One of the papers used by FCC

This is one of the most widely referenced papers. It is also the first hit on search engines for search of "children electromagnetics". Its conclusion is that exposure level from CPT (called mobile-phone base station in the paper) is too low to warrant any precautionary measures.

I think this is one of the most misleading paper I have ever read. Scroll down to see explanation and analysis.

The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields by Leeka Kheifets, PhD, et al. Pediatrics Vol. 116 No. 2 August 2005, pp e303.

Cached here for your pleasure.

e303 -- Pediatrics


Dr Kheifets's conclusions:

Regarding the long-term health effects of mobile-phone use, the paucity of data, particularly for children, suggests that low- cost precautionary measures are appropriate, especially because some of the exposures are close to guideline limits. Physicians could advise parents that their children's RF exposure can be reduced by restricting the length of calls or by using hands-free devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body. On the other hand, exposure levels from mobile-phone base stations are extremely low, and therefore precautionary measures do not need to be recommended.

I think the paper is misleading in many ways. In short:

It does a lot of "generally, it is believed..", "unlikely to..", "variations between children and adults, but..", "such studies have been uninformative..", "precautionary approach needed to cover the unknown cause-effect.."

And then BOOM:

It dismisses what it says and concludes that "exposure levels from mobile-phone base stations are extremely low, and therefore precautionary measures do not need to be recommended."

If you are patient enough to read the highlighted passage below, you will find that all throughout the paper, it talks about:

1. how children and adults differ physiologically, mainly central nervous system and brain
2. how children are more susceptible to EM radiations than adults even at small dosages
3. how epidemiologic studies show increase in childhood leukemia but not in laboratory studies
4. how direct studies on children are not widely done
5. how the physiological differences between children and adults make dosimetric calculations hard and perhaps inaccurate
6. how the paper's results and conclusions for children are based on dosimetric calculations and not through real measurement and clinical observations
7. how RF (mobile phone) radiations not as widely studied because of the rapid technology changes
8. "any increased sensitivity was considered to be covered by the more restrictive guidance on public exposure."
9. some effects are seen but are hard to reproduce because of varying methods and approaches
10. limited knowledge of the etiology of childhood leukemia and possibility of unknown cases but concludes unlikely RF Radiation.
11. hypotheses of disruption of the nocturnal production of melatonin in the pineal gland, subtle effects on melatonin physiology are not easily excluded, and such studies have not been conducted specifically on children
12. "SAR values and exposure variations for child models are similar to those for adults, although somewhat higher" (Similar and somewhat higer are totally different!)
13. "there is a need for dosimetric modeling of the distribution of SAR and temperature in children and also a requirement for appropriate age-related values for the dielectric properties of tissue." 
14. then out of nowhere, it concludes that "exposure levels from mobile-phone base stations are extremely low, and therefore precautionary measures do not need to be recommended."

Does this sound suspicious to you?

I think this paper should raise more issues about how and why these researches are allowed to make such conclusions about EM Radiations on children than be quoted as evidence.


Abstract part on Page 2:

Exposure to electric and magnetic fields from 0 to 300 GHz has been increasing greatly as countries increase their capacity to generate and distribute electricity and take advantage of the many new technologies, such as telecommunications, to improve lifestyle and work efficiency (Fig 1). Evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields has led to their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a "possible human carcinogen"1 based on consistent epidemiologic data and lack of support by laboratory studies in animals and cells. The reason why the results of the childhood leukemia studies are consistent is still being investigated, but one possibility is that children may be more sensitive to radiation in some or all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.



Children's Susceptibility to Environmental Exposures on Page 4
Several aspects of exposure and susceptibility warrant a focus on children. In some exposure scenarios, children may receive higher doses than adults, resulting from higher intake and accumulation or differences in behavior. Greater susceptibility to some toxicants and physical agents has been demonstrated in children. Because the period from embryonic life to adolescence is characterized by growth and development, deleterious effects can occur at lower levels and be more severe or lead to effects that do not occur in adults; on the other hand, children can be more resilient because of better recuperative capacities.



Childhood Diseases Relevant to EMF Exposure on Page 5

Some diseases are limited to the embryo, child, or adolescent; other diseases that occur in children and adults manifest themselves differently in children. Of particular relevance to EMF exposure are childhood leukemia and brain cancer. There is consistent evidence from epidemiologic studies of a risk of childhood leukemia associated with exposure to environmentally high levels of ELF magnetic fields. There is no explanation for this effect from laboratory studies. An increased risk of brain cancer has been investigated in relation to ELF exposures and has been raised particularly in the context of mobile-phone use and the absorption of RF signals by the brain, although there is no convincing evidence suggesting an increased risk. To put potential EMF effects in perspective and determine how EMFs might be involved in the development of these diseases, we provide a brief overview of rates and risk factors for them.



on Page 5

As with most other cancers, the mechanism by which leukemia arises is likely to involve gene-environment interactions, the environmental exposures being derived from both endogenous and exogenous sources. Accordingly, it is important to identify exposures that either cause DNA damage and induce chromosome breaks that are repaired inadequately or act as promoters and/or progressers, ultimately leading to the overt expression of the disease. Exposures acting before birth and early in life have long been thought to be important determinants of leukemia; it is unfortunate that the evidence regarding the majority of suggested exposures is limited and often contradictory. Ionizing radiation given at large doses is one of the few known risk factors for leukemia.


on Page 6

RF fields are produced by radio and television broadcasts, mobile phones and base stations, and other communications infrastructure. Radio and television signals are broadcast to a large area from comparatively few sites. Mobile-phone base stations cover a smaller area and produce much lower emissions but are now much more common than radio and television stations (tens of thousands in many countries). Because of the width and angle of the RF signal beam and perturbation by the earth and building materials, there is little correlation between field strength and distance to the source. Typical power densities outdoors would be 0.01 to 1 mW · m–2 but could be orders of magnitude higher (ie,    100 mW · m–2 ). Depending on where the measurements are taken, base stations can be the largest individual source of RF fields, but other sources such as radio or television transmitters can result in comparable or greater exposures. Indoor levels are often lower by orders of magnitude, because buildings screen fields. A European median indoor power density of 0.005 mW · m–2 has been reported.


on Page 7

At present, population exposure to RF fields has been much less characterized than ELF fields, partly because of technical challenges (lack of adequate measuring equipment), the rapid evolution of mobile-phone technology (frequency, coding schemes), and new patterns of use (duration of calls, short-message services). However, the main reason ELF fields are better understood than RF fields is that they have been studied more.


on Page 7 and Page 8

Dosimetric calculations have not been conducted extensively for children and have not been undertaken for pregnant women and their unborn children. In general, adults exposed to ELF electric or magnetic fields have higher internal electric-field strengths and current densities than children because of size and shape differences. However, the distributions are different, and in children some tissues have higher field strengths and current densities for the same external field. Furthermore, children have significantly higher internal field strengths and current densities from contact currents than do adults. Dose computations using anatomically correct models of children30 reveal that modest, imperceptible current into the hand (10 μA) produces    50 mV · m–1 averaged across the lower-arm marrow of a small child and approximately    130 mV · m–1 in 5% of that tissue. During pregnancy, the magnitude and distribution of induced electric fields and currents in the mother will be different because of changes in body shape and will not have been assessed in the embryo or fetus. These factors, along with differences in dielectric properties, need to be taken into account in assessing health risks to children from ELF EMFs.

The guidance cited above was based on a consideration of laboratory evidence, including evidence from volunteer studies of magnetic phosphenes, and more recently on evidence from voltage-gated ion channel and neural-network behavior.29 Neurobehavioral studies in volunteers and in animals, mostly in adults, have not reported robust responses to ELF exposure31; overall, any changes seen have been subtle, transient, and reversible. Workshop participants thought that there is no reason to suppose a greater sensitivity of CNS neural networks and ion channels to induced electric fields in children or in the embryo or fetus. Reduced myelination seen in childhood and early adolescence was not thought likely to increase sensitivity either. It is not clear what the impact would be of an overabundance of synaptic connections seen in infants and early childhood, but any increased sensitivity was considered to be covered by the more restrictive guidance on public exposure.

Results from several independent research groups suggest that exposure to ELF magnetic fields at microtesla levels may disturb early development of bird embryos. However, replication attempts have been unsuccessful in some laboratories. Results from experiments with other nonmammalian experimental models (fish, sea urchins, and insects) have also suggested subtle effects on developmental stability.32 In mammals, prenatal exposure to ELF magnetic or electric fields does not result in strong adverse effects on development. Some effects of magnetic (or combined electric and magnetic) fields on postnatal development have been reported, but evaluation of the consistency of the findings is difficult because of the varying methods and approaches used in different studies.


on Page 8 and Page 9

An increased risk of childhood leukemia has been found to be consistently associated with exposure to environmental levels of power-frequency magnetic fields at levels very much below present guidance. Initial studies used a surrogate for magnetic fields (known as wire codes) that was based on distance and thickness of power lines near the residence.37 As instruments became available, the focus shifted to measured or calculated magnetic fields. Results of dozens of increasingly sophisticated studies and the 2 pooled analyses have reported a doubling of risk for children exposed to magnetic fields >0.3 to 0.4 μT compared with children exposed to fields <0.1 μT.38,39 Although a number of factors, including socioeconomic status, have been evaluated as confounders, substantial confounding has not been identified. However, because of limited knowledge of the etiology of childhood leukemia, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of some yet-to-be-identified confounder or of confounding by a combination of factors. Nevertheless, substantial confounding of the observed association, it seems to us, is unlikely. Although these results are also not likely to be a result of chance, bias cannot be ruled out.40 An epidemiologically detectable risk of leukemia for children, but not for adults, might result from either better exposure assessment for children or from greater susceptibility in children.


At present there is no experimental evidence that supports the view that this relationship is causal; however, few animal studies have been conducted using animal models of the predominant form of childhood leukemia, and most carcinogenesis bioassays begin when animals are sexually mature. In addition, there is no biophysical explanation for biologically significant interactions at these low field values, so if the association is causal, then there is currently no scientific explanation. Two hypotheses for such effects were discussed at the workshop.

One hypothesis discussed at the workshop proposed that the association of power-frequency magnetic fields with childhood leukemia may result from the flow of electric current through the bone marrow of children after contact with water fixtures or a water stream in which a small voltage difference exists as a result of the grounding of the residential electrical system to the water pipe.41 Calculation shows that potentially significant electric fields (more than    100 mV · m–1 ) may be induced in the bone marrow in these circumstances; this lends biological plausibility to the proposed mechanism. The effect of such weak electric fields in inducing effects in hematopoietic tissue that might increase the risk of ALL, possibly by affecting preleukemic clones (see above), has not been investigated.

A second hypothesis suggested that exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields increases the risk of childhood leukemia through disruption of the nocturnal production of melatonin in the pineal gland.42 Although the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection43 concluded that there is no convincing evidence of an effect, subtle effects on melatonin physiology are not easily excluded, and such studies have not been conducted specifically on children.

Recommendations were made for additional research regarding the association between exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and childhood leukemia; it is clear that this issue is unresolved. Although such scientific uncertainty remains, the WHO recommends the adoption of precautionary measures for the protection of children (see below).

Exposure to RF radiation induces heating in body tissues and imposes a heat load on the whole body; guidance on exposure is based on avoiding the risks to health that result from localized rises in tissue temperature and from the physiologic stress engendered by excessive whole-body heat loads.28,29 Present guidance on occupational exposure is based on restricting the RF-induced whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR) to <0.4 W · kg–1 , a heat load sufficiently small that its contribution to other possible heat loads, generated from hard physical work and/or imposed by high ambient temperatures, can be neglected. Basic restrictions on localized SARs, averaged over any 10 g of contiguous tissue, are 10 W · kg–1 in the head and trunk and 20 W · kg–1 in the limbs.28 These are intended to restrict local tissue temperature rises to acceptable levels.


Guidance on public exposure incorporates an additional safety factor of 5, reducing the basic restrictions to 0.08 W · kg–1 to the whole body and 2 W · kg–1 to the head. Temperatures are derived from dosimetric calculation and thermal modeling; SARs are also related to external field values via dosimetric calculation. The corresponding reference levels, which for RF fields are power densities, are frequency dependent and are of the order of 10 W · m–2 at 1800 MHz for general public exposure.

Dosimetric calculation has for more than a decade allowed for differences in body size between children and adults, and these differences have been factored into guidance. Despite large differences in the size, shape, and tissue distribution of heads, the SAR values and exposure variations for child models are similar to those for adults, although somewhat higher. In addition, the relative depth of penetration is larger for children, a logical consequence of smaller head diameter. Dielectric studies encompassing several tissue types, including brain, obtained from newborn to fully grown rats, mice, and rabbits exposed to RF EMF in the frequency ranges of 130 MHz to 10 GHz and 300 kHz to 300 MHz report large, age-related variations in the permittivity and conductivity of brain tissue and even larger variations for skin and skull tissue.44–46 Thus, there is a need for dosimetric modeling of the distribution of SAR and temperature in children and also a requirement for appropriate age-related values for the dielectric properties of tissue.

Many different nonthermal mechanisms for RF interaction with tissue have been considered in recent studies.48–50 These are not particular to children, but if any were confirmed at levels below current guidance, then questions might also be raised about potential childhood susceptibility. Possible RF electric-field interactions51 include (1) changes in the conformation of proteins, including ATPases associated with ion channels, resulting in functional changes in the proteins, (2) changes in the binding of ligands such as Ca2+ to cell receptor proteins, also resulting in changed receptor function, (3) absorption of RF energy by the vibrational states of biological components such as microtubules, (4) enhanced attraction between cells (the pearl-chain effect), and (5) demodulation of a modulated RF signal, producing ELF electric fields. Generally, it was considered that such interactions are unlikely to be biologically significant at RF levels below guidance values.

For infant, childhood, and adolescent exposure, the maturation of the CNS has been raised as potentially susceptible. In this context, the major changes to the CNS during this period comprise a maturation of the hard-wiring (namely, increased myelination), facilitating the transmission of information, which occurs rapidly over the first 2 years but extends into the second decade of life, and remodeling of the synaptic connections between neurons8 after the first 2 years and into adolescence, mostly by synapse elimination as redundant connections are lost. With regard to synaptogenesis, spontaneous and stimulus-evoked electrical activity in the CNS is believed to play a crucial role in local competition between growing nerve axons and the distribution of their synaptic boutons on target cells.52 Whether RF fields could affect these processes is not known. Neurobehavioral studies in volunteers and in animals, mostly adults, have not reported robust responses to RF exposure, particularly that associated with mobile phones.31

Numerous studies have evaluated developmental effects of RF fields on mammals, birds, and other nonmammalian species.53,54 These studies have shown clearly that RF fields are teratogenic at exposure levels that are high enough to cause significant increases in temperature. There is no consistent evidence of effects at nonthermal exposure levels, although only a few studies have evaluated possible effects on postnatal development using sensitive end points such as behavioral effects.


on Page 10

Several ecological studies59–66 have examined cancer risk, including risk of childhood leukemia, among populations living in proximity to radio and television broadcast towers. Often driven by a previously identified cluster, these analyses are based simply on distance from the source and often include an extremely small number of cases. Such studies have been uninformative. More rigorous investigations might be feasible with development of new instruments capable of capturing personal RF exposure.

Few relevant epidemiologic or laboratory studies have addressed the possible effects of RF exposure on children. Because of widespread use of mobile phones among children and adolescents and relatively high exposures to the brain, investigation of the potential effects of RF fields on the development of childhood brain tumors is warranted. The importance of longer lifetime exposure has been emphasized by a recent study67 in which acoustic neuroma occurred only after 10-year use of mobile phones. The type of mobile-phone use among children (eg, text messaging), their potential biological vulnerability, and longer lifetime exposure make extrapolation from adult studies problematic. Such scientific uncertainty can be addressed through both the application of precautionary policies and through additional research.

In today's world, technologic developments bring both social and economic benefits to large sections of society; however, the health consequences of these developments can be difficult to predict and manage. Nevertheless, even if the effects are small, a widespread exposure can have large public health consequences. When risks are complex, an established cause-effect relationship is absent, or the scientific findings are not robustly quantifiable, the need for timely preventive action makes a precautionary approach an essential part of policy making. Many societies believe that this is particularly true regarding children (including the unborn child): they represent the future of the society, have the potential for longer exposure than adults, and yet are less able to manage their own risk.

International guidance on occupational and public exposure to EMFs, described above, is based on avoiding risks to health that are well understood and for which there is good scientific evidence. However, with regard to childhood exposure to EMFs (and exposure during pregnancy), several factors argue for the adoption of precautionary measures, including the possibility that EMFs might affect children; the dread with which some of the diseases raised in this context, such as leukemia and
brain cancer, are perceived; the involuntary nature of some of the exposure; its extensiveness; and its likely rapid growth in the future.

The WHO International EMF Project (www.who.int/emf) is finalizing a practical framework for guiding policy options in areas of scientific uncertainty that is based on the application of precaution.68 In general terms, the draft WHO precautionary framework aims to develop a set of public health policy options that can be applied according to the degree of scientific uncertainty and the anticipated severity of the harm that might ensue from exposure, taking into account the size of the affected population and the cost of exposure reduction. These measures should not be seen as undermining science-based guidance on exposure; rather, they represent additional steps with application that may vary from country to country depending on social and economic considerations.


Precautionary measures may also be adopted at an individual level, depending on the degree of concern felt by the exposed person. In giving advice to their patients, physicians should weigh the strength of scientific evidence for the risk, if any, of an adverse outcome, the benefits of the technology, and the feasibility of reducing exposure, as well as the overall health of the patient, which includes freedom from worry and anxiety.

For ELF (power-frequency) fields, there is some evidence that exposure to environmental magnetic fields that are relatively high but well below guidance levels is associated with an increase in the risk of childhood leukemia, a very rare disease (even if the risk is doubled, it remains small at    5–8 per 100000 children per year). Although the evidence is regarded as insufficient to justify more restrictive limits on exposure, the possibility that exposure to ELF magnetic fields increases risk cannot be discounted. For the physician faced with questions from, for example, a couple planning a family and concerned about this issue, or from someone pregnant and occupationally exposed to relatively high ELF magnetic fields, standardized advice is not possible. Instead, physicians could inform their patients of possible risk and advise them to weigh all the advantages and disadvantages of the options available to them (of which EMF reduction is but one consideration). Some simple options include reducing exposure by minimizing the use of certain electrical appliances or changing work practices to increase distance from the source of exposure. People living near overhead power lines should be advised that such proximity is just an indicator of exposure and that homes far away from power lines can have similar or higher fields.

Regarding the long-term health effects of mobile-phone use, the paucity of data, particularly for children, suggests that low- cost precautionary measures are appropriate, especially because some of the exposures are close to guideline limits. Physicians could advise parents that their children's RF exposure can be reduced by restricting the length of calls or by using hands-free devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body. On the other hand, exposure levels from mobile-phone base stations are extremely low, and therefore precautionary measures do not need to be recommended.