The following four examples show how the Precautionary Principle has
been implemented.
* Scientists in the United Kingdom recommend that no child under the age
of 8 years old use a cell phone. Research evidence shows that children
are more vulnerable than adults to harm from other environmental
exposures (such as chemicals), and the same may be true of
radiofrequency radiation exposures.
* The International Association of Fire Fighters passed a resolution in
2004, calling for a moratorium on new cell phone antennas on fire
stations and a study of the health effects of these installations. The
Chairman of the Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (RNCNIRP), Yuri Grigoriev, advised that cellular
communication is strongly contraindicated for children and teenagers.
The Canadian Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, advised
Canadians to limit their and their children's use of cell phones until
science resolves uncertainties about long-term health effects.
* More research is needed on the health/biological effects, the level of
current and future exposure, and the feasibility, cost and exposure
implications of these technologies, as well as alternatives and
modifications to current technology.
* While research continues, we believe there is sufficient evidence to
recommend precautionary measures that people can take to protect their
health, and the health of their families, co-workers and communities. We
recommend the following measures:
Use a corded phone/land line if possible, which does not involve RF
exposure. Emergency use of cell phones is not discouraged but land lines
should be used for normal day-to-day communication needs.
If you use a cell phone, use an earpiece/headset or the "speaker phone"
setting, which greatly reduces the RF exposure because the phone is not
held next to your head and brain. Using text messaging is also a good
way to reduce RF exposure.
Be aware that the cell phone radiates to some degree even when in
"standby" mode. You can avoid this radiation by either keeping the phone
off (using it as an answering machine), or away from your body.
Using a cordless phone outdoors to alert you to an incoming call is
handy, but returning inside to use a corded phone/land line to conduct
the conversation is advisable.
Before adopting WI-FI wireless networks in workplaces, schools and
cities, the extent of exposure and possible health effects should be
publicly discussed. Although convenient, WI-FI wireless networks create
pervasive, continuous, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
Preferable alternatives to wireless technology for voice and data
transmission, including cable and fiber-optic technologies (that produce
no radiofrequency radiation), should be considered, given the
uncertainties about health, cost, liability, and inequity of impact.
There needs to be substantial community involvement in decisions about
the placement and operation of cell towers (also called antennas or
masts). Where possible, siting of these facilities should avoid
residential areas and schools, day-care centers, hospitals and other
buildings that house populations more vulnerable to the effects of
radiation exposure. Periodic information on levels of exposure should be
provided to the public. Cell towers produce radiofrequency radiation
exposure in communities that is constant and involuntary. While
acknowledging that this technology enables voice and data transmission
via a cell phone that is important to many people in every community,
those who live, work or go to school in the vicinity of wireless
facilities will be disproportionately exposed. Not enough research has
been done to determine the safety or risk of chronic exposure to
low-intensity RF radiation from cell towers and some studies suggest
there may be harm.
Broadband Radiofrequency Internet transmitted over electrical power
lines (BPL) needs to be thoroughly researched and the findings publicly
disclosed and discussed before full deployment of this new technology.
Discussion should include comparison of exposures and potential health
effects of BPL technology versus cable and fiber optics. BPL technology
uses electrical wiring as the vehicle for carrying RF radiation into and
throughout all electrified buildings in a community, including every
home. Therefore, BPL has the potential to expose entire communities to a
new, continuous, involuntary source of RF radiation. The RF signal will
be carried on everyone's home wiring, even in the homes of those who do
not wish to subscribe to this new Internet service. People will have no
chance to "opt out" or turn off the signal.
In summary, we recommend caution in the further deployment of wireless
technologies, and deployment of safer, wired alternatives until further
study allows better definition of the risks of wireless.
(...)
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu
Comentariile sint moderate!