph.D., FACR, FAAPM,
Professor of Radiological Physics
Director, CT Clinical Innovation Center
Department of Radiology
Rochester, MN 55920
Richard L. Morin, Ph.D., FAAPM, FACR
Brooks - Hollern Professor
Department of Radiology
Mayo Clinic Florida
John M. Boone, Ph.D., FAAPM, FACR
Chair of AAPM's Science Council
Professor and Vice Chair (Research) of Radiology
Professor of Biomedical Engineering
University of California Davis Medical Center
Gerald A. White, M.S., FAAPM, FACR,
Chairman of the Board of the AAPM
Penrose Cancer Center
Colorado Springs, CO
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE
- NCPR Web site: http://www.ncrponline.org/.
- NCRP Report No. 160, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States" can be found at http://www.ncrponline.org/PDFs/Elec_prepub_160.pdf.
- An AAPM report on CT technology and its clinical uses: http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_96.pdf.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) page on the radiation risks of CT: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html.
The Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging's Image Gently Campaign: http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig/.
The AAPM is a scientific, educational, and professional nonprofit organization whose mission is to advance the application physics to the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. The Association encourages innovative research and development, helps disseminate scientific and technical information, fosters the education and professional development of medical physicists, and promotes the highest quality medical services for patients. In 2008, AAPM celebrated its 50th year of serving patients, physicians, and physicists. Please visit the Association Web site at http://www.aapm.org/.
There's a new report out showing once again that RF radiation can lead to DNA breaks --this time in combination with a chemical mutatgen. But the findings are unexpected and surprising. Nothing about RF health research comes easy! Read the whole story at:
[Please note that our home page is expandable. The
story is easier to read when you make the window larger.]
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Phone: +1 (212) 517-2800; Fax: +1 (212) 734-0316
Mail: 155 East 77th Street, Suite 3D
New York, NY 10075, U.S.A.
P.S. Access to all the information on our Web site is freely available to all. Please help support Microwave News: Send us a contribution so we can stay on the Web. We now accept PayPal and credit cards.
P.P.S. We hate spam too. If you don't want to continue receiving these updates, just send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org and we'll remove you from our mailing list.
P.P.P.S. For those of you who receive this message from a friend or associate and wish to sign up for our free e-mails, please register at
Also note that if you have a spam blocker that might bounce our e-mails, please put us in your address book. When an e-mail is returned to us, we automatically delete the address from our mailing list.