Julian and Esille, apologies for the late reply - there is a lot on the subject and it is difficult to chose what to put in this forum which should appropriately short but convincing enough. I will start with the following:
The long term effects of using wireless technology are totally unresearched. All the research done so far covers only the 1st 15 years of usage for the simple reason that the mobile technology has not been around for longer. Therefore all the current safety findings come with sort of a caveat.
WHO, IARC, NHS, Public Health England as well as the MTHR Programme, jointly set by UK Government and Telecom industry, they all acknowledge the fact that a further research is needed to quantify the long-term effects on human health.
However international medical and/or scientific agencies are already recognising the evidence of harm (please see the list of appeals and resolutions below).
There is now substantial evidence of a link between mobile phone use and brain cancer. This was recognised by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s 30-strong panel of scientists, which in 2011 classed radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic”.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2 ... r208_E.pdf
The Council of Europe in its Resolution from May 2011 called on governments to "take all reasonable measures" to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields and to apply a precautionary approach in particularly with regards to “vulnerable groups such as young people and children”. The Council warned that " waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.”
There is also a growing international concern both in scientific and medical circles about EMF safety and the fact that current ICNIRP safety guidelines, which limit the legal amount of radiation and which are adopted in the UK are not restrictive enough to protect human health against biological effects. The latter have culminated in a number of international appeals on the subject. I have provided you with the individual links to some of them:
The list of appeals:
Seletun statement 2010:
“The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide.”
Porto Allegre Resolution 2009:
“We are concerned about the body of evidence that indicates that exposure to electromagnetic fields interferes with basic human biology and may increase the risk of cancer and other chronic diseases. The exposure levels at which these effects have been observed are many times lower than the standards promulgated by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing radiation Protection (ICNIRP)”
http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Po ... lution.pdf
London Resolution 2009:
“We, the undersigned, do call on the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA), UK Government and all the health protection agencies and governments world-wide, to take note of the findings and recommendations in the Bioinitiative Report (2007) and its predecessors the Benevento Resolution (2006) , the Catania Resolution (2002) and the Salzburg Resolution (2000) to immediately reduce the guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RF) and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) for the following reasons:
• The overwhelming evidence of adverse non-thermal health effects at exposures many times below the current guidelines…”
http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Lon ... lution.pdf
European Parliament EMF Resolutions 2011
“6. The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
8.1.2.(to) reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations and apply “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation;”
European Parliament EMF Resolutions 2009:
“1. Urges the Commission to review the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF limits..
2. Calls for particular consideration of biological effects when assessing the potential health impact of electromagnetic radiation, especially given that some studies have found the most harmful effects at lowest levels
8. and to ensure at least that schools, crèches, retirement homes, and health care institutions are kept clear, within a specific distance determined by scientific criteria, of facilities of this type
27. Is greatly concerned about the fact that insurance companies are tending to exclude coverage for the risks associated with EMFs from the scope of liability insurance policies, the implication clearly being that European insurers are already enforcing their version of the precautionary principle;”
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get ... PDF+V0//EN
If the insurance companies whose business is to incur risk (even a most remote one) and get paid for that obviously do not rely on the current safety findings and are cautious not to incur EMF liabilities as they cannot quantify them, than how can we as parents be comfortable that our kids will be safe close to the mast?
For further reference you can use also the following links and their sublinks:
http://wiredchild.org/sciencealias/43-w ... ects-.html