Press Release August 2022

Press enquiries to: phiremedia@protonmail.com

Statements from parents, child and excerpts from 3 Tribunal Hearings included below:

Parents have now won a 5 year legal battle against 2 local authorities to have their child
accommodated in school for EHS. They won in the Upper Tribunal, thus the ruling is also precedent
setting. We believe this is the first case in the world where a government body is legally mandated
to make low EMF educational provisions to accommodate a child with EHS.

The family wishes to protect the anonymity of their child, however they (and their child) hope that
the ruling may begin to facilitate a better future for other children and adults with EHS:

The parents share, “Going through this process has opened our eyes to some shocking truths
regarding the ways in which families can be treated within the current system. We recognised that it
would not be easy to navigate such novel and politically charged territory, but the bar was elevated
to a higher degree than even we anticipated. Our daughter was put through misery that no child
should have to go through. Nonetheless, finally justice has been served and we hope that our
daughter can move forward with her education whilst also being allowed a healthy environment. We
are proud of how optimistic she has remained. We are aware that currently other children with EHS
in the UK are unable to access school and some of them are profoundly isolated given that even
home schooling groups can be inaccessible to them due to prolific use of Wi-fi and mobile phones in
the community. Legal recognition that some children can be adversely affected by these exposures
in a serious and debilitating way, is the first step to making schools healthier for all pupils in our
digital age and allowing equal opportunities for those who are acutely affected”.

The school girl wanted to share her thoughts with other children who have EHS, “I am a 13 year old
girl with EHS. I have headaches, insomnia and other symptoms sometimes when exposed to WiFi or
other kinds of EMF (electromagnetic fields). These can become very severe. If you are reading this,
you may experience these symptoms yourself, you may recognise them and are perhaps starting to
think you may have this condition, or maybe you are doubtful it even exists. Maybe I would be too, if
I hadn’t felt the effects firsthand. EHS has dramatically affected my life, but maybe not in the ways
you might think. Of course there are places I can’t go, or things I don’t have, but I live a very
“normal” life in most ways. I can message my friends through email or Skype on a hardwired system
as long as I don’t spend too long and I can go to school now that I have one without Wi-fi and mobile
phones. Some people have more severe EHS and can’t do these things that most take for granted. I

1
appreciate how much they suffer, but believe that even those people, can recover in a low EMF
environment. I can feel things and sense things most people can’t. This has protected my health, and
I like to think of it as a superpower. Of course sometimes, when I can’t sleep, or can’t go to school, it
doesn’t feel like that, but in my stronger states, I recognise that it is kind of amazing. I have
previously been unable to go to school, as the school I went to put in WiFi, but people fought for me,
comforted me, and welcomed me, despite how weird or crazy our situation may have been. These
people were my family, my friends, teachers and sometimes near strangers, and they didn’t just
fight for me, but for anyone and everyone with EHS. They are the people we need more of, those
with open minds and hearts. Thank you, to all of them. If you have EHS, and are struggling to stay in
good health, or can’t go to school, or work, don’t give up, because everything will get better. People
are becoming more aware of this condition, and even if right now it seems like nothing will ever
change, it already is”.

Further detail from the outcome statements (in date order):

2018 Excerpts from Decision Letter (First Tier Tribunal - FtT):

“on balance we concluded, in the face of considerable evidence produced by the parents, that the
impairment existed and that child XXX met the definition of disability within section 6 of the Equality
Act 2010: that is that it had substantial long-term effect on day-to-day functioning.“

“Recognition by Public Health England was not the issue and the Equality Act 2010 contains no
reference to acknowledgement by any medical board”

“We take into account that Public Health England doesn’t recognise EHS, but there is a credible body
of evidence that on balance establishes the impairment.”

“It was therefore submitted that as there was ample global evidence and credibility of the existence
of EHS, the medical investigation format used by way of history taking was entirely appropriate and
ethical and the balance of the evidence gleaned from the parents, family and other medical
professionals was that Child XXX is negatively affected by EMF. The impact was plainly beyond the
minor or trivial.”

“There is no issue that child XXX is a bright and capable child and, but for the impairment, can easily
manage normal day-to-day activities….The description of life by the parents, and indeed by child XXX,
shows that the effect on life is very substantial.”

Nov 2021 Excerpts from Decision Letter (First Tier Tribunal FtT):

“In 2018, the Tribunal found, when considering the parents’ disability discrimination claim and
appeal against XXX’s refusal to assess, that XXX did have a disability. Those findings are not binding
on us and we have decided the issue of whether XXX has a disability afresh based on the arguments
and evidence put to us.”

“We consider that XXX does have a disability within the meaning in the Equality Act.”

“On balance, we find that some individuals are sensitive to electro-magnetic fields in the way
described by the parents.”

“We decided, on balance that XXX’s symptoms are caused by electro-magnetic fields”

2
“We consider that XXX has an impairment by reason of her sensitivity to electro-magnetic fields”

“we have no doubt that XXX’s sensitivity to EHS meets the test in the Equality Act.”

“XXX needs a low electromagnetic environment or she will become unwell.”

Excerpts from 2022 Decision Letter (Upper Tribunal – UT) ua-2022-000328-hs__002_.pdf

“The tribunal found that the child was disabled within the definition in section 6 of the Equality Act
and section 20(2)(b). I accept and adopt its analysis”.

“Coming to the Code, the child’s problems lie with: (a) communication (paragraph 6.28) that now
takes place through the programmes rather than with the teacher; and (b) sensory needs (paragraph
6.34) that prevent or hinder her using the computers. The use of the computers and their
programmes is now an integral feature of how education takes place in schools. Their use is no
longer marginal or peripheral”.

“The child’s problem with electro-magnetic radiation affects her life generally and limits her normal
day-to-day activities – the Equality Act test. It applies at school, at home, and when she is out in the
world. When at school, her problems with communication and making use of the computers are a
direct result of the use of wifi in schools. The only solution available has to be provided in the school.
It is not transferable to any other location, although it may need to be replicated elsewhere. I cannot
see what other provision would be effective to avoid the problem or overcome its consequences.
This is not simply a case of a child being unwell and finding it difficult to concentrate. There was
evidence from two educational psychologists both of whom found her and her parents credible in
describing her symptoms. The tribunal (paragraph 47) accepted their evidence too and described her
symptoms as ‘debilitating when they occur’, which they did to such an extent that she ‘was out of
education for a whole academic year.’ Those symptoms were not unique to a school environment.
But when they occurred in that environment they arose from the school’s choice of the medium for
providing education. In those circumstances, some provision is required to render the education
effective.
For those reasons in combination, I find that the child requires special educational provision. No one
factor has been decisive in my analysis and I have not attached any particular significance to the
factors individually.”

“The decision is: the local authority must secure that an EHC plan is prepared and maintained for the
child.”

Background regarding EMF Health Effects:

About EHS:
EHS is a multisystem medical condition characterised by physical symptoms such as headaches,
sleep disturbance, dizziness, palpitations, skin rashes and multiple sensory up-regulation associated
with anthropogenic NIR exposure. Similar constellations of symptoms may also be seen in the
general population in cases of relatively high exposure.

Some have suggested a ‘nocebo response’ (symptoms induced by fear of exposure) as the
mechanism behind the reaction, but this explanation does not withstand scientific scrutiny. EHS is
proven to be a physical response under blinded conditions1,2 (which rules out that possibility in those

3
cases), biomarkers are being identified,3 and mechanisms that may explain the reaction are
evolving.4-7

Advice from multiple international medical doctors groups,8-17 scientific panels,18-29 and
governmental bodies30-40 is to decrease exposures; and, additionally, guidelines for EHS diagnosis
and management have been peer-reviewed and published. These guidelines make clear that the
mainstay of medical management is avoidance of anthropogenic NIR.41-43 Disability and
compensation cases for those with EHS have been won in many different countries and will continue
to escalate. Some legal teams are so certain of negative health effects that civil suits for Wi-Fi and
other wireless injury are now being offered on a ‘no win no fee’ basis,44 and insurance underwriters
consider related risks to be ‘high’.45,46

Medical diseases associated with NIR exposure in peer-reviewed scientific publications:

In addition to the development of EHS, risks associated with exposure to non-ionising radiation in
the peer-reviewed scientific literature include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in
harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system,
learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in
humans.47

Mounting human epidemiological evidence of increased cancer has now been corroborated by ‘clear
evidence’ of carcinogenesis from animal studies. These include the two largest investigations ever
undertaken globally, from the widely respected ‘National Toxicology Program’ (USA)48,49 and
Ramazzini Institute (Italy).50 Law courts continue to validate such causal links as compensation for
tumours from mobile phone radiation is also being won in a growing number of cases
internationally.51

Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated adverse biological effects occurring
in response to a range of NIR exposures below current safety guidelines,52 however emissions
continue to escalate.

Medical and scientific efforts to reduce exposures here in the UK:

In addition to numerous international declarations (as referenced above), two years ago UK-based
Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE) in collaboration with the British
Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM) released the 2020 Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) Consensus
Statement.

Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe – Founding Director of Physicians Health Initiative for Radiation and
Environment (PHIRE) and author of the 2020 NIR Consensus Statement states: “We are witnessing
increasing severe injustices to those with EHS here in the UK as well as abroad. Medical education
regarding environmental illness generally needs to improve but it has been almost non-existent with
regards to EHS. As a result patients with EHS are often misdiagnosed and time, effort and money is
wasted on inappropriate treatments which don’t work and often pose health risks of their own. The
crises faced by people with EHS will continue to escalate until medical education is improved,
general awareness increases and legitimate biologically based safety limits for non-ionising radiation
exposures are in place. This is an emergency which must be rapidly addressed”.

The document has been signed by Environmental Medical Associations from around the world and
represents thousands of international medical doctors. This extensively peer-reviewed document is

4
endorsed by experienced clinicians and widely published and respected scientists who are experts in
this field, such as:

 Professor Anthony Miller: eminent physician and expert in preventative medicine, scientific
advisor to various scientific and health authorities, and former Senior Epidemiologist and Senior
Scientist at the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC)

 Professor Yuri Grigoriev: President of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation

 Professor Devra Lee Davis: Founder and President of Environmental Health Trust, Visiting
Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and
Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Samsun, Turkey. Previously: Founding Director,
Center for Environmental Oncology and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and
Founding Director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for
Health in the Department of Health and Human Services, and appointed to the US Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board by President Clinton. Board of Scientific Counselors of the
U.S. National Toxicology Program.

This statement declares current safety guidelines inadequate and highlights some of the disease
processes linked with NIR exposure in peer-reviewed publications; it points out the vulnerabilities of
children53 and other groups such as those with EHS; it highlights contravention of Human Rights and
Equalities acts; and it requests urgent responses from governments and health authorities to halt
further deployment of emitting technology and address current public health failures. This
document was sent to Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, together with UK health agencies, and a
number of other responsible Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved
administrations of the UK. However, to this day there have been no meaningful responses to
indicate that action will yet be taken to protect the public.

The 2020 NIR Consensus Statement remains open for signing by further experts, medical doctors and
scientists in agreement, together with members of wider society who wish to register their concern.
To read and sign the statement click here: Read the 2020 NIR Consensus Statement – PHIRE Medical

Please support friends and family with electromagnetic hypersensitivity by sharing the following
simple exposure reduction strategies which will optimise health for all, not just those who are
acutely sensitive.

Simple NIR Reduction Strategies: Radiofrequency Radiation Reduction How To? – PHIRE Medical
(printable leaflet at the bottom of the webpage)

Mobile phones: Do not use mobile phones except for emergencies. Store them in ‘airplane’ or
‘flight’ mode (with all wireless services disabled) and switched off. They can also be used via a wired
Ethernet adaptor to access the internet whilst in flight mode. If you feel you must use them
wirelessly then speakerphone or an air tube headset will allow you to keep the phone at a greater
distance from your body, reducing the intensity of radiation.

5
Wireless internet: Swap your wireless internet for a hardwired system by using wired Ethernet
connections (adaptors are available for tablets also). Remember that because RF radiation is emitted
from both devices and routers, you’ll need to disable all wireless services on your router, as well as
your devices. You can reduce emissions from computers by disabling the wireless card in the device
manager, by using airplane/flight mode, or by turning off wireless services (e.g. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth)
in network settings.

Landline phones: Swap your cordless landline for a corded speakerphone. If you must have wireless
capability, get an ECO DECT phone with a good quality speakerphone, so that it can be used away
from your brain, and use ECO mode. This will ensure that at least wireless radiation is emitted only
when the phone is in use, rather than continuously – as with other models.

Smart meters: Request a hardwired (non-RF emitting) smart meter or analogue meter to ensure you
and your neighbours are not subject to additional wireless radiation.

Other sources in the home: Other common household exposures may come from baby monitors,
wireless security systems, smart TVs, printers and other ‘smart’ appliances, smart watches and some
car keys among various other IoT devices and wearables etc. In most cases there are hardwired
alternatives which can be used in replacement, or flight modes which disable emissions when
desired. For items such as car keys which are not easily disabled they can be wrapped in aluminium
foil or placed in a metal biscuit tin (with well fitting lid) as a short term solution to protect persons
with EHS.

Sources outside the home: Emissions such as publicly placed antennas and sources from
neighbours’ homes might be possible to shield against, but expert advice and metering is
recommended to best help reduce exposures.

Thank you,

PHIREmedical

References (as active hyperlinks):

1
Rea et al., 1991. Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity, 10(1&2), 241-256.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368379109031410
2
McCarty et al., 2011. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome. Int J Neurosci.
Dec;121(12):670-6.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784
3
Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray P., 2015. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying
electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder.
Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. doi:10.1515/reveh-2015-0027.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326
4
Stein, Y., Udasin, I., 2020. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome) – Review of mechanisms.
Environmental Research Vol 186, July 2020, 09445.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120303388
5
Lai, H. 2019. Exposure to Static and Extremely-Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Cellular Free Radicals,
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 38:4, 231-248, DOI: 10.1080/15368378.2019.1656645
https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2019.1656645
6
Panagopoulos D et al., 2000. A Mechanism for Action of Oscillating Electric Fields on Cells. Biochemical and Biophysical
Research Communications 272, 634–640 (2000)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X00927463
7
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Andreas Karabarbounis and Lukas H. Margaritisa, 2002. Mechanism for action of
electromagnetic fields on cells. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 298 (2002) 95–102
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8626458_Mechanism_of_action_of_electromagnetic_fields_on_cells

6
8
Cyprus Medical Association, 2017. The Vienna / Austrian Medical Chambers and the Cyprus National Committee on
Environment and Children’s Health: Nicosia Declaration on Electromagnetic Fields / Radiofrequencies, Nov 2017 Common
Position Paper.
http://www.cyprus-child-environment.org/images/media/assetfile/HMA%20S_EN_17.pdf
9
Physician’s for Safe Technology
https://mdsafetech.org/
10
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 2013. (60,000 Pediatricians and Pediatric Surgeons).
Letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), August 2013.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318
11
American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) Statement on AAEM’s position on EMF radiation
https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/emfpositionstatement.pdf
The AAEM Statement on WiFi in Schools
https://aaemonline.org/pdf/WiredSchools.pdf
12
International Scientific Declaration on EHS & MCS, 2015. Brussels
http://eceri-institute.org/fichiers/1441982765_Statement_EN_DEFINITIF.pdf
13
International Society (17 countries) of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)
http://www.isde.org/5G_appeal.pdf
14
German Doctors Freiburger Appeal, 2002 and 2012.
Radio-frequency Radiation Poses a Health Risk. Physicians Demand Overdue Precaution.
http://freiburger-appell-2012.info/en/home.php?lang=EN
15
Swiss Physicians for the Environment (MfE)
http://www.aefu.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/aefu-data/b_documents/Aktuell/120316_Brief_NIS.pdf
16
Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA)
17
Doctors Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: Declaration Submitted to Health Canada
https://magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/medical-doctors-submission-to-health-canada-english-1.pdf
18
Oceania Scientific Advisory Association
http://www.orsaa.org/
19
Fragopoulou A, et al. “Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: Consensus points, recommendations, and
rationales. Scientific Meeting: Seletun, Norway, November 17-21, 2009”, Rev Environ Health 2010; 25: 307-317.
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Seletun+2010.pdf
20
The Porto Alegre Resolution, 2009, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).
http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Porto_Alegre_Resolution.pdf
21
Venice Resolution, 2008, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).
http://www.icems.eu/docs/Venice_Resolution_0608.pdf
22
Benevento Resolution, 2006, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety).
http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm
23
Vienna Resolution, 1998, ICEMS (International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety)
http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Vienna_Resolution_1998.pdf
24
Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations, 2000, Austria
https://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Salzburg_res.pdf
25
Catania Resolution, 2002, Italy
http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/catania.pdf
26
London Resolution, 2007. Johansson, Pathophysiology 16 (2009) 247–248
http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/London_res.pdf
27
Helsinki Appeal 2005
http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/helsinki_appeal_05.pdf
28
Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: Declaration submitted to Health Canada, 2014
https://magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Scientist-Declaration-Canadas-SC6-2014.1-1.pdf
29
Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks SCHEER, Statement on emerging health and
environmental issues (2018) Potential effects on wildlife of increases in electromagnetic radiation – categorised as ‘3’
highest priority https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_s_002.pdf
30
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution, 2011. 1815, Final Resolution
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17994
31
Stewart Report, 2000, Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), Chairman Sir William Stewart.
32
Cyprus Government ban on Wi-Fi in nursery schools and halted in elementary schools
Video from the Government subtitled in English (thanks to EHT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=-kb_KWHPFk0
https://ehtrust.org/cyprus-issues-decree-banning-wireless-kindergarten-elementary-school-classrooms/
33 th
French National Assembly, Jan 29 2015
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0468.asp
34
French National Assembly, March 2013

7
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0096.asp
35
Israeli Ministry of Education recommendations, Aug 2013
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-
8&u=http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Applications/Mankal/EtsMedorim/3/3-6/HoraotKeva/K-2013-3-3-6-
11.htm
36
Swiss Government Information Document, 2012. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscapes, SAEFL.
Electrosmog in the environment
https://slt.co/Downloads/News/1081/Electrosmog%20in%20the%20environment.pdf
37
German Federal Ministry for Radiation Protection recommends against Wi-Fi in schools, 2007.
http://www.icems.eu/docs/deutscher_bundestag.pdf
38
Russian National Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection RCNIRP, 2012
Recommendations of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection of the necessity to regulate
strictly the use of Wi-Fi in kindergartens and schools
http://www.icems.eu/docs/deutscher_bundestag.pdf
39 th
ANSES (French Government Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health), 15 Oct 2013.
Update of the “Radiofrequencies and health” expert appraisal.
http://www.icems.eu/docs/deutscher_bundestag.pdf
40
Karaboytcheva, M., 2020. Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research
Service PE 646.172 – March 2020
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf
41
Belyaev et al, 2016. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health
problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111
42
Austrian Medical Association, 2012. Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for diagnosis and treatment of EMF-
related health problems and illnesses (EMF Syndrome)
http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Austrian-EMF-Guidelines-2012.pdf
43
Belpomme, D., Irigaray, P., Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological
Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(6), 1915; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21061915
44
Premier Compensation Lawyers, 2020. WIFI.
45
Swiss Re, 2019. ‘Off the leash – 5G mobile networks’, in Swiss Re SONARNew emerging risk insights. p.29.
46
Environmental Health Trust, 2019. ‘Insurance Authorities rate 5G and Electromagnetic Radiation as High Risk’
47
The 5G Appeal, 2017. Over 400 scientists and medical doctors have now signed this appeal.
48
Wyde, M.E. et al., 2018. National Toxicology Program Technical Report on The Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in
Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 Mhz) and
Modulations (GSM And CDMA) Used by Cell Phones, National Institutes of Health Public Health Service U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
49
Melnick, R, L., 2018. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency
radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse
health effects. Environ Res. 2019 Jan;168:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010. Epub 2018 Sep 20.
50
Falcioni et al., 2018. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from
prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station
environmental emission. Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:496-503. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.
51
The Court of Appeal of Turin full judgment, 13 January 2020 (904/2019 of 3.12.2019, Romeo v. INAIL).
52
Biolnitiative Working Group, Sage, C. and Carpenter, D, Editors (2012). Biolnitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-
based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation at www.bioinitiative.org. As updated in 2014, 2018, 2019,
and 2020.
53
Morgan et al., 2014. Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences
JMAU 2014; 2 (4): 197 - 204
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583