Presentación del Dr. Mike Repacholi, presidente emérito del ICNIPR (Comisión Internacional de Protección contra la Radiación No Ionizante) y Miembro del Comité Asesor Internacional del Proyecto de EMF Internacional de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, durante el II Foro Internacional "Antenas y Telecomunicaciones; Inclusiòn, Desarrollo y Salud Humana. . Repacholi fue ex presidente de la Asociación de Protección de Radiación Italiana (AIRP), y de la Asociación Europea de Bioelectromagnetismo (EBEA). Profesor de Fundamentos de Protección contra Radiación No Ionizante de la Escuela de Postgrado de Física dela Salud de la Universidad "Tor Vergata" en Roma. Ha escrito más de 100 papers científicos en revistas.

1. Dr Mike RepacholiDr Mike Repacholi
University of RomeUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”“La Sapienza”
Former Coordinator, WHO Program onFormer Coordinator, WHO Program on
Radiation and Environmental HealthRadiation and Environmental Health
Chairman Emeritus, ICNIRPChairman Emeritus, ICNIRP

2. Public concern about mobile phones andPublic concern about mobile phones and
base stations has continued for yearsbase stations has continued for years
Possible health consequences being thePossible health consequences being the
main reason. Brain cancer from mobilemain reason. Brain cancer from mobile
phone use is still a major issuephone use is still a major issue
BaseBase
stationsstations
andand mobilemobile
phonesphones

3. WiFi Networks are nowWiFi Networks are now
common in schools, airpocommon in schools, airpo
business centres andbusiness centres and
residential buildingsresidential buildings
Cafeteria atCafeteria at
WHO HQ,WHO HQ,
GenevaGeneva

5. Risk assessment to risk communicationRisk assessment to risk communication
Process used world wideProcess used world wide
 Evaluate scientific evidenceEvaluate scientific evidence
 Report current status of knowledgeReport current status of knowledge
 Identify gaps in knowledgeIdentify gaps in knowledge
 Promote and facilitate research programsPromote and facilitate research programs
 Conduct health risk assessments, risk estimationConduct health risk assessments, risk estimation
 Develop policy options for national authorities toDevelop policy options for national authorities to
protect the public and workers from any risksprotect the public and workers from any risks
 Communicate any risks and be open with the publicCommunicate any risks and be open with the public
 Keep the public informedKeep the public informed
 Repeat this process at appropriate intervals as newRepeat this process at appropriate intervals as new
research information becomes availableresearch information becomes available

6. Scientific reviewScientific review
 Evaluate scientific evidence:Evaluate scientific evidence: All the science mustAll the science must
be assessed to determine whether studies indicatebe assessed to determine whether studies indicate
any health risk. Where there is conflicting results,any health risk. Where there is conflicting results,
a weight-of-evidence from high quality studies isa weight-of-evidence from high quality studies is
used to make conclusionsused to make conclusions
 Report current status of knowledge:Report current status of knowledge: Publish thePublish the
results of reviews so everyone know what weresults of reviews so everyone know what we
know and where we need more information.know and where we need more information.
 Identify gaps in knowledge:Identify gaps in knowledge: It is important toIt is important to
know what further research is needed to increaseknow what further research is needed to increase
our knowledge to make better health riskour knowledge to make better health risk
assessments.assessments.

7. BiologicalBiological andand HealthHealth EffectsEffects
Working definitions for health risk assessments
 AA biological effectbiological effect is a measurableis a measurable
physiological response to EMF exposure…physiological response to EMF exposure…
not necessarily hazardous… this must benot necessarily hazardous… this must be
evaluated.evaluated.
 AnAn adverse health effectadverse health effect is a biological effectis a biological effect
outside the body's normal range ofoutside the body's normal range of
physiological compensation that isphysiological compensation that is
detrimental to health or well-being. These aredetrimental to health or well-being. These are
the only effects that health protectionthe only effects that health protection
programs should addressprograms should address

8. ResearchResearch
PromotePromote and facilitate research programs:and facilitate research programs:
From reviewing the various studies we can makeFrom reviewing the various studies we can make
certain conclusions about health risks, but incertain conclusions about health risks, but in
other areas of health we need to do targetedother areas of health we need to do targeted
research to fill gaps in our knowledge.research to fill gaps in our knowledge.
WHO promotes research to fill these gaps andWHO promotes research to fill these gaps and
provides excellent information to researchersprovides excellent information to researchers
around the world on what studies will be usefularound the world on what studies will be useful
to WHOto WHO’’s health risk assessment processs health risk assessment process

9. KEYKEY RESEARCHRESEARCH ISSUESISSUES
• Are children more sensitive to EMF thanAre children more sensitive to EMF than
adults?adults?
All evidence so far indicates children are not
more sensitive than adults to RF
• Will mobile phone use for >15 yearsWill mobile phone use for >15 years
cause brain cancers?cause brain cancers?
This is being addressed by cohort studies
Evidence so far is that this is not the case

10. RiskRisk assessmentassessment
 When most research has been completed to fillWhen most research has been completed to fill
gaps in knowledge, we conduct health riskgaps in knowledge, we conduct health risk
assessments and make estimates of any risks toassessments and make estimates of any risks to
health from exposure to RF signals. WHO ishealth from exposure to RF signals. WHO is
currently conducting this process for RF and itcurrently conducting this process for RF and it
will be published as an Environmental Healthwill be published as an Environmental Health
Criteria Monograph (EHC).Criteria Monograph (EHC).
 The EHC will include policy options for nationalThe EHC will include policy options for national
authorities to protect the public and workersauthorities to protect the public and workers
from any risks to health from exposure to RFfrom any risks to health from exposure to RF

11. RiskRisk communicationcommunication
It is very important to communicate any health risksIt is very important to communicate any health risks
to the public.to the public.
Updated reviews by government agencies on theUpdated reviews by government agencies on the
status of the science, in the form of press releasesstatus of the science, in the form of press releases
or other communications, is very important toor other communications, is very important to
maintain public confidence that the government ismaintain public confidence that the government is
knowledgeable about RF and health effects.knowledgeable about RF and health effects.
Be open with the public and clear about what weBe open with the public and clear about what we
know and donknow and don’’t know.t know.
WHO provides the very best source of informationWHO provides the very best source of information
for national and local governments in RF healthfor national and local governments in RF health
issues.issues.

12. Smoking PoloniumSmoking Polonium
 Smokers inhale about 0.04 pCi of
radioactive polonium 210 from each
cigarette (uranium daughters are
selectively absorbed by growing
tobacco plants)
 Po-210 is a highly toxic α-emitter..
highly damaging to lung tissue..
recently used to kill former Russian
spy (Alexander Litvinenko)
 30 cigarettes smoked each day gives
the same radiation dose to the lungs
as about 300 chest X-rays a year*
* Prof Robert N Procter (Stanford University) article in the HeraldProf Robert N Procter (Stanford University) article in the Herald
Tribune (2-3 Dec. 2006, p6)Tribune (2-3 Dec. 2006, p6)
Why do people choose to ignoreWhy do people choose to ignore
the science?the science?

13. KeepKeep abreastabreast ofof thethe sciencescience
 RepeatRepeat the whole risk assessment process atthe whole risk assessment process at
appropriate intervals as new researchappropriate intervals as new research
information becomes availableinformation becomes available
 Keep the public informed so they haveKeep the public informed so they have
confidence that regulators and health protectionconfidence that regulators and health protection
agencies are well-informed and can act if anyagencies are well-informed and can act if any
health risk is foundhealth risk is found
 Use information from WHO as your basis for anyUse information from WHO as your basis for any
necessary actions: There are many activists andnecessary actions: There are many activists and
activist publications (Bioinitiative report) toactivist publications (Bioinitiative report) to
misinform and scare the public unnecessarilymisinform and scare the public unnecessarily

14. BioInitiativeBioInitiative Report (2012)Report (2012)
• PublishedPublished by Sage and Associates; well known activist inby Sage and Associates; well known activist in
USAUSA
• Reviewers include Louis Slesin editor of an activistReviewers include Louis Slesin editor of an activist
newsletternewsletter
• Chapters produced by individual authors; not aChapters produced by individual authors; not a
consensus reportconsensus report
• ClaimsClaims EMF causes many diseases..none established byEMF causes many diseases..none established by
any national or international review, including WHOany national or international review, including WHO
• Recommends limit 0.1 µW/cmRecommends limit 0.1 µW/cm22
(because other activist(because other activist
meetings suggested this) and stop WiFi until moremeetings suggested this) and stop WiFi until more
research doneresearch done
• An attempt to put the activist view in aAn attempt to put the activist view in a “scientific” report“scientific” report
• WHO uses all the literature and a weight-of-evidenceWHO uses all the literature and a weight-of-evidence
approachapproach

15. World Health OrganizationWorld Health Organization
WHO has been studying the possible health effects ofWHO has been studying the possible health effects of
RF for over 18 years: it’RF for over 18 years: it’s the best source of informations the best source of information
on EMF and health riskson EMF and health risks
WHO gathers the best scientists together, who have theWHO gathers the best scientists together, who have the
necessary range of disciplines to review the scientificnecessary range of disciplines to review the scientific
studies and assess if there are any health risksstudies and assess if there are any health risks
WHO reports on progress with the research, updates itsWHO reports on progress with the research, updates its
research agenda as needed, and is now conducting aresearch agenda as needed, and is now conducting a
formal health risk assessment process (EHC)formal health risk assessment process (EHC)
WHO provides easily understood factual information onWHO provides easily understood factual information on
its web site:its web site: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/

16. • RF exposures from base stations 0.002% to 2% ofRF exposures from base stations 0.002% to 2% of
ICNIRP… lower or comparable to radio or TVICNIRP… lower or comparable to radio or TV
• Only established health effect from RF fields..Only established health effect from RF fields..
increase in body temperature (>1°C). Basis forincrease in body temperature (>1°C). Basis for
ICNIRP guidelines. Need high field intensities toICNIRP guidelines. Need high field intensities to
increase temperatureincrease temperature
• No significant temperature rise from weak wirelessNo significant temperature rise from weak wireless
network RF signalsnetwork RF signals
• RF signals from wireless technologies in public areasRF signals from wireless technologies in public areas
(e.g. schools and hospitals) normally 1000s times(e.g. schools and hospitals) normally 1000s times
below ICNIRPbelow ICNIRP
WHO Fact Sheet #304 (May 2006)WHO Fact Sheet #304 (May 2006)
Base stations and wireless technologies (1)Base stations and wireless technologies (1)

17. • Body absorbs up to 5x more RF from FM radio andBody absorbs up to 5x more RF from FM radio and
TV than base stations… Because radio and TV useTV than base stations… Because radio and TV use
lower frequencies that the body absorbs more oflower frequencies that the body absorbs more of
than the higher mobile phone frequenciesthan the higher mobile phone frequencies
• Radio and TV have operated for over 50 yearsRadio and TV have operated for over 50 years
without any known health consequence…without any known health consequence…
• Digital versus analogue signals? There seems to beDigital versus analogue signals? There seems to be
no unique health effects due to different RFno unique health effects due to different RF
modulation because base station and wirelessmodulation because base station and wireless
technology signals are too weak… modulationtechnology signals are too weak… modulation
effects occur at much higher levels…effects occur at much higher levels…
WHO Fact Sheet #304 (May 2006)WHO Fact Sheet #304 (May 2006)
Base stations and wireless technologies (2)Base stations and wireless technologies (2)

18. •Not established that RF fields from base stationNot established that RF fields from base station
cause cancercause cancer
• Reported cancers in clusters are often a collection ofReported cancers in clusters are often a collection of
different types of cancer with no common causedifferent types of cancer with no common cause
•Cancers are unevenly distributed among populationsCancers are unevenly distributed among populations
so it is expected cancer clusters will occur near baseso it is expected cancer clusters will occur near base
stations merely by chance… because base stationsstations merely by chance… because base stations
are everywhereare everywhere
WHO Fact Sheet #304 (May2006)WHO Fact Sheet #304 (May2006)
Base stations and wireless technologies (3)Base stations and wireless technologies (3)
Health effects: CancerHealth effects: Cancer

19. WHO Fact Sheet #193 (June 2011)WHO Fact Sheet #193 (June 2011)
MobileMobile phones (1)phones (1)
Short-term health effectsShort-term health effects
• Studies have investigated the effects of RF fields onStudies have investigated the effects of RF fields on
brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep,brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep,
heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. Noheart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. No
consistent evidence of adverse health effects fromconsistent evidence of adverse health effects from
exposure to RF fields at levels below those thatexposure to RF fields at levels below those that
cause tissue heatingcause tissue heating
• No support for a causal relationship betweenNo support for a causal relationship between
exposure to RF and self-reported symptoms, orexposure to RF and self-reported symptoms, or
‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’

20. • While an increased risk of brain tumors is notWhile an increased risk of brain tumors is not
established, the increasing use of mobile phonesestablished, the increasing use of mobile phones
and the lack of data for mobile phone use over timeand the lack of data for mobile phone use over time
periods longer than 15 years warrant furtherperiods longer than 15 years warrant further
research on mobile phone use and brain cancerresearch on mobile phone use and brain cancer
riskrisk
• With the recent popularity of mobile phone useWith the recent popularity of mobile phone use
among younger people, and therefore a potentiallyamong younger people, and therefore a potentially
longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promotedlonger lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted
further research on this groupfurther research on this group
WHO Fact Sheet #193 (June 2011)WHO Fact Sheet #193 (June 2011)
Mobile phones (2)Mobile phones (2)
Health effects: Brain cancerHealth effects: Brain cancer

21. • No adverse short- or long-term health effects fromNo adverse short- or long-term health effects from
weak RF signals produced by base stations orweak RF signals produced by base stations or
wireless technologies or from mobile phoneswireless technologies or from mobile phones
See:See:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.htmlhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html#http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html#
WHO Fact Sheet #193 (June 2011)WHO Fact Sheet #193 (June 2011)
Mobile phones (3)Mobile phones (3)
Health effects: ConclusionHealth effects: Conclusion
• The same conclusion has been reached byThe same conclusion has been reached by
EVERYEVERY major international and national reviewmajor international and national review
For a listing of these reviews see:For a listing of these reviews see:
http://www.elettra2000.it/scienza/docs2.htm#inglesehttp://www.elettra2000.it/scienza/docs2.htm#inglese

22. • Its important to realise that peoplesIts important to realise that peoples’’ perceptionsperceptions
and conclusions may not be based on all theand conclusions may not be based on all the
factsfacts
• We need good quality science to confirm theWe need good quality science to confirm the
facts about RF health effects and to disseminatefacts about RF health effects and to disseminate
information to the publicinformation to the public
• But how to communicate?But how to communicate?
Peoples’ perceptions of riskPeoples’ perceptions of risk

23. Dealing with PeopleDealing with People’s Perceptions of’s Perceptions of
EMF RisksEMF Risks
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/risk_hand/en/index.htmlhttp://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/risk_hand/en/index.html

24.  Continue research: see WHOContinue research: see WHO’’s RF researchs RF research
agendaagenda
 Rely on risk assessments that use all the scientificRely on risk assessments that use all the scientific
literature and a weight-of-evidence approach, suchliterature and a weight-of-evidence approach, such
as WHO EHCs and ICNIRP guidelinesas WHO EHCs and ICNIRP guidelines
 Communicate protection measures to the public,Communicate protection measures to the public,
press and government agencies using soundlypress and government agencies using soundly
based facts and policies through dedicated webbased facts and policies through dedicated web
sites, brochures, press releases and interviews.sites, brochures, press releases and interviews.
 Disseminate information in an easily understoodDisseminate information in an easily understood
languagelanguage
RF fields:RF fields:
Way forward for national authoritiesWay forward for national authorities

25. Options to reduce RF field exposureOptions to reduce RF field exposure
from mobile telecommunicationsfrom mobile telecommunications
Base stationsBase stations
• Co-location of antennas where practicableCo-location of antennas where practicable
• Use of best practice engineering for antennasUse of best practice engineering for antennas
• Optimize the network of antennasOptimize the network of antennas
Mobile phonesMobile phones
• Use hands-free kitsUse hands-free kits
• Use loud-speaker optionUse loud-speaker option
• Text instead of callingText instead of calling
• Reduce call timesReduce call times

26. What should policymakers do?What should policymakers do?
 Get SOUND advise on EMF from reputable bodiesGet SOUND advise on EMF from reputable bodies
like WHO…its available on their web site at:like WHO…its available on their web site at:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/
 WHO Fact Sheets exist on ALL EMF topics e.g. theWHO Fact Sheets exist on ALL EMF topics e.g. the
most pertinent fact sheets mobile phones and onmost pertinent fact sheets mobile phones and on
mobile phone base stations and wireless networksmobile phone base stations and wireless networks
are in Spanishare in Spanish
 Adopt international standards; over 50 countries,Adopt international standards; over 50 countries,
including the European Commission already haveincluding the European Commission already have
 Inform your population that Peru usesInform your population that Peru uses
international standards based on sound science;international standards based on sound science;
you will get greater trust and acceptanceyou will get greater trust and acceptance

27. Risks in perspective: Where is EMF?Risks in perspective: Where is EMF?

28. Nature usually knows best

29. Dr Mike Repacholi
University of Rome “La Sapienza”
Email: mrepacholi@yahoo.com
Thank you!Thank you! Muchas gracias!Muchas gracias!