Describes Russian exposure-limit history and biological-effects research, emphasizes protection of childr…

Dear OASH staffs, I’m the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and I just received information about US Health Ministry the Request for Information on Electromagnetic Fields from few my US colleagues (Dr’s Moskowitz, Pakhomov, Slesin etc). As is well known, the EMF exposure limits for the general public in Russia is more strong than in the USA (in 100 times). The main reasons for this is differing criteria for assessing harm from EMF biological effects, as well as the specific nature of the state regulatory system for electromagnetic field sources in Russia. Russia has 130 years of scientific school in EMF biomes research, therefore we have collected datas about most of EMF bioeffects, including non-thermal, information and thermal effects. As Russia has strict mandatory EMF limits under states service control, we haven’t issues regarding EMF hypersensitivity or EMF cancer. The question of specific EMF limits for children in digital education environment is discuss now (for example, on national hygiene science and radiobiology conference last week). Hope you and colleagues know, that the international debate over the reasons for and advisability of a strict EMF limit has been ongoing for more than 50 years, include direct discussion between US and Russian scientists since early 1970th. Mandatory EMF limits were established in Russia (USSR) in 1968; some last, EMF limits for general population covering all EMF frequencies since 1971. One of the most edition of EMF radio frequency limit took place in 1984, after finish of the USSR-USA joint EMF health research project under government’s agreement (1975-1985). Our EMF health scientist has joint Russia-USA bioEMF projects in 1997-2006 too. US Scientists from few universities participated in these projects, as EPA staffs and EMF researchers from AFRL (Radio Frequency Radiation Branch, Brooks Air Force Base), who was as IEEE C95 members. Huge collection of EMF biological effects data has been summarized and analyzed; these are likely the best syntheses available, enabling the establishment of «dose-effect» relationships and the prediction of both medical and biological effects for new exposure conditions. Although biological effects can vary, when we talk about medical consequences, it's clear that adults human has a limited number of possible ways to react, adapt, and de-adapt to electromagnetic overexposure. Therefore, it is not the best methodology way to find for distinct effects based on the specific EMF source (such as 5/6G). However, there are specific aspects to the EMF impact on a child's organism, including effects on the formation and development of children’s nervous system, that necessitate a special approach to electromagnetic safety for children. The WHO Electromagnetic Project, launched in 1996, was unsuccessful; it failed to resolve the issue of EMF health standard int harmonization and has some accusations of industry influence. Despite the turbulence, global economic and technologies continue to evolve, therefore need to have a common approach for electromagnetic safety for humans. So, the EMF initiative of the Minister Mr. Kennedy could be international. We know that China’s exposure limits fall somewhere between those of Russia and the USA; however, the country’s system for monitoring electromagnetic safety regarding environmental sources has utilized Russian methods as base for adopting. As a chairperson, I possess all the original materials regarding research into the biological effects of electromagnetism in the USSR and Russia. Of course, the majority of these publications are in Russian, which presents a challenge for analysis in English. I’m attaching our article in English, which summarizes main conclusion of EMF bio-medical research in Russia. We would appreciate your opinion on possible international participation in the electromagnetic safety system. Several years ago, I received a mail from Mr. Kennedy, when he was not yet the USA Secretary for Health. We would be happy to restart scientific cooperation for public health once again in EMF health safety issues. This letter doesn’t represent the position of the government, was not initiated by the government, and is not intended to influence the policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Sincerely, Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev Dr. Sc. (radiobiology), Ph.D.(radiobiology & hygiene of non-ionizing radiation) Chairman, Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Member of the Board, Scientific Council for Radiobiology, Russian Academy of Sciences