Forschung > Wissenschaftlicher Kenntnisstand > 2005
2005

  • WHO: Children and Mobile Phones, International

    2005

    World Health Organization (WHO)

    Children and Mobile Phones: Clarification statement

    “To date, all expert reviews on the health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the same conclusion: There have been no adverse health consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below the international guidelines on exposure limits published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998).” (see website, last visited 10.10.2010, last visited 10.10.2010)

    http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/ottawa_june05/en/index4.html

  • WHO Fact Sheet 293, International

    2005

    World Health Organisation (WHO)

    WHO Fact sheet Nr. 296: Electromagnetic fields and public health: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity,

    “EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.” (see conclusions)

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/

  • SSI Report 2005, Sweden

    2005

    The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI)

    Reports from SSI‘s International Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields

    "The focus of this report is on epidemiological and experimental cancer research, blood-brain barrier and heat shock proteins. In none of these areas have there been breakthrough results that have warranted firm conclusions in one way or the other. It is worth noting, however, that intense research is currently ongoing in several countries and new data will gradually become available. Given the complexity of the research area it is essential that both positive and negative results be replicated before accepted. Given the increase of new technologies, it is essential to follow various possible health effects from the very beginning, particularly since such effects may be detected only after a long duration, due to the prolonged latency period of many chronic diseases. Thus, more research is needed to address long-term exposure, as well as diseases other than those included in the ongoing case-control studies." (see page 9)

    http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/Global/Publikationer/Rapport/Stralskydd/2005/ssi-rapp-2005-01.pdf

  • Opinion on Mobile Telephony, France

    2005

    Agency for Environmental Health Safety (AFSSE)

    Afsse Opinion on Mobile Telephony, agence francaise de sécurité sanitaire environnemenetale

    “The Afsse observes that no new scientific data published since its previous expert report reveal a health risk relationg from mobile telephone base stations.” (see page 8)

    http://www.afsset.fr/upload/bibliotheque/230562873001035392960231527419/opinion_mobile_telephony_2005.pdf

  • NRPB Report 2005, United Kingdom

    2005

    National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)

    A Summary of Recent Reports on Mobile Phones and Health (2000–2004)

    “Further, these reports stress that very low level exposures, typical of base stations, are extremely unlikely to cause any effects on biophysical grounds, whereas localised exposure, typical those from mobile phones, may induce effects as a result of mild heatinf of superficial tissues close to the handset.” (see page 3)

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947376017

  • MUT-Projekt “Mobilfunk und Gesundheit"”, Deutschland

    2005

    Forschungszentrum Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technologie (MUT)

    Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zu den Risikopotenzialen von hochfrequenten elektromagnetischen Feldern des Mobilfunks

    “Insgesamt erhärtet sich im Hinblick auf die sechs untersuchten Bereiche die Hypothese nicht, dass EMF des Mobilfunks gesundheitsschädliche Wirkungen haben..” (see website, last visited 10.10.2010)

    http://www.emf-risiko.de/projekte/ergeb_bewlit.html

  • GR Report on EMF 2005, The Netherlands

    2005

    Health Council of the Netherlands (Gezondheidsraad)

    Electromagnetic Fields: Annual Update 2005

    “The overall picture that emerges from the studies described in this chapter is that there is insufficient evidence of a connection between living in the immediate vicinity of a radio or television transmitter and increased risk of leukaemia or any other form of cancer.“ (see page 97)

    http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/05@14N+E.pdf

  • CDC Fact Sheet, US

    2005

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC)

    CDC Fact Sheet: Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health

    “In the last 10 years, hundreds of new research studies have been done to more directly study possible effects of cell phone use. Although some studies have raised concerns, the scientific research, when taken together, does not indicate a significant association between cell phone use and health effects.” (see page 1)

    http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/factsheets/cellphone_facts.pdf

  • Advice on Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, United Kingdom

    2005

    National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)

    Statement by the National Radiological Protection Board and Advice on Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0-300 GHz), Documents of the National Radiological Protection Board Volume 15 No 5 2004

    “The Board of NRPB has recommended the adoption in the UK of the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) between o and 300 GHz. This foloows a thorough review of curent scientific knowledge on the effects of EMFs and an extensive consultation exercise. The Board recognises the need to adopt a cautious approach in the interpretation of scientifc knowledge and the benefits of common international guidelines.” (see page 1)

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947415497