Physicians of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine recognize that patients are being adversely impacted by electromagnetic frequency (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) fields and are becoming more electromagnetically sensitive.
The AAEM recommends that physicians consider patients’ total electromagnetic exposure in their diagnosis and treatment, as well as recognition that electromagnetic and radiofrequency field exposure may be an underlying cause of a patient’s disease process.
Based on double‐blinded, placebo controlled research in humans,1 medical conditions and disabilities that would more than likely benefit from avoiding electromagnetic and radiofrequency exposure include, but are not limited to:
- Neurological conditions such as paresthesias, somnolence, cephalgia, dizziness, unconsciousness, depression
- Musculoskeletal effects including pain, muscle tightness, spasm, fibrillation
- Heart disease and vascular effects including arrhythmia, tachycardia, flushing, edema
- Pulmonary conditions including chest tightness, dyspnea, decreased pulmonary function
- Gastrointestinal conditions including nausea, belching
- Ocular (burning)
- Oral (pressure in ears, tooth pain)
- Dermal (itching, burning, pain)
- Autonomic nervous system dysfunction (dysautonomia).
Based on numerous studies showing harmful biological effects from EMF and RF exposure, medical conditions and disabilities that would more than likely benefit from avoiding exposure include, but are not limited to:
- Neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis). 2‐6
- Neurological conditions (Headaches, depression, sleep disruption, fatigue, dizziness, tremors, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased memory, attention deficit disorder, anxiety, visual disruption). 7‐10
- Fetal abnormalities and pregnancy. 11,12
- Genetic defects and cancer.2,3,13‐19
- Liver disease and genitourinary disease.12,20
Because Smart Meters produce Radiofrequency emissions, it is recommended that patients with the above conditions and disabilities be accommodated to protect their health. The AAEM recommends: that no Smart Meters be on these patients’ homes, that Smart Meters be removed within a reasonable distance of patients’ homes depending on the patients’ perception and/or symptoms, and that no collection meters be placed near patients’ homes depending on patients’ perception and/or symptoms.
Submitted by: Amy L. Dean, DO and William J. Rea, MD
Approved July 12, 2012 by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Bibliography
1. Rea WJ, Pan Y, Fenyves EJ, et al. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity. 1991; 10(1 &2): 243‐256.
2. Xu S, Zhou Z, Zhang L, et al. Exposure to 1800 MHZ radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons. Brain Research. 2010; 1311: 189‐196.
3. Zhao T, Zou S, Knapp P. Exposure to cell phone radiation up‐regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes. Neurosci Lett. 2007; 412(1): 34‐38.
4. Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, et al. Increased blood‐brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM‐900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009; 16: 103‐112.
5. Awad SM, Hassan NS. Health Risks of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone on brain of rats. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2008; 4(12): 1994‐2000.
6. Leszczynski D, Joenvaara S. Non‐thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: Molecular mechanism for cancer ‐ and blood‐ brain barrier ‐ related effects. Differentiation. 2002; 70: 120‐129.
7. Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, et al. Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: 1. Influences of distance and sex. Pathol Biol. 2002; 50: 369‐373.
8. Abdel‐Rassoul G, Abou El‐Fateh O, Abou Salem M, et al. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotox. 2007; 28(2): 434‐440.
9. Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006; 63: 307‐313
10. Kolodynski AA, Kolodynska VV. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Sci. Total Environ. 1996; 180: 87‐93.
11. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF radiation‐induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997; 18:455‐461.
12. Ingole IV, Ghosh SK. Cell phone radiation and developing tissues in chick embryo ‐ a light microscopic study of kidneys. J. Anat. Soc. India. 2006; 55(2): 19‐23.
13. Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H. Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology. 2009; 16: 79‐88.
14. Ruediger HW. Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. 2009; 16(2): 89‐102.
15. Lee S, Johnson D, Dunbar K. 2.45 GHz radiofrequency fields alter gene expression on cultured human cells. FEBS Letters. 2005; 579: 4829‐4836.
16. Demsia G, Vlastos D, Matthopoulos DP. Effect of 910‐MHz electromagnetic field on rat bone marrow. The Scientific World Journal. 2004; 4(S2): 48‐54.
17. Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic‐field‐induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2004; 112(6): 687‐694. Available from: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6355
18. Mashevich M, Foldman D, Kesar, et al. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003; 24: 82‐90.
19. Ban R, Grosse Y, Lauby‐Secretan B, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology. 2011; 12(7): 624‐626. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470‐2045(11)70147‐
4/fulltext?_eventId=login
20. Lubec G, Wolf C. Bartosch B. Amino acid isomerisation and microwave exposure. Lancet. 1989; 334: 1392‐1393.
