Electrosensitivity 



Legal
 
          back to: Home

          to: Environmental Refugees

ES recognized legally as a 'functional impairment' and 'disability'

 Electromagnetic Hypersensitiy (EHS): previous and future legal action:

As the objective evidence of the physiological effects causing EHS becomes convincingly established, there is increasing worldwide legal action on behalf of people with EHS. Studies since the 1930s are now showing a consistent weight of evidence confirming the specific symptoms of EHS, also long known through geomagnetic studies and electronic warfare since 1953. Since 1982 in the US, and since 2011 in Europe, courts in many countries have accepted the reality of physiological EHS along with non-thermal EMF effects and made awards and compensation for people with EHS including awards against those businesses responsible for the excessive radiation.


Legal framework (United Nations):


International Recognition of ES:


 Nordic Council of Ministers: "The Nordic Adaptation of Classification of Occupationally Related Disorders (Diseases and Symptoms) to ICD-10" (2000)


  • R68.8 Other specified general symptoms and signs
    (suggested/recommended for multisymptomatic “idiopathic/environmental intolerance” (IEI),
    including “multiple chemical sensitivity” (MCS);
    “electromagnetic intolerance” (“el-allergy”) etc.
    if the patient has not one major symptom which should preferably be coded)
    (page 33) 
  • “Electromagnetic intolerance” “El-allergy”.
    Usually general symptoms (tiredness, nausea, memory- and concentration difficulties etc.)
    related to use of TV/PC/data-screens, electrical transformers or fluorescent lamps.
    Symptoms disappear in “non-electrical environments”.
    (Appendix IV: page 50)


Legal and regulatory measures:


Governments, regulators, manufacturers and suppliers exposed to litigation:


Legal Actions against the FCC:

 

January 25 2021: Case#: 20-1025, et al. Environmental Health Trust, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (10 minutes per side) 

This hearing included discussion of why the FCC referred only to cellphones and cancer, but not to other devices and towers and to other harmful outcomes.

Another point raised that the FCC did not appear to have considered the impact of radiofrequency radiation on the lives of those sensitive to RF radiation and the devastating impact that RF radiation has on such people. 

The judges also had questions about whether the FCC had available the minutes of the Inter-Agency Radiofrequency Working Group established by Congress and chaired by the EPA. Of particular concern was the record of the view of this IARFWG on the cumulative effects of RF and the established non-thermal harm from RF. The FCC was given until 17:00 on January 26 2021 to submit this documentation.

One media report described how the judges 'hammered' the FCC. 


'Cease and Desist' Notice for Cell Phone Tower because of Electrosensitivity symptoms (USA)

On February 2 2022, the Health Board of the City of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, USA, issued a 'cease and desist' notice over a cell phone tower. The tower, activated in September 2021, caused electrosensitvity symptoms in residents nearby.


Aarhus Convention: Environmental Rights
“Under the Aarhus Convention, you are entitled to have access to judicial or administrative review procedures to challenge:
• A refusal or an inadequate response to a request for environmental information
• The legality of a decision, act or omission to permit a specific activity
• Acts of omissions by private persons or public authorities that contravene natural environmental law.”


Legal Action for ES people and others to stop 5G and other RF emissions (Tasmania, Australia):
Criminal Threat to Assault and Restraint Orders against neighbors and Telecom companies. 
Forming a reasonable belief that the emissions form a risk of harm.

1.Identify the source of the emissions or proposed emissions (eg Wifi, baby monitor, smart meter, celltower, proposed development) 
2. Identify the site (eg home, workplace, hospital etc)
3. Measure the distance to the emissions from your home
4. Identitify the emitters, local council, land owner, comporations involved and company numbers, and directors who may be personally liable.
5. Collate all the correspondence
6. Ask you doctor to provide: 
(a) evidence that RF emissions are not safe or could be a risk of harm, including the risk of fear which is a discomfort, and 
(b) recommendations for remediation (eg removing celltower, removing Wifi, removing smart meter etc), 
using:

7. Obtain witnesses affirmed testimony or affidavit, e.g. a friend's cellphone visiting your home showing bars indicating reception on their phone
8. If you wish contact Building Biologist for survey, or get a specialist survey,
9. Include costs for shielding your home and yard as a compensation claim.
10. Collate all the evidence and Instruct your lawyer or attorney to form an advice for you, and give legal remedy or options etc. Most environmental acts classify EMR as a pollutant and contaminant, which require precautionary action. Local authorities may then be liable for personal injury, assault, environmental contmination, dangerous weapons,  
11. Send to the emitter and all parties.


Legal awards, cases, laws and recognition of/for ES and EHS: examples:

  • Australia; Dr McDonald and Comcare, AATA 105 (February 28th 2013; scientist won 75% of salary when he was unable to work because his employer failed to protect him from radiation although he had been diagnosed with EHS)
  • Australia:“Parent’s success in stopping WiFI installation at Australian school” (EMFacts, November 5 2015, about a school which installed wired internet access to provide equal opportunity to a child disabled by electrosensitivity).
  • Canada: "The Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities" (Margaret Sears, Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2007, recognising MCS and ES)
  • Canada: "Électrohypersensibilité à l’école : une mère devant les tribunaux” (André Fauteux, La Maison du 21 Siècle, September 10 2015, on a Montreal lawyer whose children suffer EHS symptoms from WiFi in school, who is suing la Direction de la santé publique (DSP) and the Quebec government for refusing to give her and her three children reasonable accommodations due to EHS; she filed her complaint with the Quebec Commission on Human Rights and Youth Rights on August 28 2015 and has also instituted proceedings in the Superior Court, on the grounds that "The DSP violates Canadian law on human rights".)
  • Canada: Ontario: City of Peterborough: "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Tip Sheet" (v2018-05-08)
  • France: ES recognised as a disability with financial assistance for shielding and measuring equipment awarded by the MDPH of Essone for a technician in a chemical laboratory who had been on sick leave since 2011 (2014)
  • France: Provisions for people with EHS as regards situations in hospital etc.
    ​"Note d’information DGS/EA1 no 2014-171 du 26 mai 2014 relative à la gestion des risques liés aux radiofréquences NOR : AFSP1412210N" (2014)
  • France: “French woman wins disability grant for 'gadget allergy'” (AFP, Expatica, August 26 2015: the applicant, Marine Richard, 39, a former radio documentary producer, hailed the ruling as a "breakthrough" for people afflicted by Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). Richard lives in the mountains of southwest France, in a renovated barn without electricity, and drinking water from the well. A court in Toulouse decided she can claim a disability allowance of about 800 euros ($912) per month for 3 years. Her lawyer Alice Terrasse said the ruling could set a legal precedent for "thousands of people". BBC News: "Gadget 'allergy': French woman wins disability grant" (August 27 2015)
  • France: “Sobriété de  l’éxposition aux champs électromagnétiques, information et concertation lors de l’implantation d’installations radioélectriques” (pdf; Number 2065, Assemblée Nationale, January 29 2015: a law banning WiFi in nurseries and restricting it in some other schools, and requiring a report on EHS within a year)
  • France:  French High Court bans wireless smart meter for EHS: The Judge of the Appeals of the High Court of First Instance of Grenoble, in a decision of September 20 2017, forbid ENEDIS SA to install a "Linky" wireless smart meter in the home of a couple owners who refused. Mr and Mrs F., domiciled in MEYLAN (Isère), had informed ENEDIS that they refused the installation of a wireless electric meter at their home, especially given the fact that their son was Electro-Hyper-Sensitive (EHS) and that the Linky meter would cause a disturbance to the health of their son. (Next-up News, September 23 2017)
  • France:EHS recognised legally for compensation for work accident: A man diagnosed with electrosensitivity was found to be a victim of a work accident due to his EHS by the Yvelines Social Security Affairs Court (Tass). He was diagnosed as EHS in 2011 and made ill at work on November 6 2013. Despite the recommendations of the occupational health authorities, who had twice requested his transfer to a "position with little exposure to electromagnetic waves", had been kept in the same position. In its decision of September 27 2018, the Tass held that it could be attributed to work. It therefore ordered the Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie to pay 1,600 euros to the plaintiff, as well as 2,000 euros in legal costs. This is "a first French judicial decision that opens a breach for other electrosensitive victims", said Me Lafforgue, who is also the lawyer for the Priartem association (For a regulation of mobile phone base stations). The lawyer ensured that he followed about 15 cases concerning electrosensitive persons for "procedures for applying for disability pension, disabled adult allowance or post adjustment requests".  (“Yvelines: a man recognized as a victim of a work accident due to his electrosensitivity” Europe1.fr, October 10 2018; trans. Towards Better Health, October 13 2018) 
  • France: recognition of EHS as an occupational disease:
    In a judgment of January 17 2019, the Administrative Court of Cergy-Pontoise enjoins the public body which employs it, to recognize the electrohypersensitivity of a research technician as attributable to their work - the equivalent for the officials of the recognition of EHS as an occupational disease. Sophie Pelletier, president of PRIARTEM, calls it a double "first": "This is the first time that the administrative jurisdiction has pronounced favourably on this question as regards a civil servant. And the icing on the cake, this is the first time in France that a court decision recognizes intolerance to electromagnetic waves as a disease attributable to work. The worker became ill ten years ago after working for two years on a device emitting strong electromagnetic fields. Mr Lafforgue, lawyer of the applicant and also lawyer of PRIARTEM, said: "On the basis of the arguments that we developed, the judges considered that there was a sufficient probability that in the absence of other obvious causes, the chronic and prolonged exposure and increased sensitivity of the subject, allowed them to conclude that the work was accountable for the illness." At the end of 2018, an electrohypersensitive technician working in a telecommunications company obtained from the Social Security Tribunal of Versailles, the recognition as a work accident of a discomfort incurred at his place of work. These two decisions open up for workers who are victims, whether employees or civil servants, prospects for recognition and management of disorders related to electrosensitivity, for diseases or accidents at work. Above all, this is a strong signal sent to the public authorities, employers and occupational health profession, not to lose sight of the consequences of electromagnetic exposure on the health of workers and the judicial risks that they incur.
    Press Release: “EHS - New judicial advance in France - Recognition of electrosensitivity as an occupational disease” (Priartem, January 23 2019)
    Martine Vriens: "French Court Recognized Electromagnetic-Sensitivity as an Occupational Disease" (WeAreTheEvidence, April 2 2019)
  • France: in April 2019 a court required that wireless radiation Smart Meters should be made safe within two months for 13 people with electrosensitivity, even though the government agency ANSES denies the existence of real electrosensivity.
    “Compteur Linky: la justice donne raison à 13 plaignants électrosensibles” [Linky meter: Justice gives reason to 13 electrosensitive plaintiffs] (Femme Actuelle, April 24 2019)
    ​"French court rules against Linky for health reasons" (The Connexion, July 31 2019)
  • France: EHS recognized by court requiring clean-up for smart meter injuries, 2022
    “France: Linky: Electrosensitive People Win their Case against Enedis Condemned to “Clean Up Electricity”” (TBH, January 30 2022)
  • Germany:
    Ravensburg: The 5G digitization strategy includes: “The project should be accompanied by scientific and medical investigations into the effects of radiation exposure. Furthermore, zones or rooms with reduced radiation exposure are to be created for electrosensitive people."
    “Digitization strategy of the city of Ravensburg” (February 18 2019)
  • Israel: School windows shielded from cellphone tower after parents strike: Students returned to the Ort Holon school in Israel on October 9 2018 after the Holon municipality agreed to install at its expense a radiation shielding network on the classroom windows. This followed students’ headaches and other symptoms because of a cellphone tower outside the school, even though the radiation was within ICNIRP’s 6-minutes heating limits. Ram Dishon, a certified electronics engineer who voluntarily carried out radiation measurements around the school. "The level of radiation in the ORT school, as reflected in the last measurement, is 140 times the maximum threshold that I believe constitutes the safety threshold, and much higher than the level that caused the disease in the Negba school in Rishon Letzion. Therefore, in my opinion, this radiation has the risk of morbidity for children exposed to it every day for many hours over the years." (Yoram Levy: “Parents do not subscribe their children to ORT Holon for fear of dangerous radiation” Hashikma-holon, June 12 2018; Yoram Levy: “The strike in Ort is over: The municipality is installing a radiation shielding network” Hashikma-holon, October 10 2018)
  • Italy: Court of Appeal in Turin confirmed that mobile phones can cause brain tumors (“The Court of Appeal of Turin Confirms the Link Between a Head Tumour and Mobile Phone Use” PhoneGate Alert, January 15 2020)
  • Italy: Maurizio Martucci: “In Florence, the court will turn off the Wifi at school. An extraordinarily innovative act” (Il Fatto Quotidiano, January 28 2019): The judge of second board of the second civil section of the Court of Florence, Susanna Zanda,  on January 27 2019 ordered the immediate shutdown of WiFi to protect the health of a minor, a pupil with EHS: "The Botticelli Comprehensive Institute removes immediately the WiFi systems in the institute".  "Court ordered to turn off Wi-Fi at a school in Florence" (EMFSA, January 29 2019)
  • Italy: summary: "Italian Workers’ Compensation Authority (INAIL) Ordered to Pay Out to 4th Mobile Phone User with Cancer" (BC Legal, September 2019)
  • Netherlands: Person with EHS must be consulted as an interested party over the siting of a celllphone tower, even if the cellphone tower is 650m away and not visible from the plaintiff's condominium; ICNIRP Guidelines were not protective and values such as <1 V/m should be used
    ​-  (District Court of Gelderland; Date of judgment: 18-12-2020; Date of publication: 21-12-2020. Case number: AWB-19/2184. Administrative law, Preliminary injunction. This judgement by Mr. JH van Breda) Report.
    -  Jannes van Roermund: “’Stralingszieken’ blij: Uitspraak van rechter over 5G-zendmast doorbraak” ['Radiation sick' happy: Judge ruling on breakthrough 5G cell tower] (De Telegraaf, December 30 2020)
  • South Africa: "First Officially Recognized Case of the Functional Impairment EHS" (Lauraine Vivian & Olle Johansson, Comment, BMJ Open, 2013)
  • Spain: Teacher awared 100% of salary (The Spanish Labour Court of Madrid recognised the permanent incapacity of a college professor who suffered from CFS and environmental EHS and awarded 100% of the base salary, 2011).
  • Spain: FM, MCS and ES recognised as permanent disability in Spain: At Social Court, Number 4, in Castellón, for the first time in Spain, permanent disability has been recognized as a great disability in a patient afflicted with fibromyalgia (FM), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) and electrosensitivity (ES). Ruben had to sell his house and move home to a place in the mountains, only accompanied by Rosalina, his wife, who assists him and who can now also benefit from a help. ("Es el fin a cuatro años de calvario, enfermo y aislado en Betxí" El Periódico Mediterráneo, March 1 2017)
  • Spain: Support plan for people with EHS (July 1 2016, Tarragona Municipality Government: for people with Central Sensitivity Syndromes (CSS) which includes ES and EHS, especially: "Housing protocol for people with CSS, especially those who have MCS and/or EHS, those threatened by eviction or those who are forced to leave their home. This protocol has to include a series of safe social housing (green/white spaces: free of xenobiotics and electromagnetic waves). Create green/white spaces in all municipal buildings (free of xenobiotics and electromagnetic waves). )
  • Spain:"A telecoms engineer with electrosensitivity is awarded disability benefits because of his inability to work in WiFi areas" (Ana Macpherson, Lavanguardia, August 2 2016, where the High Court in Madrid awarded disability benefit to Ricardo de Francesco, a 47-year-old telecoms engineer with Ericsson, who suffers tinnitus, headaches and sleeplessness from cellphones. This overturns refusal of the National Institution of Social Security (INSS) which in 2014 denied disability benefits on the grounds that there was then insufficient medical evidence.)
    ​Patricia Esteban: "Spain: High Court of Madrid Ruling Recognizes "Electrosensitivity" as Grounds for Total Permanent Disability" (noticias.juridicas.com, August 3 2016)
  • Spain: "Higher Court of Justice of Aragon Links Electrosensitivity with Workplace Accidents: TSJA links electrosensitivity with workplace accidents” (el Periodico de Aragon, Towards Better Health, January 9 2019, translation):  the worker began to suffer the symptoms of his illness of electrosensitivity in 2009, after having been continuously exposed to electromagnetic fields. In 2013 the company's medical services rated him as a person sensitive to electromagnetic fields (EHS), and yet he had to continue his work in places close to Wi-Fi and telephony antennas.  The ruling issued by the TSJA joins other judicial decisions of Spanish courts that have granted work incapacity to workers affected by electrosensitivity.
    "Jan 2019 – Electrohypersensitivity finally considered a Work-related Accident (Spain)" (Electromagnetic Sense Ireland, January 12 2019)
  • Sweden: Specific recognition of EHS as a functional impairment (Olle Johansson)
  • Taiwan: "Lawsuit Against Spread of Illegal Installation of Mobile Phone Base Stations" (2011: the plaintiff suffered a 3-year exposure, close to the EM radiation source, which might cause mental illness, and carcinogenic body diseases, especially for those who are new-born infants and the elderly staying home for nearly 24 hours a day, and causing the plaintiff's mental discomfort and therefore a compensation of $100 thousands NT per person was to be paid by defendants, according to the Paragraph 1 of Article 184 of the Civil Code, the provisions of Article 195)
  • Taiwan:"Does YOUR toddler play on an iPad? Taiwan makes it ILLEGAL for parents to let children under two use electronic gadgets... and under-18s must limit use to 'reasonable' lengths" (Daily Mail, January 28 2015)
  • UK: Employment and Support Allowance awarded (Document ref. no.: 171) (Under the Social Entitlement Chamber, ESA Regulation 29, Exceptional Circumstances, 2b: "the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement"; the Judge stated: "Were it not for the EMR the appellant would lead a normal life with little or no functional impairment ... Considerations included the fact that the appellant would be unable to work in any 'normal' working environment indoors or outdoors - anywhere there was WiFi, mobile phones or mobile phone masts ... Taken together the prospects of the appellant being able to 'work' ... were effectively nil." 2012).
    Since 2012 there have been about four similar cases recognizing EHS as a disabling condition in the high court (Newsletters, Electrosensitivity UK).
    EHS has also been recognized as as a legal cause for early retirement on the grounds of ill health (Newsletters, Electrosensitivity UK)
    EHS has been recognized in at least five courts in the UK. ESA, JSA and early retirement pensions have been allowed because of EHS.
    ​(ES-UK: EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ALLOWANCE (ESA), JOB SEEKER’S ALLOWANCE (JSA), ILL HEALTH PENSIONS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY (EHS), 2018)
    "In 2018 a UK educational tribunal recognised EHS as a health disability." (ES-UK: Disability Letter, Child at School, 2018)
    In 2022, a 59-year-old social worker won  ‘early ill health retirement’ for disabling ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) (PHIRE, June 15 2022; TBH, June 17 2022)
    In 2022 an Upper Tier Tribunal set a legal precedent recognising EHS as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 and requiring the Local Authority to provided access to education according to the Education Health Care Plan without radio frequency radiation including the removal of Wifi from the school. Judgement. PHIRE. Local Government Lawyer.
  • US American Disability Access Board: MCS and EHS 
    "The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual's major life activities.
    The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals. The Board plans to develop technical assistance materials on best practices for accommodating individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities."
             NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, pp.4-5)
    "The presence of electromagnetic fields from office equipment and other sources is a barrier for those with electromagnetic sensitivities."
    "General Solutions:  Measures taken to improve indoor environmental quality, such as reducing air pollutants, noise and electromagnetic fields in buildings, will increase their accessibility for people with asthma and chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities, as well as provide a more healthful environment for all building occupants." 
            NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.8)
    "For people who are electromagnetically sensitive, the presence of cell phones and towers, portable telephones, computers, fluorescent lighting, unshielded transformers and wiring, battery re-chargers, wireless devices, security and scanning equipment, microwave ovens, electric ranges and numerous other electrical appliances can make a building inaccessible.
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ... recommends the following measures for those wanting to reduce EMF exposure: –
    informing workers and employers about possible hazards of magnetic fields, increasing workers’ distance from EMF sources, using low-EMF designs wherever possible (e.g., for layout of office power supplies), and reducing EMF exposure times."
            NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.11)
    "Cell phone use was identified as a significant barrier for people with electromagnetic sensitivities."
            NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.12)
    "It is recommended that cell phone use be prohibited in areas of a building when requested by an electromagnetically sensitive individual who needs to work or visit that area."
            NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.19)
    "Be wary of using motion sensors that can create significant electromagnetic fields."
        NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.30)
    "Individuals with multiple chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities have identified the availability of designated cleaner air rooms and paths of travel in public and commercial buildings as highly important for improving access."
        NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.46) 
    "National Cleaner Air Symbol: The national symbol shall be the standard used to identify a room, facility, and paths of travel that are more accessible to and useable by people who are adversely impacted by airborne pollutants, such as those with chemical sensitivities, asthma, and other respiratory conditions, and/or people who are adversely impacted by electromagnetic fields from electrical fixtures and equipment such as those with electromagnetic sensitivities."
    ​"Paths of Travel Every effort should be made to make the Paths of Travel as accessible as possible for those with multiple chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities"
    ​    NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.49)
    "Cell Phones Turned Off: Protect those with electromagnetic sensitivities and others who may be adversely affected by electrical equipment."
    "Ability to turn off or unplug computers and other electrical equipment by occupant or staff: Protect those with electromagnetic sensitivities and others who may be adversely affected by computers and electrical equipment.
    ​Ability to turn off fluorescent lighting by occupant or staff: LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) recommendations for new construction call for individual control of lighting"
    ​    NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.51)
    "According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other disability laws, public and commercial buildings are required to provide reasonable accommodations for those disabled by chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities.
    • Require cell phones and computers be turned off
    ​• Provide incandescent lighting in lieu of fluorescent lighting"
    For individuals who are unable to use or meet in a building or facility, or who are too severely impacted by chemical and/or electromagnetic exposures to use a designated Cleaner Air Room, accommodations may include:
    • Meet an individual at the door or outside to conduct business
    • Allow a person to wait outside or in car until appointment
    • Provide a means, such as a phone, intercom, bell, or buzzer to summon staff to an outside door for assistance
    • Permit business to be conducted by phone, fax, mail, or e-mail rather than in person
    • Allow participation in a meeting by speakerphone"​
            NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.52)
    "Electromagnetic fields and radiofrequencies can jeopardize the functioning and safe access of electromagnetically sensitive individuals.
    Examples of indoor appliances which can provoke health problems include:
    • cell and portable telephones,
    • fluorescent lights,
    • unshielded transformers and wiring,
    • battery re-chargers,
    • wireless devices including computers and personal communication services (“PCS”),
    • security and scanning equipment,
    • numerous common work place and household electronic appliances.
    ​Many electrical appliances and equipment can be improved to varying degrees by appropriate shielding, and/or by being located in areas remote from vulnerable individuals."
  •     NIBS IEQ Final Report 2005 (7/14/05, p.91-92)

  • US American Disability Access Board:Report (Background: Final Rule Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Recreation Facilities, 2000, page 11: Electromagnetic Fields: "For people who are electromagnetically sensitive, the presence of cell phones and towers, portable telephones, computers, fluorescent lighting, unshielded transformers and wiring, battery re-chargers, wireless devices, security and scanning equipment, microwave ovens, electric ranges and numerous other electrical appliances can make a building inaccessible. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) notes that scientific studies have raised questions about the possible health effects of EMF’s. NIOSH recommends the following measures for those wanting to reduce EMF exposure – informing workers and employers about possible hazards of magnetic fields, increasing workers’ distance from EMF sources, using low-EMF designs wherever possible (e.g., for layout of office power supplies), and reducing EMF exposure times.")
  • USA: Antoinette Yannon wins claim for late husband Samuel Yannon (1982, following illness and later death because of exposure to microwave transmitters)
  • USA: "Causal. Legally Recognized Proof of the Damage Potential of Technical Highfrequency Fields - a Case Report" (Eger H,Umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft, 2014, 27(3): 176-181: When a US-American patient moved to Bavaria in 2006 and he was sensitised by nocturnal High Frequency radiation, he had to move away in 2007, but although he improved he was unable to work subsequently because of the ever higher environmental exposures. The court ackowledged his ES in 2012 and he was granted apension back-dated to 2008.)
  • USA:"Court rules for Berkeley in cellphone right to know case" (Berkeleyside, September 22 2015: Federal district judge Edward Chen ruled in favor of the City of Berkeley's cellphone 'right to know' ordinance against a First Amendment rights challenge by the CTIA; Preliminary Judgement)
  • USA: Indoor Environmental Quality (National Institute of Building Sciences, with Access Board, 2005, p.47f)
  • USA: "Health Hazard Evaluation Report: Nonionizing Radiation Exposure to Technicians at a Satellite Communications Facility" (HETA 2007-0085-3062, National Institute for Occupational Health & Safety (NIOSH), 2008, p.10)
  • USA: “Hypersensitivity to WiFi … could it be a disability?” (Alexis Kramer, Bloomberg BNA Legal, September 10 2015)
  • USA: “Judge rules electric co-op violated discrimination laws” (Plumas County News, May 4th 2015, where a utility was required to restore an analog meter for an EHS customer and not to discriminate against the EHS customer in setting higher charges for installation or reading the meter)
  • USA: LAUSD accommodates ES teacher (Los Angeles Unified School Board provides WiFi-free environment without radiation for Mrs Anura Lawson, a teacher made electrically sensitive by the school WiFi installation earlier in the year, 2014)

    Susan Foster: "Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Evaluation of Electromagnetic Sensitivities (EHS) & Accommodations" (letter to Superintendent Michelle King, Los Angeles Unified School District, July 5 2017)
  • USA: "Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy" (Larry B. Guthrie, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 1:1, 1977) 
  • USA: "Massachusetts: Wi-Fi in School : ADA Federal Complaint Against School After Child Fell Sick From Wireless Installation" (Towards Better Health, August 14 2015); Complaint (August 12 2015); Scott O'Connell: "Family sues Fay School in Southboro, claims Wi-Fi made son ill" (Worcester Telegram & Gazette, August 24 2015) WCVB: "Preliminary agreement reached in Southborough Wi-Fi lawsuit" (August 27 2015); Scott O'Connell: “Wi-Fi lawsuit against Southboro's Fay School is headed to trial” (Telegram, January 18 2016); Q&A interview with mother; Beth: “Fay accused of retaliating against family suing school” (My Southborough, March 11 2016).
    The judge in this case accepted Dr Carpenter's evidence that EHS exists as a rare phenomenon and accepted Dr Herbert's statement that the child's symptoms were consistent with other cases of EHS caused by radio frequency and Wifi. The judge also accepted that the FCC has not ruled out the existence of non-thermal effects like EHS but not provided protection against them [p.15], and that the FCC has no preemption over the ADA by virtue of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 but rather that the telecoms must provide for people with EHS under the ADA [p.16-17].  However the judgement then went on to admit that "There is sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find that something at the Fay school was impacting G, and this might be Wi-Fi" but then decided, it seems, that it was something else but without specifying what this was, so denying the child the right to the reasonable adjustments assumed under the ASA. This appears to be an extraordinary assumption to make, when no other toxic substance is recorded in the scientific literature as having exactly the same specific symptoms as those recorded for Wifi, where Dr Carpenter had vouched for the existence of the condition and Dr Herbert had provided the pathway of oxidative stress as the accepted mechanism verified by hundreds of scientific studies on radio frequency. Even if the defendants were unable to specify some other actual cause of the child's ill health and injuries, the defendants were still clearly failing to provide reasonable adjustments for the child under the ADA when the judge admitted that that the defendant's proposition was a possibility. To most people it was obvious that it was the school which had failed to make the appropriate adjustment based on the plaintiff's symptoms, and not the fault of the plaintiff in failing to identify the supposed other causative factor postulated incorrectly by the school, The application of the ADA is not about 100% certainty of a biophysical condition and the case was not prima facie a bioelectromagnetic experiment. Rather the ADA is about the duty of care and practical steps to allow , in this case, a child access to the educational process, something which the school clearly failed to do since the symptoms continued to persist to the point that the child was forced to leave the school. (US District Court, District of Massachusetts: Case 4:15-cv-40116-TSH Document 130 Filed 09/29/17) 
  • USA: California state legislature recognizes people with electromagnetic sensitivities as disabled:
    "Since May 2017, the California Legislature has provided ADA accommodation for people disabled by electromagnetic sensitivities (EMS). This is the first California legislative session to acknowledge EMS and to arrange accommodation and access for the EMF-disabled so that they can participate at hearings.
    On Wednesday, July 12 2017, California Assembly leaders provided the most extensive accommodation to date at a hearing on Senate Bill 649 (Hueso). Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee Chairman Miguel Santiago said, “The Assembly’s Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator has received multiple requests for accommodation from individuals wishing to participate in this hearing,” and ”in an attempt to accommodate as many individuals as possible,” the committee a) made a special order of business with a “time certain” for the SB 649 hearing, so those with EMS could arrive for the hearing and then leave, reducing their EMF exposure b) provided remote telephone access for those too disabled by the indoor air quality to testify in person, and c) made a request to the audience to turn off the wireless on their cell phones or put them in airplane mode “as a courtesy to the electromagnetically sensitive.”
    (Smart Meter Harm, September 15, 2017)
  • USA: Californian Court Recognizes Disability in Person with EHS Caused by Wifi, February 18 2021:
    ​Laurie Brown, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Defendant and Respondent. No. B294240. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight. (Filed February 18, 2021).
    Allison M. Scott, Cory L. Webster and Laura P. Worsinger (Dykema Gossett PLLC): “Is Wi-Fi Sickness a Disability? California Appellate Court Holds That It Is Under FEHA” (Lexology, February 23 2021).
    Casetext-Smarter Legal Research: “Brown v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.” (February 18 2021).
    Metropilitan News-Enterprise: “C.A. Reinstates Claim Based on Wi-Fi-Induced Illness: Justice Wiley Says in Concurring Opinion That Cause of Action Was Adequately Pled, but Expresses Concern That ‘Green Light’ Is Given to Claims Based on Idiosyncratic Reactions to Common Circumstances” (February 19 2021).
    ​Law.Com The Recorder: “Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District: School district employee adequately alleged "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" disability” (February 23 2021).
  • USA: Dafna Tachover explaining legal actions against the US FCC: 
    ​Michell Greenstein: “Corporations push dangerous 5G, US gets sued” (RT America, January 28 2020, 7 min.)​
  • “Group Calls on Citizens to Blow the Whistle on Motorola Cell Phone Safety Studies” (Corporate Crime Reporter,  January 27 2020)


Evidence for, and recognition of, ES and EHS as a 'functional impairment' and 'disability'


​

Governmental and advisory groups on ES equality rights

  • American Academy of Environmental Medicine: "Recommendations Regarding Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Exposure" (2012): 
    ​"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."
  • BioInitiative Report: "Sensitive Populations Must Be Protected" (2012): 
    "Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be set at lower than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS)."
  • Brussels Declaration (2015):
    "International Scientific Brussels Declaration, on Electro-hypersensitivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, After the fifth Appeal of Paris Congress held on May 18, 2015 at the Royal Academy of Medicine, Brussels, Belgium"
    "EHS and MCS should, therefore, be fully recognized by international and national institutions with responsibility for human health."
  • Freiburger Appeal by over 1,000 physicians: "International Appeal 2012" (2002, 2012):
    Recommendation 7: 
    ​"Identify and clearly mark protected zones for electrohypersensitive people; establish public areas without wireless access or coverage, especially on public transport, similar to smoke-free areas for nonsmokers."
  • International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS): "Benevento Resolution" (2006):
    Strategy required, no. 6.7: 
    "Designate wireless-free zones in citiies, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF."
  • International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): Documents recognizing ES symptoms and the need for non-thermal limits (2002, 2010; 2014):
    People Being Protected: 
    "Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate a particular NIR exposure. For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population. Under such circumstances, it may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population, but it may be more effective to adjust the guidelines for the general population to include such groups.Some guidelines may still not provide adequate protection for certain sensitive individuals nor for normal individuals exposed concomitantly to other agents, which may exacerbate the effect of the NIR exposure."​

    Electrosensitivity symptoms: 
    “a number of well established acute effects of exposure of low-frequency EMFs on the nervous system” “brain functions such as visual processing and motor co-ordination can be transiently affected by induced electric fields” “transient effects such as phosphenes and possible minor changes in some brain functions” “a number of well established acute effects of exposure of low-frequency EMFs on the nervous system” "brain functions such as visual processing and motor co-ordination can be transiently affected by induced electric fields” “vertigo and nausea".
  • Electrosensitivity Australia: "Public submission to the ACMA Committee" (Julie McCredden, for ES.OZ, 2014): 
    Requests: 
    "We ask you to advise us how you plan to incorporate ICNIRP's recommendations for the vulnerable into your legislative instruments." 
    Recommendations: 
    "Establishment of White Zones."
  • Swiss Physicians for the Environment: Letter on non-ionizing radiation to Federal Councillors (2012): ​ 
    Point 3. 
    "The precautionary principle should be applied to non-ionizing radiation (NIR) strictly. We therefore call on you in your decisions  for ... continuous, independent, practical and interdisciplinary research, with focus on assisting vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, the chronically ill and electro-sensitive patients."
  • Trades Union Congress: "Occupational Cancer: A Workplace Guide" (UK, 2012, p.6); 
    Electromagnetic exposure is a 2B possible cancer agent: "The aim of trade unions is that there should be no workplace exposure to anything that causes cancer. Where possible this will mean removing carcinogens from the workplace completely."


5G
5G contravenes Human Rights Conventions and is illegal because not yet proven safe, but already proven dangerous in causing electrosensitivity, infertility, neurological and cardiovascular harm, and cancers:


Legal cases involving non-thermal effects:


Canada: Class Action Lawsuits against Apple and Samsung


USA: Class Action Lawsuits against Apple and Samsung

On August 23 2019 Fegan Scott, a Chicago-based law firm, filed a class action 44-page lawsuit in the Northern District of California against Apple and Samsung, following the revelations by the Chicago Tribune that smartphone radiation exceeds safety standards. The lawsuit claims, "recent testing of the defendants’ products shows that the potential exposure for an owner carrying the phone in a pants or shirt pocket was over the exposure limit, sometimes far exceeding it—in some instances by 500%." The lawsuit adds that by using smartphones, the users unknowingly put themselves at "increased risk of cancer, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans."

Beth Fegan, a managing partner at Fegan Scott, said that "this could be the Chernobyl of the cell phone industry, cover-up and all." 

Case:


Financial compensation for stray voltage


Environmental evidence on non-thermal effects

 


Smart Meter lawsuits over health damage

  • Canada: “Lawsuit Against BC Hydro Proceeding December 7 to 11 2015”, Citizens for Safe Technology, Stop Smart Meters, November 2015: the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver, from 7 December 2015: assessment of BC Hydro's disregard of Charter Rights in relation to the deployment of radiation from smart meters, where there exists a reasonable basis for concern about health risk so as to give rise to a right of autonomy and free choice as to whether a microwave radiation emitting meter is operational from one’s own dwelling).
  • USA Maine Supreme Court: “Smart meter opponents argue to overturn Maine PUC decision” (Walter Wuthmann, The Forecaster, November 4 2015: the 2012 study on health damage from 'smart' meters by the Maine Public Utility Commission lasting over 2 years has been questioned; the length of the study appears to preempt the outdated 1996 FCC heating limits)
  • USA: North Carolina recognizes EHS as sufficient to refuse a wireless smart meter and refuses to allow utilities to charge these EHS people an extra charge:
    “The Commission believes it is inappropriate to require customers who maintain that they need to avoid exposure to RF emissions to the extent possible to protect their health to pay DEC’s proposed smart meter opt-out charges. Therefore, the Commission will require DEC to amend its Rider MRM to remove the customer charges for those customers who provide the Company with a notarized statement from a medical physician licensed by the North Carolina Medical Board that the customer must avoid exposure to RF emissions to the extent possible to protect their health. Upon receipt of such statement, the Company shall waive both the one-time and the monthly fees under Rider MRM. The Commission further requires that such medical statements must be handled and processed by the Company in a secure and confidential manner to protect customer privacy.”
    ​    (page 14, North Carolina Utilities Commission, Docket No. E-7, Sub 1115; E-100, Sub. 147; E-100, Sub. 153, June 22 2018)
  • John Murawski: “Don’t Want a Smart Meter? Get a Doctor’s Note: North Carolina’s Duke Energy is giving customers a unique way to opt out of smart utility meters, but it requires getting a doctor to diagnose them with electrosensitivity.” (GovTech, June 26 2018)

​

WiFi lawsuits and legal challenges over health damage



The legality of irradiating people with or without their informed consent with a human carcinogen, equality issues and summaries of legal cases:



Enforced environmental radiation violates the Nuremberg Code

Where governments allow civilian populations to be irradiated with environmental electromagnetic exposures which are classified internationally as 2B human cancer agents and are known neurotoxins, they are acting illegally and in contravention of the international Nuremberg Code of 1947. Such irradiation is known to be potentially harmful yet each member of the general population has not been consulted or given their individual consent to such experiments on their human health. In the case of children it is unlikely that any government could sanction such radiation experiments.


  • "Enforced introduction of wireless smart meters is a clear contravention of the Nuremberg Code which forbids the performance of experiments on human beings without their consent.  Insofar as the long-term safety of continual irradiation from these devices has never been tested and many people (including many eminent scientists) believe that it is potentially harmful, the whole nation is being made a part of an uncontrolled experiment on their electromagnetic safety."
    (Dr Andrew Goldsworthy: Letter, November 14 2010)



Nuremberg Code:

      Legal action against outdated heating limits

Class actions against electromagnetic radiation, such as 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wifi, and wireless smart meters, which has not yet been proven safe, directed against citizens without their specific consent, violates the Nuremberg Code. Some cities and citizens are seeking to protect their health and defend their basic human rights by taking legal action, such as class action, judicial review and liability notices, against wilful perpetrators, such as telecom companies, utilities, federal and local agencies, and individual employees and regulators allowing or aiding the involuntary irradiation of unwilling citizens. Radiation terrorism and electromagnetic warfare of this form on civilians without their specific agreement is a clear contravention of the Nuremberg Code.

Organisations and regulators complying with ICNIRP, FCC and similar guidelines are vulnerable to such legal challenges, since the ICNIRP, FCC and similar guidelines protect citizens against only short-term (6 or 30 minutes averaged) heating effects. They do not protect against long-term and biological effects, for which EUROPAEM EMF Guidelines 2016 or IGNIR are provided and should be applied instead.



Informed consent is essential for scientific experiments

Informed consent is required for experiments on humans involving non-ionizing and ionizing radiation. It appears that some countries like the US try to evade this requirement by claiming that such experiments, even where they cover large populations, come under 'classified research'. The irradiation of the population by cellphone towers without prior testing, where any adverse health effects will be discovered as a result of this irradiation, is often regarded as an experiment on the population without informed consent.


"In New York, experimentation is defined in terms of physical intervention upon a subject that is not required for the direct benefit of the subject. The law provides 'no human research may be conducted in this state in the absence of voluntary informed consent subscribed to in writing by the human subject'."

              Prof. Andrew Marino (ed.): "Modern Bioelectricity" (Marcel Dekker Inc., CRC Press, 1988), p.1080.


"A better approach would be to require that the beam of greatest RF intensity from a macrocell base station sited within the grounds of a school should not be permitted to fall on any part of the school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents." 

              UK's Stewart Report (2000), 6.65.


There have been well known cases of experiments without informed consent, but few if any have resulted in criminal legal actions.


  • After Howard Rosenberg in 1981 revealed in Mother Jones concerning radiation studies at the Oak Ridge Institute for Nuclear Studies, US Rep. Al Gore chaired a sub-committee which found that the radiation experiments were "satisfactory, but not perfect" in September 1981.
  • Congressman Ed Markey's report in November 1986, "American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens" reported that there were 31 human radiation experiments involving nearly 700 people.
  • "Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects" of 1991.
  • After outrage at further reports of human radiation experiments without informed consent, President Bill Clinton in 1994 established the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) which reported in 1995. Clinton issued an apology in October 1995, the same day as the O.J. Simpson jury returned its verdict. 
  • President Obama’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2009-2016) apparently also failed to resolve this problem.
  • In 2017 small cell towers radiation devices were proposed for street-side installation without written informed consent by residents.

Sources and information:


 

​Regulations, guidelines and bills limiting WiFi, cellphone, tower and other EM exposures:

  • Argentina:"The minimum prevention and control of electromagnetic pollution" bill in the Chamber of Deputies (March 2016), requiring wired internet connection in schools and hospitals, a limit of 1000 uW/m2 for digital pollution, a minimum offset of 100m from housing, schools, hospitals, sports faciliies, cultural places and green spaces for radiation transmitters, with an Environmental Impact Assessment and public meeting before applying for a permit, warnings and emission levels on radiation devices, an on-line Registry of radiation emission locations, and a Advisory Council to enforce the legislation.  
  • Canada: Ontario: City of Peterborough: "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Tip Sheet" (v2018-05-08)
  • Canada: House of Commons: Report of the Standing Committee on Health (HESA 2015): "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians" (42 pages):
    Recommendation 2:
    That Statistics Canada consider including questions related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the Canadian Community Health Survey.
    Recommendation 3:
    That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity testing, diagnosis and treatment, and its possible impacts on health in the workplace.
    Recommendation 4:
    ​That the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the World Health Organization consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivity to ensure they are based on the latest scientific evidence and reflect the symptoms of affected Canadians.
    Recommendation 5:
    That the Government of Canada continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
    Recommendation 6:
    That Health Canada ensure the openness and transparency of its processes for the review of Safety Code 6, so that all Canadians have an opportunity to be informed about the evidence considered or excluded in such reviews, that outside experts are provided full information when doing independent reviews, and that the scientific rationale for any change is clearly communicated.
    Recommendation 7:
    ​That the Government of Canada establish a system for Canadians to report potential adverse reactions to radiofrequency fields. 
  • European Council
    "Report warning of the harmful effects of WiFi and cell phones to children and babies, and proposes to member states to ban their use in schools." (list, 2013).
    European Court of Justice:
    Need for Password Protection for open WiFi hubs:
         Alan Toner: "European Court Allows Copyright Owners to Demand Open Wifi Networks be Password Protected" (Electronic Frontier Foundation, September 26 2016)
  • France:
    Protection for children:  WiFi banned in nurseries, limited in primary schools (2015).
    Transposition of European Commission EMF Directive: "Décret n° 2016-1074 du 3 août 2016 relatif à la protection des travailleurs contre les risques dus aux champs électromagnétiques" (Decree No. 2016-1074 of August 3, 2016 on the protection of workers against the risks arising from electromagnetic fields; 2016):
    - "Art. R. 4453-8.-In conducting the risk assessment, the employer shall take into consideration: 
    6. any direct biophysical effects on the worker or any indirect effects that may result from exposure to electromagnetic fields; 
    7. any impact on the health and safety of workers under 18 years and workers at particular risk, including pregnant women and workers equipped with implanted medical devices or not, active or passive;"Art. R. For 4453-15.-workers at particular risk referred to -     "in Article 7 of R. 4453-8, the employer shall adapt, in liaison with the occupational physician, preventive measures provided for in this section."
    Protection for Workers: 
    Yann Galli: “Les entreprises vont devoir protéger les salariés des ondes électromagnétiques” (France Inter, January 1 2017),
    (trans. Towards Better Health: “Businesses are going to protect workers from electromagnetic waves” January 8 2017)
    Ban on cellphones in schools​:
    Benjamin Sportouch and Claire Gaveau: “Blanquer sur RTL : "Les portables seront interdits à l'école et au collège à la rentrée 2018" [Blanquer on RTL: "Laptops will be banned at school and college in September 2018"] (RTL, December 10 2017)


  • Germany, Switzerland:  Bavaria 2007; Hesse 2010; Frankfurt 2006; Thurgau 2008:
    • ​Bavarian Parliament (June 21 2007): "If a wireless network is installed, the access points should only be turned on during active use ... prefer the use of wired network solutions whenever possible."
    • Parliament of Hesse (April 9 2010): BfS (Rederal Office for Radiation Protection) 2005 recommends "wireless access points shall not be placed in areas where people spend a considerable amount of time such as at a workplace, i.e. in our case the rooms of a school."
    • School Department of the City of Frankfurt (FR08/06/06): "as long as the safety of wireless communication is not clarified ... WLAN networks must not be used at Frankfurt schools."
    • ​Governing Council of Thurgau Canton (August 4 2008): "a conventional wired network should be given preference over a wireless network."
  • Israel:
    • Haifa, Israel's third largest city, disconnects WiFi: Local News (April 18 2016) (trans.; trans.)
    • Ministry of Education (August 27 2013): "stop the installation of wireless networks in classrooms prior to the first grade and limit the use of WiFi between first and third grades; teachers are required to turn off mobile phones and WiFi routers when they are not being used." (list)
  • ​Italy:

    • "Italian town shuts down Wi-Fi over health fears" (The Local, January 8 2016)
    • "Turin could slash Wi-Fi over 'radiation' concerns" (The Local, July 25 2016)​​
  • Russia (RNCNIRP) (2011) "Usage of a mobile phone by children and adolescents under 18 years old is not recommended by the Sanitary Rule SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03, and mobile phone use requires implementation of precautionary measures in order to prevent health risks. Mobile phone use by pregnant women is not recommended in order to prevent risk for a fetus." (The Sanitary Rule “Hygienic Requirements for Placement and Operation of Onshore Mobile Radio Devices” (SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03, p.6.9). Moscow, Federal Center for State Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision of the Ministry for Health Protection of the Russian Federation, 2003.  (RNCNIRP, 2011: "Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Health Effect on Children and Teenagers") 
  • The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation (RNCIRP) (2012): "officially recommended that Wi-Fi not be used in schools." (list)
  • Switzerland: Canton of Geneva:
    July 2017:
  • ​"General recommendations:
    For the well-being and health of children and young people, exposure time to screens must be limited according to age.
    Before age 3:                    No TV or DVDs. 
    Between ages 3 and 6:   Limiting the exposure time to screens to one hour a day is desirable.
    From age 6:                      From this age, the total exposure time to screens should be limited to one hour a day.​
    From age 9:                      The exposure time should also be limited to two hours a day for all screens."
          Office de l'enfance et de la jeunesse: Service de santé de l'enfance et de la jeunesse​: "Usages du numérique: risques pour la santé" ​ (Republique et Canton de Geneve: Département de l'instruction publique, de la culture et du sport, September 5 2017)
          English Translation: "Uses of Digital Technology:  Health Risks" (Translation by the Editor of "Towards Better Health", September 7 2017)

Switzerland: Uncertainty over which Government Department is Responsible for Cell Phone Safety:


  • Taiwan:ban on use by under 2s; teenage use 'reasonable', 2015.
  • United Kingdom:
    • "the UK Chief Medical Officers advise that children and young people under 16 should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only, and to keep calls short." (NHS: "Mobile phones and base stations: Health advice on using mobile phones", 2011)
    • “Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer has advised that mobile phones should be turned off before bed, as she warned that the cocktail of pollution caused by modern life was a risk to health.”
      (Chris Smyth: “Silent killer in your bedroom... a mobile phone” The Times, March 2 2018) 
    • "Excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged," (PHE: "HPA response to the 2012 AGNIR report on the health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields", 2012)
    • "SI 2016/588 Health and Safety - The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations: 2016" (July 1 2016, transposing European DIrective 2013/35/EU: Electromagnetic Fields):
      “direct biophysical effect” means an effect on human body tissue caused by its presence in an electromagnetic field;
      “employee at particular risk” means—
      (a) an employee who has declared to his or her employer a condition which may lead to a higher susceptibility to the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields;
      “health effect” means a direct biophysical effect which is potentially harmful to human health;
      “indirect effect” means an effect, caused by the presence of an object or a substance in an electromagnetic field, which may present a safety or health hazard;
      “sensory effect” means a direct biophysical effect involving a transient disturbance in sensory perception or a minor and temporary change in brain function.
      ... (2) The risk assessment must include consideration of, where relevant—
      ... (c) direct biophysical effects;
      ... (g) multiple sources of exposure;
      (h) simultaneous exposure to multiple frequency fields;
      (i) indirect effects;
      (j) any effects on employees at particular risk;
      ... 2. The ALs and ELVs are set out in tables and grouped according to their potential effects, being—
      (a) thermal effects, related to the heating of tissue due to its absorption of electromagnetic fields; and
      (b) non-thermal effects, related to the stimulation of nerves or sensory organs due to the presence of electromagnetic fields.
      ... PART 2: Direct biophysical effects of exposure: Action levels – non-thermal effects.
      ... 2. The ELVs may be exceeded during an employee’s shift where the employer ensures that—
      ... (c) adequate information is provided to the employee on the possibility of sensory effects related to time-varying magnetic fields, including retinal phosphenes; and
      (d) where any of those sensory effects are reported to the employer, the risk assessment is updated where necessary.
      ... PART 3: Indirect effects of exposure: Action levels – non-thermal effects.
    • SI 2016/588 EM Explanatory Memorandum - Health and Safety - The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016
      • "Electromagnetic fields at work: A guide to the Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016" (HSE, 2016)
        "What are the effects of exposure? (11) EMFs at different frequencies affect the human body in different ways, causing
        sensory and health effects; see Table 1."
        0–1 Hz:                   "Sensory effects: Nausea, vertigo, metallic taste in the mouth, flickering sensations (magnetophosphenes)                                               in peripheral vision"
        1 Hz–10 MHz:        "Sensory effects: Nausea, vertigo, metallic taste in the mouth, flickering sensations (magnetophosphenes)
                                          Health effects: Nerve stimulation, effects on the central and peripheral nervous system of the body: tingling,                                           muscle contraction, heart arrhythmia."
        100 kHz–10 MHz:   "The health effects of both high and low frequencies can be experienced as detailed above and below."
        100 kHz–300 GHz:  "Sensory effects: Auditory effects such as perception of clicks or buzzing caused by pulsed radar systems.
        Table 7 Sources of EMF which may pose a risk to workers with active implanted and active body-worn medical devices (and exceed the AL in the schedule to the CEMFAW Regulations, Table AL6)
        Wireless communications:    Wireless communications: devices (eg Wi-Fi or Bluetooth), including access points for WLAN
                                                                                                             Use of cordless phones, DECT base stations and fax machines
                                                                                                             Use of mobile phones
                                                           Office:      Audio-visual equipment containing radio-frequency transmitters
                                                                              Infrastructure (buildings and grounds): Use of electric garden appliances
                                                           Security:   Article surveillance equipment and radio-frequency identification
                                                                               Tape or hard drive erasers
                                                                               Metal detectors
                                                           Electrical supply: Work on generators or emergency generators and where workers need to be in
                                                                                           close proximity to cables carrying high currents
                                                                                           Inverters, including photovoltaic systems
                                                           Light industry:      ...
                                                                   Medical:                 MRI equipment
                                                           Construction:       Construction equipment, eg working close to concrete mixers, cranes etc
                                                           Transport:             Motor vehicles and plant – working close to starter, alternator and ignition
                                                                                           systems in motor vehicles and workplaces
                                                                                           Maintenance of inverters used on mainline trains
                                                           Miscellaneous:     Battery chargers, inductive or proximity-coupling,
                                                                                           Equipment generating static magnetic fields greater than 0.5 mT, eg by magnetic
                                                                                              chucks, tables and conveyors, lifting magnets, magnetic brackets, nameplates,
                                                                                              badges
                                                                                           Headphones producing strong magnetic fields
                                                                                           Professional inductive cooking equipment
                                                                                           Two-way radios, eg walkie-talkies, vehicle radios
                                                                                           Battery-powered transmitters
                                                          Military activities: Maintenance of radar or high-powered communications systems
        [pages 16-17]
        Is a risk assessment needed?
            46.  Where your exposure assessment demonstrates that:
                        ... and/or you have employees at particular risk;
                       you must carry out an assessment of any risks to your employees arising from EMF exposure.
        Employees at particular risk:
            49.  You must give special consideration to the safety of employees at particular risk (even if you are in compliance with the                    exposure limits).
            50.  An employee at particular risk is:
        ˜˜               an employee who has declared to their employer a condition which may lead to a higher susceptibility to the potential                  effects of exposure to EMFs. This includes expectant mothers who have informed you of their condition and workers                      who have declared the use of active implanted medical devices (AIMDs), passive implanted medical devices (PIMDs) or                  body-worn medical devices (BWMDs);
      • Consultative Document CD276 (HSE, 2015)
    • "Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/35/EU Electromagnetic Fields Guide for SMEs" (EU, 2015)
    • UK Official Secrets Act:
      Some aspects of biological effects of microwave radiation are apparently still covered by the Official Secrets Act (1889, replaced 1911, 1989), meaning that public servants who have signed the act are not supposed to talk about them, although they are commonly discussed in the media, medical literature and common conversation. From 1966 to 1993 the Post Office Tower in London, at first London's tallest building and visible across the city, was also an official secret and its existence could not be acknowledged officially, until Ms Kate Hoey MP in 1993 stated: "I hope that I am covered by parliamentary privilege when I reveal that the British Telecom tower does exist and that its address is 60 Cleveland street, London." (Hansard, column 634)

United States:
Job accommodations for people with electrosensitivity:

Electrosensitivity has been included under the American Disability Access Board since the 1990s (General Issues).

More recently people there has been advice given on specific accommodations for people with electrical sensitivity. 

Job Accommodation Network (JAN), the US Department of Labor: the Office for Disability Employment Poiicy (ODEP):


     Job Accommodations for People with Electrical Sensitivity (2015):

  • Allow communication via typewriter or handwritten notes rather than via computer or cover the computer with Plexiglas or other shielding material
  • Provide headset/handset extenders or alternate headsets to lengthen the distance between devices that trigger symptoms and the employee's body
  • Change the employee's shift to allow for less exposure to others' devices
  • Relocate workplace away from areas where symptoms are triggered.  This may include limiting certain types of devices in the vicinity of the employee's workstation
  • Allow telework  (Note: regarding work at home, unless the employee wants to work at home, other options should be explored first to keep the employee in the workplace)
  • Allow the employee to meet with others in areas where triggers are minimized or allow remote access to meetings or activities that must take place in areas that trigger symptoms.
  • Provide wired telephones and network connections
  • Provide building-wide and/or workspace shielding of equipment and devices, for example add filters to fluorescent lights and tape electrical cords
  • Individuals with electrical sensitivity may also experience limitations from fragrance sensitivity and/or photosensitivity.


      Accommodation ideas for individuals with electromagnetic sensitivity (2018):

  • "A new hire with electrical sensitivity requested alternative means of communication because the wireless phones triggered symptoms. The employer provided a wired telephone as an alternative in addition to increasing face-to-face communication."
  • "After moving to a new facility an employee with electrical sensitivity noticed that exposure to devices in the “open concept” office was triggering symptoms. The employer moved the employee’s workspace and allowed the use of a cubicle wall and shielding equipment as an accommodation."


Control of harmful electromagnetic devices: 
The problem of electromagnetic devices harming people has been recognized. Legislation has been passed at a federal level and in some states regarding portable devices from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam can incapacitate temporarily or injure someone else.


The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968

An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products:

  • "SUBPART 3—ELECTRONIC PRODUCT RADIATION CONTROL. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE. SEC. 354.
    The Congress hereby declares that the public health and safety must be protected from the dangers of electronic product radiation. Thus, it is the purpose of this subpart to provide for the establishment by the Secretary of an electronic product radiation control program which shall include the development and administration of performance standards to control the emission of electronic product radiation from electronic products and the undertaking by public and private organizations of research and investigation into the effects and control of such radiation emissions.
    ELECTRONIC PRODUCT RADIATION CONTROL. PROGRAM. SEC. 356. (a) 
    ​              Public Law 90-602 (1968)

  • Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council: "Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland, Final Report" (December 13, 2016):
    ​"The Council recommends that the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ask the United States Department of Health and Human Services to formally petition the FCC to revisit the exposure limit to ensure it is protective of children’s health and that it relies on current science.
    Where classrooms have internet access with a wireless connection, WiFi can be turned off and wired local area network (LAN) can provide a reliable and secure form of networking for as many wireless devices as necessary without any microwave electromagnetic field exposure.
    If a new classroom is to be built, or electrical work is to be carried out in an existing classroom, network cables can be added at the same time, providing wired network access with minimal extra cost and time.
    Have children place devices on desks to serve as barrier between the device and children’s bodies.
    Locate laptops in the classroom in a way that keeps pupil heads as far away from the laptop screens (where the antennas are) as practicable.
    Consider using a switch to shut down the router when it is not in use.
    Teach children to turn off WiFi when not in use.
    Consider placing routers as far away from students as possible.
    ​Sit away from WiFi routers, especially when people are using it to access the internet.
    Turn off the wireless on your laptop when you are not using it.
    Turn off WiFi on smartphones and tablets when not surfing the web.
    ​Switch tablets to airplane mode to play games or watch videos stored on the device.
    While this report focused on WiFi radiation in schools, there are additional concerns about mobile phones and cell phone towers."
  • Massachusetts: General Laws: Part I - Administration of the Government; Title XX - Public Safety and Good Order; Chapter 140 - Licences; Section 131J - Sale or Possession of Electrical Weapons, Penalties:
    ​"No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except: (1) a federal, state or municipal law enforcement officer ... or (2) a supplier of such devices or weapons designed to incapacitate temporarily ... No person shall sell or offer for sale such device or weapon, except to federal, state or municipal law enforcement agencies ... The secretary of public safety shall adopt regulations governing who may sell or offer to sell such devices or weapons in the commonwealth and governing law enforcement training on the appropriate use of portable electrical weapons."
  • ​California Department of Public Health:
    Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control: "How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones" (December  2017; release statement)

Oregon:  
On June 13 2019 the Oregon State Senate passed bill SB 283, directing the Oregon Health Authority to review independently-funded scientific studies of the health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly exposure that results from use of wireless network technologies in schools. The bill also directs the Oregon Department of Education to develop recommendations for alternative technologies that reduce students’ exposure to microwave radiation that Oregon Health Authority report identifies as harmful. The bill is expected to also pass in the House, following compelling testimony from the Chair of the Health Committee, Sen. Laurie Monnes-Anderson, who has championed this issue for many years while facing ridicule and disrespect from other legislators. The issue has come to the fore as reports of cancer clusters in schools near cell towers and using wireless microwave technology, as faculty and students increasingly report being stricken with microwave sickness in schools, at alarming rates.
Alicia Rubin: “School Wireless Safety Bill passes State Senate” (KDRV, June 13 2019)


US legislation on safety limits, including FCC and EPA


A List of Schools and Organizations That Have Taken Action Regarding Wireless Technology" (updated to 2014)


"Teacher Unions and Parent Teacher Organizations Taking Action On Wi-Fi Health Risks" (February 18 2016)


US Bill to limit Liability:


Votes to ban WiFi:


Warnings and Safety Limits on radiation devices:


"Phonegate" scandal - cellphone testing and warnings are inadequate

The results of the 2015 measurement tests of 95 cellphones in body contact positions by the French National Frequencies Agency (ANFR) showed that nine out of 10 tested cellphones in contact with the skin exceeded the regulatory SAR threshold of 2 W/kg, set by the ICNIRP and used by the EU. Most members of the public are not aware that cellphones emit radiation waves even when in pockets, so direct skin contact is not even needed, and, moreover, the information on the allegedly safe distance between the phone and the body is currently in cellphone manuals, about which serious doubts have been expressed as to this not being the most effective place in terms of a source of information. 


Merja Kyllönen (GUE/NGL), the Finnish Deputy at European Parliament raised the issue of “the impact of mobile phone radiation on the health of European citizens” in a parliamentary question to the European Commission on January 10 2018 (E-000081-18):

  • “What steps has the Commission taken or is it going to take in light of the findings in the above‐mentioned ANFR tests of mobile phones largely exceeding radio frequency radiation standards, and what steps is it going to take in order to better protect citizens, and to ensure that there is enough information on the risks available to European citizens in a more easily accessible form, independently of any commercial operators?”

    EU Parliament (written question, January 10 2018)
    ""Phonegate": Finnish Deputy at European Parliament Raises Issue of Impact of Mobile Phone Radiation on Health of European Citizens" (Towards Better Health, February 1 2018)



Legal Actions Against Cellphone Manufacturers:



Exclusion for EMF effects from Insurance:


Implications for Occupational Health:


Employer liability for cellphone use:


Law firms and Advice:


Public Law 90-602 of 1968 (pdf):
An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products.
          Subpart 3 - Electronic Product Radiation Control: DECLARATION OF PURPOSE: 
               Sec. 354.
                    The Congress hereby declares that the public health and safety must be protected from the dangers of electronic product                            radiation.



Ecocide and the right to protect the environment


Crimes committed against the natural environment, preventing the environment from continuing in its living and existing state, are termed ecocide. This can include any destruction of the natural environment, whether by war, deliberate action or incidental effects. Man-made radiation is now seen as major factor disrupting the natural environments, not just for humans, animals, insects, plants and bacteria, but also for geo-tectonic and atmospheric effects.


Self-Defense: Reasonable Force to Protect People and Property from Aggression


The argument for the use of self-defense, or the use of reasonable force to protect innocent people from aggression, operates at three levels:
(a) between sovereign nations, (b) within a nation or civil society, and (c) at the level of the individual defending their person, family or property from external aggression.

  • (a) The responsibility to protect (R2P) is seen as part of international law behind intervention in another state. This can involve reasonable force if the aggressor does not desist when asked.
  • (b) It also lies behind police action to protect citizens within a civil society. This can involve reasonable force if the aggressor does not desist when asked.
  • (c) It also lies behind an individual's right of self-protection. This can involve reasonable force if the aggressor does not desist when asked.


Articles: