EMF and children...Scientists say take precautions

I publish the following in full not only for what it says that is new, but also to help the reader to withstand the pressure from the Telecommunication companies. Pressure for example that has resulted in a large percentage of children having mobiles.

Beware if you are pregnant your child may be damaged.

Men, if you wish one day to have a child, note that sperm count is reduced when you are working in a high e smog office.

Teenagers have their own kind of "offices" Instruct your teen agers not to put their lap tops on their laps. Is your teenager (or smaller child) sitting with the lap top on his lap, holding a mobile in his hand connected to a friend who has joined the game being played, while the apartment is invaded by ones own and neighbors wifi and dect phones nearby etc and maybe a mobile sender/receiver mobile mounted inconspicuously on a nearby apartment house, store school or church. (You won't see the disc til you look.)

Remember too, time spent by children in wifi schools, near towers, on street cars and trams and trains with high radiation levels from many people using mobiles at once.

In the north radiation from walking on warming cables (to melt snow in commercial areas)influences your body. It is not easy to notice unless you are aware. This cable radiation can be detected up to the 3rd floor of buildings adjacent to the warming cables.

Add to this or multiply it with the dirty electricity in most home (dirty because the original smooth 50 or 60 cycles have been broken down. Multiple specialized electronic uses have broken down the smooth cycles adding harmonics in the bioactive frequency range). Dirty electricity produces extreme low frequencies that effect all living creature also children.

This exposure can produce serious disease over a period of ten years exposure.. Studies of ten year exposure samples, though the number of people who have lived in e smog intense environments is small show cause for concern about epidemics that can come when many people live in high levels of electromagnetic e smog pollution.

Whatever you can do to reduce the sources of radiation is of value. It is surprising that the multiplying effect of all these sources of pollution receive no attention in the literature and disinformation put out by the power and telecommunication industry and their lobbies. And in fact even tose scientists who study effect tend to examine one effect at a time in order to preserve the orderliness of their data.

I say multiplying effect because in biological systems, as you know from experience, two sicknesses have a multiplying effect. Loss of one leg and then the second is not simply a double effect.

Please do not be discouraged by this note but take the problem seriously and reduce exposure in every way you can. Do not allow your child to have a mobile in spite of his demand ... everyone else has one! Become informed! Take part in Public action. Take courage from what has happened that has reduced smoking in spite of tobacco industry and lobby pressure.

Now take look below...scan it and notice the scientists who take the problem very seriously. They are not in the employ of the industry



Homepage > Resolutions > Benevento Resolution

Benevento Resolution

The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006. The meeting was dedicated to W. Ross Adey, M.D. (1922-2004). The scientists at the conference endorsed and extended the 2002 Catania Resolution and resolved that:

1. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF1, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.
2. Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission.
3. There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis and interpretation of research findings towards rejection of evidence of possible public health risks.
4. Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.
5. Based on our review of the science, biological effects can occur from exposures to both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) and radiation frequency fields (RF EMF). Epidemiological and in vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates that exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and induce other health problems in both children and adults. Further, there is accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating an increased brain tumor risk from long term use of mobile phones, the first RF EMF that has started to be comprehensively studied. Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased risks for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be ignored. Laboratory studies on cancers and other diseases have reported that hypersensitivity to EMF may be due in part to a genetic predisposition.
6. We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle2 -- as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse effect can occur. These strategies should include:

6.1 Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fiber optics and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing land line phone networks; place power lines underground in the vicinity of populated areas, only siting them in residential neighborhoods as a last resort;

6.2 Inform the population of the potential risks of cell phone and cordless phone use. Advise consumers to limit wireless calls and use a land line for long conversations.

6.3 Limit cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them.

6.4 Require manufacturers to supply hands-free kits (via speaker phones or ear phones), with each cell phone and cordless phone.

6.5 Protect workers from EMF generating equipment, through access restrictions and EMF shielding of both individuals and physical structures.

6.6 Plan communications antenna and tower locations to minimize human exposure. Register mobile phone base stations with local planning agencies and use computer mapping technology to inform the public on possible exposures. Proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. Wi-Fi, WIMAX, broadband over cable or power-line or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure and, if installed, municipalities should ensure this information is available to all and updated on a timely basis.

6.7 Designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF.

7. ICEMS3 is willing to assist authorities in the development of an EMF research agenda. ICEMS encourages the development of clinical and epidemiological protocols for investigations of geographical clusters of persons with reported allergic reactions and other diseases or sensitivities to EMF, and document the effectiveness of preventive interventions. ICEMS encourages scientific collaboration and reviews of research findings.

1 EMF, in this resolution, refers to zero to 300 GHz.
2 The Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.
3 International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety.

We, the undersigned scientists, agree to assist in the promotion of EMF research and the development of strategies to protect public health through the wise application of the precautionary principle.

Signed:

Fiorella Belpoggi, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B.Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Carl F. Blackman, President, Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-91), Raleigh, NC, USA

Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA

Natalia Bobkova, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region
Francesco Boella, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Venice, Italy

Zhaojin Cao, National Institute Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control, China

Sandro D’Allessandro, Physician, Mayor of Benevento, Italy, (2001-2006)

Enrico D’Emilia, National Institute for Prevention and Worker Safety, Monteporzio, Italy

Emilio Del Giuduice, National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Milan, Italy

Antonella De Ninno,Italian National Agency For Energy, Environment & Technology, Frascati, Italy

Alvaro A. De Salles, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Livio Giuliani,East Veneto&South Triol, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Camerino University

Yury Grigoryev, Institute of Biophysics; Chairman, Russian National Committee NIERP

Settimo Grimaldi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research, Rome, Italy

Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

Magda Havas, Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada

Gerard Hyland, Warwick University, UK; International Inst. Biophysics, Germany; EM Radiation Trust, UK

Olle Johansson,Experimental Dermatology Unit, Neuroscience Department, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Henry C. Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Mario Ledda, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Council for Research, Rome, Italy

Yi-Ping Lin, Center of Health Risk Assessment & Policy, National Taiwan University, Taiwan

Antonella Lisi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, Rome, Italy

Fiorenzo Marinelli, Institute of Immunocytology, National Research Council, Bologna, Italy

Elihu Richter, Head, Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Israel

Emanuela Rosola, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National ResearchCouncil, Rome, Italy

Leif Salford, Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden

Nesrin Seyhan, Head, Department of Biophysics; Director, Gazi NIRP Center, Ankara, Turkey

Morando Soffritti, Scientific Director, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B. Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland

Mikhail Zhadin, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region.



Date of Release: September 19, 2006. For more information, contact Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Secretariat, International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Montepulciano, Italy. Email: info@icems.eu.



Additional signers to the Benevento Resolution:

Igor Y. Belyaev, Dept. Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology, Arrhenius Laboratories for Natural Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

William J. Bruno, Ph.D., Theoretical Biophysics, awarded by Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, USA

Mauro Cristaldi, Dip, B.A.U. Universita degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia

Suleyman Dasdag, Biophysics Department of Medical School, Dicle University, Diyarbakir,Turkey

Sandy Doull, Consultant, Noel Arnold & Associates, Box Hill VIC, Australia

Christos D. Georgiou, Assoc. Professor of Biochemistry, Department of Biology, University of Patras, Greece

Reba Goodman, Prof. Emeritus, Clinical Pathology, Columbia University, New York, New York USA

Luisa Anna Ieradi, Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi C.N.R., Roma, Italia

Michael Kundi, Head,Institute Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria

Angelo Gino Levis, Professor Emeritus, Environmental Oncology, Padua University, Italy

Lukas H. Margaritis, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Athens University, Athens, Greece

Vera Markovic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Nis, Serbia

Gerd Oberfeld, Federal Salzburg Government. National Medical Management, Public Health Hygiene and Environmental Health, Salzburg, Austria

Jerry L. Phillips, Professor, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

Zamir Shalita, Consultant on Electromagnetic Hazards, Ramat Gan, Israel

E. Stanton Maxey, M.D. retired surgeon, Fayetteville Arkansas

Ion Udroiu, Dip. B.A.U., Università degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia

Mehmet Zeyrek, Prof., Physics Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Stelios A Zinelis M.D., Vice President, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece

Anna Zucchero, MD, Internal Medicine Department. Venice-Mestre Hospital, Venice, Italy

Additional signers who are qualified but have not published EMF papers or published prior to 2000.

Andrew Goldsworthy, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London.

Sarah J. Starkey, PhD, Neuroscience, University of London, London, United Kingdom





CATANIA RESOLUTION

September 2002

The Scientists at the International Conference

“State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields – Scientific and Legal Issues”, organized by ISPESL*, the University of Vienna and the City of Catania, held in Catania (Italy) on September 13th – 14th, 2002, agree to the following:



1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.
2. We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.
3. There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.
4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.
5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.
6. The undersigned scientists agree to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.



Fiorella Belpoggi, Fondazione Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Carl F. Blackman, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-1991), Raleigh, USA

Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA

Emilio Del Giudice, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Milano, Italy

Livio Giuliani, Camerino University - ISPESL*, Venezia, Italy

Settimio Grimaldi, CNR-Istituto di Neurobiologia e Medicina Molecolare, Roma, Italy

Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

Michael Kundi, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Austria

Henry Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, USA

Abraham R. Liboff, Department of Physics, Oakland University, USA

Wolfgang Löscher, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany

Kjell Hansson Mild, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1996-1997), National Institute of Working Life, Umea, Sweden

Wilhelm Mosgöller, Institute for Cancer Research, University of Vienna, Austria

Elihu D. Richter, Head, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Public Health, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel.

Umberto Scapagnini, Neuropharmacology, University of Catania, Italy, Member of the Research Comm. of the European Parliament

Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland

* = Istituto Superiore per la Prevenzione e la Sicurezza del Lavoro, Italy (National Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, Italy)











Powered by Google

Biological Measurement and SAR

Professor Carl Blackman is a man I admire. His chapter in The Bioinitiative Report ahows his deep thoughtfulness and ability to understand the nature of the mechanisms by which EMF damages children and all living systems whose control systems depend on frequencies similar to the EMF mechanically generated frequencies.

Prof. Blackman states:

"The sensitivity of today's state-of-the-art measuring equipment is still considerably inferior to that of living cells (a difference of 109, i.e. a factor of one billion)."

As far back as 1991, Prof. Carl Blackman (USA) a contributor to the Bioinitiative report asked that results obtained on “biological models” be acknowledged since they are the only ones that are sensitive enough to demonstrate the harmful effects of ELF

(editor... ELF frequencies are a part of the EMF spectrum of frequencies)

As Low As Reasonably Achievable

The Interphone Study reported by Bruce Armstrong is an international well documented study of EMF effects. As I understand the response It is considered by non industry scientists to be an effort to reduce public attention to the problem of e smog etc contamination.For example they have averaged out test results on all telephone users regardless of the length of time they have used mobiles. This dilutes the effects that come from longer (versus shorter) use. But here is one report of the results:


Bruce Armstrong advocates ALARA, especially for children and cell phone use" was written on the November 13, 2008 at 7:21 pm on "EMFacts Consultancy".

The following is a preliminary report from Sarah Benson, who attended
the ACRBR seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' on 12 November.

Dear All

Yesterday I attended the Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects
Research's seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' at Swinburne University
in Melbourne. This seminar was attended by about 100 industry,
community and media people.

Professor Bruce Armstrong, head of Sydney University's School of
Public Health and cancer expert, presented the Interphone results as
they exist so far. The details of the various types of tumour and the
survey results and methodology went over my head, but he concluded
that due to the overall raised rates of glioma tumour incidence he was
advocating that the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
be implemeted, especially when it comes to children. He also said
that more research was needed.

This is the first time in Australia that someone in a position of such
authority has come out and made such a strong statement - and he
repeated it several times.

The forum also covered other areas, such as domestic radiation levels
and teh ELF issues. Electrosensitivity was raised by one questionner,
and answered in full by the panel.


sent out by
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=999 which is a very good source of e smog news and public reactions to mobiles towers etc and the legal challenges that are being actively pursued by public groups

Below you will find more details
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/5165/paulcv6.html

Risk to Children, Pregnant from Mobiles Concerns European Parliament

Dear all,
Just recently, Members of the European Parliament (MEP) critized the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 for not being more precise about how to implement prevention strategies, especially for vulnerable population groups, and how to actually reduce disease. Among other topics, they were especially concerned about the obselete exposure limits for electromagnetic fields:
"They are greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report on electromagnetic fields, which highlights the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, Wifi, Wimax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline telephones. It notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete. They do not take account of developments in information and communication technologies or vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children." (28 Aug 2008)
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/33692-245-09-36-20080708BRI33691-01-09-2008-2008/default_p001c023_en.htm

In the German press release of the same plenary session, it is also noted that 522 MEPs supported this report and only 16 were against.
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/33692-245-09-36-20080708BRI33691-01-09-2008-2008/default_p001c010_de.htm

Best regards,
Katharina Gustavs
Building Biology Environmental Consultant (IBN), Canada

THE QUESTION OF POWER LINES AND TRANSFORMERS NEAR HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND PUBLIC PLACES

ARTISTIC dEMONSTRATION:

POWER LINES INTRODUCE FOREIGN CURRENTS INTO YOUR BODY ...a powerful artist will give you a shock...electric enough to awaken your inner intuition.

Consider what is presented on the site below. It is dramatic
...
At least consider how your children can be protected from radiation.
a
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/exclusive/2004
/pylon_ambience/index.html

How to reduce cell phone radiation

If you must choose to use a cell phone, use the speaker phone function whenever possible.
Keep the phone awa from any body part.
Do not keep the phone on your belt or in your pocket even when you’re not using it, as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is near.
Instead, stow it away in a purse, backpack, or your car’s glove compartment.
Shorten calls.
Do not use the phone when children are near. Consider cell phone use as kind of smoking...with invisible smoke. Children near are being radiated their bodies absorb more and they are much more vulnerable to long term exposure.

For times when a speakerphone isn’t practical, use an air-tube headset, rather than a on your displayonwireless Bluetooth.

Look at the vertical lines at the top of your phone screen. More lines means better connection to the naerest tower. Notice when there is a weak signal.FREQUENT USE OF CELL PHONES WHEN YOU HAVE A WEAK SIGNAL CARRIES GREATER RISK AS THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION PRODUCED BY YOUR TELEPHONE IS HIGHER WHICH INCREASES YOUR AND YOUR CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE

Talking outdoors or in open spaces or near a window where more vertical lines show on your display can improve the connection from your cell phone to your nearest cell phone tower.

If you live in a rural area where the nearest tower is far away, you are constantly exposed to greater amounts of radiation from your cell phone than city and urban users. Use a landline whenever feasible! Keep your phone off as it radiates when it is on. Use your mobile only for emergencies. At least keep it off most of the day and in the evening make short calls. Since it is the time the phone is on that is impportant this reduces exposure considerably.

Children's Sensitivity to EMF pollution

WARNING TO PARENTS: CONTROL CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO MOBILE TELEPHONE AND THE OTHER MANY SOURCES OF EMF POLLUTION

Quote From Microwave NewsJuly 22 2008

The brains of young children absorb twice as much as RF energy from a cell phone as those of adults, according to a set of new calculations carried out by Joe Wiart's research group at France Telecom in the suburbs of Paris.

"[Our] analysis confirms that peripheral brain tissues of children seem to be higher exposed than the peripheral brain tissue of adults," Wiart concludes in a paper that appears in the July 7 issue of Physics in Medicine and Biology. "Children are not simply small adults." Wiart explained in an interview with Microwave News. "Their skin and their skulls are thinner than those of adults, and their ears are smaller too," he said. "Given these differences, the higher SAR for children is not surprising,"

These new findings apply to children who are eight years old or younger. Above the age of eight, the SARs in children are much like those of adults, according to Wiart.

"I agree with Joe," said Niels Kuster, the director of the IT'IS Foundation in Zurich. A team led by Kuster and Andreas Christ recently completed a project for the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection (BfS), which like Wiart, found that regions of the brains of young children can have exposures that are twice those of adults —or even higher.

Even more striking, Kuster and Christ concluded that the "exposure of the bone marrow of children can exceed that of adults by about a factor of ten." They also report that children's eyes are more highly exposed that those of adults.

Whether or not children are at a greater health risk than adults has been debated since at least the year 2000, when a U.K. panel chaired by Sir William Stewart advised that parents limit their children's use of mobile phones. Since then, other government groups, especially those in France and Germany, have issued similar precautionary recommendations.

The mobile phone industry has long disputed the possibility that children are at any greater risk. For instance, earlier this year after the French Ministry of Health reiterated concerns over children's use of cell phones, the MMF, an industry lobby group, issued an advisory stating that cell phones do not present health risks to any users "regardless of age."

The MMF has relied heavily on statements issued by the WHO's EMF Project in Geneva, and the Health Council of the Netherlands. For instance, in a paper published in 2004, the Health Council concluded that: "There is no convincing scientific data to assume a difference in the absorption of electromagnetic energy in heads of children and adults."


July 3… Exposures to ambient magnetic fields may affect the quality of human sperm and may well explain its well-documented decline over the last few decades. De-Kun Li, an epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA, has found that daily exposures of only 1.6mG or higher for at least two-and-a-half hours were associated with significantly poorer semen quality. Men who were exposed to over 1.6mG for over six hours a day were four times more likely to have substandard sperm.

"The longer you are exposed, the higher the risk," Li told Microwave News. He presented these new findings last week at the annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research, held in Chicago. He has submitted them for publication.

"If it holds up, this would be very important because magnetic field exposures are ubiquitous," Li said. "We know that sperm quality has been going down for a long time with the largest declines in urban areas. That would be consistent with EMF exposures which are highest in cities."

The quality of the semen was assessed according to WHO criteria for motility and morphology —that is, the ability of sperm to "swim" (to the egg) and their shape. "Sperm quality could turn out to be a sensitive endpoint to study the biological effects of EMFs," Li said.

Li is one of the few to explore new ways of defining what is a biologically significant dose of EMFs. An important implication of his new study is that while he might classify a man as being in a "high" exposure group, that same man could still have a time-weighted, 24-hour average exposure of less than 1mG, which would put him in the "unexposed" group in most past studies. Such a misclassification would reduce the chances of seeing this effect.

In a study published in 2002, Li showed that women exposed above a certain threshold (16mG) had higher rates of miscarriages (see MWN, J/F02, p.1). At the time, many considered that this new concept of EMF dose was worth pursuing. But, in fact, no one did —at least no one has yet published a follow-up study. "In that earlier study we saw higher miscarriage risks among women who had an exposure of more than 16mG at least once a day," Li said, "in our new study, men had poorer sperm quality if they were exposed to a much lower field but it had to be for at least 10% of the day."

The power-frequency fields implicated in this new study are extremely weak. They are approximately 1,000 times lower than the current ICNIRP guidelines and some three times lower than what many see as the threshold for increasing the risk of childhood leukemia (3-4mG). According to a large-scale survey carried out a decade ago, close to 15% of the U.S. population is exposed to an average of more than 2mG over a 24-hour period (see MWN, M/J98, p.4).