Scientific Committee On Emerging And Newly Identified Health Risks Research Articles

Comment] Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.

Birds of a feather?

The complications of using vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse are well known. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), NHS England Mesh working Group and the Scottish Independent Review of the Use, Safety and Efficacy of Transvaginal Mesh Implants in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women all published reports in 2016. Their conclusions have overlapping themes, with an emphasis on the need for robust clinical governance, multi-disciplinary team working, thorough audit, and recording and reporting of adverse events. Adequate patient information and informed consent is a fundamental principle underlying all healthcare management. The midurethral synthetic sling is made of the same type 1 macroporous material as vaginal prolapse mesh and so slings have been included with mesh in adverse publicity with a consequent decline in their use, with resurgence of fascial slings and more complex surgery such as colposuspension. The impact of this has been particularly evident in Scotland, where patients have been refusing to have a synthetic sling. As recently as 2011, it was common practice to inform patients that a synthetic sling was the procedure of choice and it was acceptable to give this as the sole option. This is now in violation of the Montgomery ruling of the UK Supreme Court (Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11), which requires a thorough discussion of pros and cons and alternatives. However, complete cessation of use, as has been the case with vaginal mesh, would equate to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The price would be paid by the patient, who would end up with more complex surgery, with greater overall risks (apart from the risks of any synthetic material, i.e. extrusion and erosion, which are low in the case of sub-urethral slings). Some patients would likely be denied treatment altogether on the grounds of obesity or other comorbidities which make them unsuitable for an abdominal procedure. The midurethral sling is no longer a ‘new’ device and has reassuring 17-year follow-up data with a 90% objective continence rate and no serious long-term tape-induced adverse effects (Nilsson et al. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:1265-9). So at what point is a prosthesis considered well established in clinical practice? In the history of implantable devices, defective/faulty ones will usually be identified within 10 years of market launch. Examples include trocar-guided meshes for prolapse, PIP breast implants, and Pinnacle Hip implants. On the other hand, the full extent of complications with synthetic slings such as extrusion and erosion may not yet be apparent. In the UK, we need to centralise the management of mesh-related complications in specialist units to allow the development of the expertise needed for successful remediation. With patient groups such as TVT MUM clamouring for a total ban on the product, there is an urgent need for the development of agreed clinical decision-making tools to enable patients to make fully informed choices in the management of their urinary incontinence. None declared. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as supporting information. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Preliminary background indoor EMF measurements in Greece

The main purpose of this work was to investigate the fluctuation of Greek indoor electromagnetic field (EMF) intensity values and identify peaks that might occur. The scientific interest is mainly focused on the bands of extremely low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields and radiofrequency (RF) electric fields which have been suggested to be possibly carcinogenic to humans by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR).Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) measurements were performed in a variety of indoor dwellings, in Attica and in the islands of Zakynthos and Lesvos.A total number of 4540 measurements were taken in a wide frequency range (50 Hz–2100 MHz) of which 3301 in Attica, 963 in Lesvos and 276 in Zakynthos.Statistical analysis of the data revealed specific statistically significant differences between the mean values of the electric (ELF and RF) but not the magnetic (ELF) field strengths measured at different distances from the EMF source, as well as between some of the mean values of the RF electric field at different bands. Some statistically significant differences between mean electric field values at different geographic locations were also identified.As far as the RF electric field is concerned, the maximum values, in most cases, were below 0.5 V/m, however increased values above 1 V/m and up to 5.6 V/m were occasionally observed. The ELF magnetic field values were lower than 1 μT. It may be concluded that overall, the observed indoor EMF intensity values remained well below domestic and European established limits.

Pilot Electromagnetic Field Measurements in Certain Areas in Greece

This paper reports preliminary electromagnetic field measurements conducted indoors in selected locations in Greece. The paper focuses on the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) of the extremely low-frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) frequency bands because these bands are considered as possible human carcinogens according to the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). ELF electric and magnetic fields and RF electric fields were measured indoors in several locations in urban, suburban and rural areas of the Zakynthos and Lesvos islands, suburban houses of Ileia Prefecture (Peloponnisos) and urban dwellings of Attica. A total number of 4816 measurements were taken in Zakynthos (276), Lesvos (964), Ileia (29) and Attica (3547) in the frequency range 50 Hz–2500 MHz. Measurements were conducted with NARDA EMR-300 RF survey meter (3935), Aaronia HF and NF spectrum analyzers (795), HI 3604 Holaday ELF survey meter (48) and ANTENNESSA EME SPY (38). The maximum electric field strengths were in most cases below 5 V/m. Strength of electric fields up to 3000 V/m were addressed near high voltage power transmission lines. Stronger average electric fields were measured in urban areas. The strengths of the magnetic field were in most cases lower than 1000 nTesla (1 μTesla), but values up to 6000 nTesla (6 μTesla) were observed near high voltage power transmission lines. The results indicated that the EMR strength values varied but were all below domestic and international established limits.

Nanosilver: Weighing the Risks and Benefits

It takes a special sort of case to spur attorneys into a debate over the drooling habits of toddlers. Yet that’s where lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Swiss chemicals company HeiQ found themselves in January 2013 as they debated in a federal appeals court the extent to which 1-year-olds and 3-year-olds chew, salivate, and swallow.1 At issue in the NRDC’s suit against the EPA, which is still awaiting ruling, was whether the agency was right in granting a conditional registration in December 2011 to a nanosilver-based antimicrobial fabric treatment manufactured by HeiQ.2 The EPA’s risk assessment was based in part on assumptions about exposure of 3-year-olds by sucking or chewing on nanosilver-laced textiles such as clothing, blankets, and pillowcases. Silver nanoparticles are added to a variety of textiles and home goods as an antimicrobial. Although silver has been used safely for centuries, some question whether the rapid expansion of new exposure sources to nanosilver could have adverse consequences. ... NRDC lawyer Catherine Rahm, however, begged to differ with the agency’s methods. In the January hearing, she argued that the agency record shows infants are more likely than any other subset of children to chew on fabrics that could contain the pesticide, and that if the agency were to recalculate its risk assessment based on the body weight of a 1-year-old, nanosilver concentrations in HeiQ’s product could result in potentially harmful exposures. It’s an obscure but critical distinction as far as risk assessment goes. And given the implications for HeiQ and other companies looking to follow in its footsteps, the case has landed at the center of a prolonged conflict over the regulation of nanosilver and the growing deployment of this antimicrobial ingredient in a variety of commercial and consumer products. Yet regardless of which side prevails in the case, the truth about nanosilver is not black and white. Even the loudest voices joining the NRDC’s call for strict regulation of nanosilver concede that context is key. “I’m not somebody who is for or against nano,” says Ian Illuminato, who directs Friends of the Earth’s U.S. nanotechnology campaign, which has produced a series of reports on the potential dangers of nanosilver and other nanomaterials. “I’m just saying we need to do this in a mature and adult way. That’s not to say this isn’t a helpful technology and it doesn’t have a place in our future, but in the way it’s evolving right now, it’s very risky.” Greg Lowry, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University who studies the fate of nanoparticles in the environment, agrees that the use of nanosilver is a matter of balancing risk and reward. “There’s a tremendous potential benefit to the use in some of these products,” he says. “What one has to do is to ask yourself whether the benefits outweigh the risk.”

The evidence of genotoxic damage in the oral mucosa due to dental fillings is very questionable

The general public has a substantial interest in the safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration materials as indicated by the recent request of the European Commission to the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) to update, if appropriate, the opinion on this subject adopted in 2008 (http://ec.europa. eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_q_ 034.pdf). As members of the large population carrying restorative dental fillings we felt attracted by the subject of the study reported in this journal by Visalli et al. (2013), although none of us is actively involved in any work in this area. Yet, we cannot agree with the conclusions drawn by the authors that their data ‘‘provide unequivocal evidence’’ for genotoxic damage in the oral mucosa due to such fillings and that their findings are ‘‘of particular relevance.’’ This is based on the following considerations:

Ultraviolet Leaks from CFLs

With growing concern over energy use, much of the developed world has adopted compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which use 25–80% less energy and can last 3–25 times longer than regular incandescent bulbs.1 A new study suggests that certain elements of these bulbs might be improved for safer use.2 Investigators measured ultraviolet (UV) radiation emissions from nine commercially available CFLs and observed cracks in the phosphor coating on each bulb that might allow UV leaks. “Phosphor is very rigid, so it’s not surprising it would crack [when applied to a CFL’s tight coils],” says coauthor Miriam Rafailovich, distinguished professor of materials science at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. She says long, straight fluorescent tubes don’t have these cracks. The team exposed healthy human keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts to the CFL with the highest UV emissions at a distance of 2.5 cm for 2 hours at a time. They also tested CFL exposure combined with titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, a catalyst. CFL exposure was associated with a slight increase in the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in both cell types, reduced mitochondrial activity and cell proliferation in both cell types, and reduced migration velocity and collagen contraction in fibroblasts. These outcomes were greater in combined CFL/TiO2 exposure scenarios. But in contrast to media depictions of “skin-frying” CFLs, researchers are reluctant to draw conclusions about consumer risk on the basis of these findings. “The UV measurement procedures are not described, so one cannot evaluate the data,” says Mats-Olof Mattsson, a cell biology professor at the Austrian Institute of Technology. The authors also reported higher UV emissions than other studies have found3,4,5 and did not follow international measurement standards,6 he adds. In vitro studies have limitations for assessing CFL impacts on skin because the intensity of light reaching the cells within skin is much less than the light intensity at the skin surface. Furthermore, says Harry Moseley, a photobiology professor at the University of Dundee, “Work carried out in vitro can be helpful to show the direct effect of UV radiation on the cells, [but] it doesn’t tell us how the body deals with any damage to the cells.” Nevertheless, the study results are not inconsistent with published research.5 “When we have exposed people to [CFL] light, sensitive patients do get a sunburn, and a small proportion of normal people get a mild sunburn,” he says. Inside a CFL, argon gas and mercury vapor are stimulated by the flow of electricity, producing UV light. This light hits the phosphor coating painted inside the bulb and causes it to fluoresce. The phosphor blocks most but not all of the UV light, which ... The Stony Brook study comes on the heels of several recent reports addressing artificial light. In 2008 Europe’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) reviewed the literature on the topic and concluded that the flicker and UV emissions from CFLs could adversely affect sensitive individuals with epilepsy, migraine headaches, eye diseases, and skin diseases affected by light.7 Numerous medications and personal care products—including antibiotics, antidepressants, diuretics, antipsychotics, and certain cosmetics—can render people hypersensitive to UV light. In 2012 SCENIHR again addressed the issue of artificial light exposure with an eye to the general public and determined no studies had yet evaluated CFL-specific links to adverse health effects. However, the committee did find substantial evidence linking “single-envelope” CFLs—those with the bare spiral tube showing—to aggravation of chronic actinic dermatitis, solar urticaria, lupus erythematosus, and photosensitive eye conditions. The committee concluded that CFLs pose little short-term health risk for people of normal sensitivity but recommended that all people should avoid using CFLs for close-range desk or task lighting.6 “A real problem for the public health aspect is that we have really insufficient knowledge about the actual exposure [to UV radiation],” says Mattsson, who chaired the SCENIHR in 2012. “Emissions are not the same as knowing the exposure.” That’s an important distinction, says Brian Pollack, an assistant professor of dermatology and pathology at Emory University, because “UV radiation is carcinogenic. The bottom line is if these [bulbs] are emitting UV radiation of any amount, it needs to be defined, and it needs to be prevented.” UV radiation from CFLs can often, but not always, be avoided by purchasing “double-envelope” bulbs in which the spiral tube is enclosed in a glass or polycarbonate cover resembling a standard incandescent bulb.3 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration8 and Health Canada9 advise that single-envelope CFLs should not be used at distances closer than about one foot.

Towards a methodological framework for emerging risk identification

Towards a methodological framework for emerging risk identification

Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission.

It was claimed by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)) in a report to the EU-Commission that "....no risks of adverse systemic effects exist and the current use of dental amalgam does not pose a risk of systemic disease..." [1, available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_016.pdf].SCENIHR disregarded the toxicology of mercury and did not include most important scientific studies in their review. But the real scientific data show that:(a) Dental amalgam is by far the main source of human total mercury body burden. This is proven by autopsy studies which found 2-12 times more mercury in body tissues of individuals with dental amalgam. Autopsy studies are the most valuable and most important studies for examining the amalgam-caused mercury body burden.(b) These autopsy studies have shown consistently that many individuals with amalgam have toxic levels of mercury in their brains or kidneys.(c) There is no correlation between mercury levels in blood or urine, and the levels in body tissues or the severity of clinical symptoms. SCENIHR only relied on levels in urine or blood.(d) The half-life of mercury in the brain can last from several years to decades, thus mercury accumulates over time of amalgam exposure in body tissues to toxic levels. However, SCENIHR state that the half-life of mercury in the body is only "20-90 days".(e) Mercury vapor is about ten times more toxic than lead on human neurons and with synergistic toxicity to other metals.(f) Most studies cited by SCENIHR which conclude that amalgam fillings are safe have severe methodical flaws.