The different sources of electromagnetic fields: Dangers are not limited to physical health

2020 · Harm · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

HarmInsufficient evidencePaper 1545

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typereview

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

The different sources of electromagnetic fields: Dangers are not limited to physical health Deruelle F. The different sources of electromagnetic fields: Dangers are not limited to physical health. Electromagn Biol Med. 2020 Mar 10:1-10. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2020.1737811. Abstract The impact of electromagnetic waves on health has been clearly established by many studies in recent decades. No State, with the exception of Russia, takes any real precautions in terms of standards for the population. Conflicts of interest and political lies are used to hide the truth about the dangers of electromagnetic pollution. In addition, it would seem that other sources of radiation than the most well-known ones (mobile phones, digital enhanced cordless telecommunication (DECT) phones, bluetooth, base stations, Wi-Fi, 4G, 5G) come into play. A system such as HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program), as well as directed wave beams (related to past and recent scandals) must be analyzed and considered in a comprehensive way to understand why the wave level is only increasing despite the considerable amount of scientific work demonstrating that the standards are not adequate to maintain public health. Thus, official documents show that the impact of electromagnetic waves is not only physical and biological. Indeed, the climate and the behavior of the population are also targeted. www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.libproxy.berkeley.edu Conclusion Majority of the expert research society has recognized non-thermal EMF effects for long time ago, but the minor group of scientists, which are exclusively appointed by the governmental authorities including European Commission for judgment of EMF health effects, is still of opinion that EMF may be of hazard only at high intensities. Of key importance is to stress that EMF effects depend on a number of physical (carrier frequency, modulation, polarization, stray magnetic fields ...) and biological (sex, age, cell type and density, genotype ...) variables (Belyaev 2010). This dependence can easily account for apparent inconsistency of published results, which in dependence on end-point show effects of low-intensity EMF in 50 - 90% of studies, while lack of EMF effects was observed in other 5 - 10% of studies, which all applied different variables (Huss et al. 2007; IARC 2013; Yakymenko et al. 2016). There is therefore a clear reason why many States do not take into account the scientific evidence demonstrating the harmfulness of EMFs. Conflicts of interest? Yes, it's obvious. Some authors have already proven this (Carpenter 2013; Hardell 2017; Huss et al. 2007; Maisch 2006; Starkey 2016). While the Precautionary Principle should have been applied for a long time, not only it is not, but worse, the level of electromagnetic radiations is constantly increasing, principally because of RF, aggravating the health situation more and more. Nevertheless, according to the documents obtained, it would seem that the financial aspect is not the main objective of this technological expansion. Overall conclusion It is very clear that States and World Health Organization, through the analytical agencies working for them, are not at all telling the truth about the health effects of electromagnetic fields and the real objectives of such a deployment of connected and wave-generating equipment all over the world. In most countries, EMFs exposure standards are highly hazardous to health. In addition, the combination of wave-generating technologies and devices, as well as pro-wave legal laws, add up quickly and without prior health checks (example of 5G). Faced with this, thousands of publications, hundreds of scientists and specialists, show that human health and the environment are in danger because of EMFs. While the precautionary principle should have been established a long time ago, the opposite is being put in place. The sole explanation of conflicts of interest, which have been demonstrated for a long time, does not appear to be sufficient. Indeed, we can see that in the background (mainly military) have been conducted for years (just after the Second World War) a considerable amount of experimentation on a very large scale, particularly oriented on mind control as well as more recently on climate change. Many States, but also the United Nations, are aware of the reality of the problem related to the electromagnetic waves and have no decision-making power that is beneficial to health. It would seem that the deleterious impact of EMFs on biology is a side effect (useful for lobbies) of the real goal pursued, which would rather be oriented towards an attempt to control behaviour and climate.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionharm

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Narrative claims that many studies have established harmful health impacts of electromagnetic waves, including non-thermal effects, and that current exposure standards are inadequate. The article further asserts (based on unspecified “official documents”) that EMF impacts are not limited to physical/biological health and may also target climate and population behavior, and alleges conflicts of interest and misleading actions by states/WHO.

Outcomes measured

health effects (general; non-thermal effects mentioned)
physical/biological effects
behavioral effects (claimed)
climate effects (claimed)
policy/standards adequacy
conflicts of interest (claimed)

Limitations

Appears to be a narrative/opinion-style review with broad claims; no methods, inclusion criteria, or systematic approach described in the provided text
No quantitative exposure characterization (frequency, intensity, SAR, duration) provided
No specific study results or effect sizes reported in the provided text
Includes claims about behavior control and climate targeting without describable empirical evidence in the provided text

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "multiple (mobile phones, DECT, bluetooth, base stations, Wi‑Fi, 4G, 5G; also HAARP and directed wave beams mentioned)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "health effects (general; non-thermal effects mentioned)",
    "physical/biological effects",
    "behavioral effects (claimed)",
    "climate effects (claimed)",
    "policy/standards adequacy",
    "conflicts of interest (claimed)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Narrative claims that many studies have established harmful health impacts of electromagnetic waves, including non-thermal effects, and that current exposure standards are inadequate. The article further asserts (based on unspecified “official documents”) that EMF impacts are not limited to physical/biological health and may also target climate and population behavior, and alleges conflicts of interest and misleading actions by states/WHO.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Appears to be a narrative/opinion-style review with broad claims; no methods, inclusion criteria, or systematic approach described in the provided text",
    "No quantitative exposure characterization (frequency, intensity, SAR, duration) provided",
    "No specific study results or effect sizes reported in the provided text",
    "Includes claims about behavior control and climate targeting without describable empirical evidence in the provided text"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "RF",
    "non-thermal effects",
    "exposure standards",
    "precautionary principle",
    "conflicts of interest",
    "WHO",
    "5G",
    "4G",
    "Wi-Fi",
    "DECT",
    "bluetooth",
    "base stations",
    "HAARP",
    "directed energy"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.78,
      "reason": "Discusses 5G deployment and argues for precaution/health checks and standards."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.74,
      "reason": "Explicitly discusses WHO and exposure standards/assessment agencies."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1080/15368378.2020.1737811
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library