Electromagnetic waves do not appear to be harmful to human health, but if in doubt, it would be better to introduce more restrictive standards to reduce public exposure. This is the Afsset's half-fig, half-grape conclusion, which has just produced a detailed report.
Over the past 20 years, radio frequency technologies and their applications have multiplied and amplified. The sources of emission of electromagnetic fields (mobile telephony, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, etc.) have increased and health questions are emerging. What are their biological effects? What should the exposure threshold standards be? Who are the target populations? In 2007, the Ministries of Health and the Environment asked Afsset (French Agency for Environmental and Work Health Safety) to answer these questions. The eagerly awaited report has just been published.
At home, in the office and even in the street, Wi-Fi, mobile telephones and the like emit their waves. © Joe Mabel CC by-sa
According to the report Updating the expertise relating to radio frequencies published on October 15, 2009, undeniable effects on cellular functions are highlighted for frequencies lower than those of mobile phones. However, no interaction mechanism between radio frequencies and living cells has been identified. Overall, the level of evidence indicating biological or epidemiological effects is considered insufficient. The uncertainties noted in studies and public questioning, however, require certain measures to be taken.
Afsset therefore recommends to:
* Develop research, to remove the uncertainties that remain and to be on the lookout for new signals that would emerge. Experts believe that there is still much to be done to improve exposure measurement methods and study methodology. Furthermore, they express doubts about the long-term effects, particularly in the workplace;
* When in doubt, reduce public exposure. Afsset recommends displaying the Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) on devices to allow consumers to choose those that expose them the least. It also recommends mapping the national territory to identify the points where the wave levels are highest and act accordingly;
* To inform all of the players in society with more openness and transparency. To facilitate understanding of the issues and reduce the distance between the scientific risk and the risk felt by the populations, Afsset encourages the association of all the players further upstream of the expertise and decision-making processes. It also recommends the opening of public debates on scientific and technical issues.
Specialists on the same wavelength
This report is the result of a multidisciplinary working group made up of experts in medicine, biology, biophysics, metrology (measurement science) of electromagnetic fields, epidemiology and human and social sciences. , as well as an observer from the associative world (Priartém association). The study was based on the bibliographic analysis of scientific work and international reports and extended to all radio frequencies. His expertise covered the fields of biological and health effects, exposure of populations, international regulations and public perception of risks.
The study of biological effects was complex for two reasons. On the one hand, as the report recalls, “the observation of a biological effect, a fortiori under experimental conditions, does not necessarily mean that it causes damage and even less that it results in an effect on the health ”and on the other hand, many studies did not have the rigor expected in dosimetry (measurement of radiation doses) and in methodology.
Mobile phones operate on high frequencies: from 880 MHz (GSM 900) to 2.170 MHz (UMTS). © Robertvan1 CC by-sa
Two frequency bands have been defined for the study of these effects, according to their specificities (modes of action, applications concerned, data available). The first, from 9 kHz to 400 MHz (broadcasting and professional applications), has been subdivided according to the effect of radio frequencies:
* Up to 100 kHz, electromagnetic fields can cause stimulation of excitable tissues (muscles, nervous system);
* Above 10 MHz, the radio frequencies are absorbed and cause thermal effects;
* Between these two limits, the two effects exist.
The synthesis of the selected scientific works shows that from 9 kHz to 10 MHz (broadcasting, RFID, medical applications), the exposure is extremely difficult to characterize. The alleged deleterious effects on human health could not be confirmed or denied. However, the growing evolution of exposure to this radio frequency band and the observation of effects on cell division require further research in this area. From 10 MHz to 400 MHz (industrial and medical applications), the evaluation of occupational exposure is difficult to carry out. If the effects observed are limited and contradictory, certain observations encourage further research.
Beyond 400 MHz, (television, mobile telephony, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, radars ...) 78 studies on animals and 19 on humans were selected from the initial 182 and 44, respectively. They invalidated the hypotheses of carcinogenic, genotoxic, mutagenic, cellular stress, oxidative and physiological effects. The report notes, however, that "the majority of studies do not suggest health effects, with the exception of a few results, limited to a slight increase in minor morphological malformations in animals. These minor and non-specific effects seem limited to certain animal species and are difficult to extrapolate to humans ”.
The absence of clear-cut answers, the next release of the Intercom report and the number of studies discarded for lack of rigor will not fail to fuel the Grenelle des waves debate. When in doubt, the only things to do are to limit exposure and continue research ... which is precisely what Afsset recommends.
