Why has your exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields significantly increased in recent years? Why is artificial radiation now more aggravating than in the past? Are there any health effects? Why do insurance companies exclude the coverage for risks associated with electromagnetic fields? Do the legal safety limits protect you? Why do many scientists and organizations warn about the dangers from uncontrolled use of technology, particularly by pregnant women and children?
Electromagnetic radiation levels are increasing
The current unprecedented levels of high frequency wireless radiation are constantly increasing due to the proliferation of existing sources and the continuous addition of new wireless applications. Today we are exposed all to wireless radiation from:
- Mobile phones and cell phone masts
- Wireless Internet (WI-FI)
- Cordless phones and their bases (DECT)
- Tv and radio broadcasting antennas
- Wireless alarm systems, fire detection and temperature control systems
- Radio networks for police, private security companies, transport companies, taxi etc.
- Baby Monitors
- Cordless keyboards
- Devices that work with Bluetooth and are continuously active
- Wireless games consoles
- WIMAX networks
- Antennas for ministry embassies, the Armed Forces, Security Forces, coast Guard, Civil Aviation Authority, etc.
- Military radars, airports, ports, meteorological services etc.
- Antennas within industrial plants, stadiums, interactive school boards etc.
- Wireless speakers
- Microwave ovens
- The HAARP (= High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program)
- Smart electricity meters
"Thus in the frequency range 100 kHz to 300 GHz, 50 years ago it was scarcely possible to measure 10 pW/cm2 on the ground in our countries. Today, depending on the location, values one million to one thousand million times higher are recorded because of the explosion of telecommunications." European Parliament Resolution B3-0280/92 
At the same time, our exposure to low frequency radiation due to electricity has increased significantly, with the main causes being:
- Greater use of electric and electronic devices
- Greater power consumption
- Use of electrical solutions for cooling and heating (eg. instead of oil, natural gas)
- Use of plastic cables in homes instead of grounded steel cables
...whereas electromagnetic fields (EMFs) exist in nature and have consequently always been present on earth; whereas, however, in recent decades, environmental exposure to man-made sources of EMFs has risen constantly, driven by demand for electricity, increasingly more specialized wireless technologies, and changes in the organization of society; whereas the end effect is that every individual is now being exposed to a complex mixture of electric and magnetic fields of different frequencies, both at home and at work,..." European Parliament resolution 2008/2211 
Today artificial radiation uses a more aggravating waveform than in the past
The previously simple sinusoidal signal of the electric network (50-60Hz) is now distorted by higher harmonic frequencies (KHz = thousands Hz) due to the extensive use of electronic non-linear load devices such as fluorescent lamps, AC adapters, dimmer electronic switches, inverter air conditioners, plasma TVs, photovoltaic systems etc.
This phenomenon is called "Dirty Electricity" because it causes overheating of neutral conductors and premature aging of equipment. Scientists believe that the new waveform of the power grid is particularly burdensome for humankind.
Also the latest wireless radiation sources (cell phone antennas, mobile and cordless phones, wi-fi wireless modems, etc.) emit electromagnetic waves with digital modulation in contrast to older analogue sources (eg. radio and tv antennas).
The most unnatural digital square waveform which contains high intensity pulses is considered by many scientists to be more biologically powerful than the older analog sinusoidal waveform.
"There is substantial scientific evidence that some modulated fields (pulsed or repeated signals) are bioactive, which increases the likelihood that they could have health impacts with chronic exposure even at very low exposure levels. Modulation signals may interfere with normal, non-linear biological processes. Modulation is a fundamental factor that should be taken into account in new public safety standards; at present it is not even a contributing factor. To properly evaluate the biological and health impacts of exposure to modulated RF (carrier waves), it is also essential to study the impact of the modulating signal (lower frequency fields or ELF-modulated RF). Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony)." BioInitiative Report 
Radiation emissions allowed by legislation are too high
The legal exposure limits to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation today are aligned with the limits set by the International Commission for the Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which:
- are "based on short-term direct health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, electrocution and burns on contact with conductive objects and warming of the tissues caused by the absorption of energy during exposure to electromagnetic fields" (exact transfer in the ICNIRP guide [i]).
- recognize only the thermal effect of radiation and do not take into consideration other non thermal effects such as the production of stress proteins, increased activity of free radicals, calcium outflow, increased permeability of blood-brain barrier, platelet aggregation, increased production of histamine etc.
- have changed little in recent years, despite the rapid increase of electromagnetic pollution and the existence of new studies showing that these non-thermal action mechanisms can lead to long term health effects such as leukemia, breast cancer, brain and acoustic nerve cancer, Alzheimer, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, depression, allergies, etc.
- do not take into account the continuous and simultaneous exposure of the population to multiple radiation sources.
- ignore the increased absorption of radiation by infants and children.
- do not take into account the waveform of each radiation signal (digital vs analogue) shown to be a potent biological agent.
“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. “ European Parliament, Resolution 2007/2252 
Many scientific bodies have warned about the long term effects of artificial radiation
In recent years, many organizations have issued statements on the effects of artificial electromagnetic fields, with an emphasis vulnerable population groups such as children and pregnant women:
- the European Parliament
- the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety
- the Russian Committee for the Protection on Non-Ionizing Radiation
- the European Environmental Agency
- the Ministry of Education and the Teachers Association of Great Britain
- The French Food Safety Agency, Environment and Health at Work (ANSES) and the Ministry of Health of Israel
- the International Federation of Firemen
- the Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists
- The Medical Association of Ireland
- the Association for Environmental Medicine, Germany (IGUMED) etc.
The need for measures to protect public health has been highlighted in dozens of scientific resolutions:
- Resolution 1998 Vienna, Salzburg Resolution 2000, Declaration of Alcalá 2002, Catania Resolution 2002 , Freiburger Appeal 2002, Bamberger Appeal 2004, Maintaler Appeal 2004, Coburger Appeal 2005, Oberammergauer Appeal 2005, Haibacher Appeal 2005, Pfarrkirchener Appeal 2005, Freienbacher Appeal 2005, Lichtenfelser Appeal 2005, Hofer Appeal 2005, Stockacher Appeal 2005, Helsinki Appeal 2005, Benevento Resolution 2006 , Allgäuer Appeal 2006, WiMax Appeal 2006, Brussels Appeal 2007, London Resolution 2007 , Resolution 2008 Venice , Porto Alegre Resolution 2009
"The Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours, reconsider the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations, and apply ALARA principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation, put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age,pay particular attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network (...)" Council of Europe, Resolution 1815/2011 
Increased lifetime exposure of children to artificial radiation can have irreversible effects on their mental development
According to some scientists, wireless radiation detunes the initial calibration of brain networks in newborns and prevents the formation of normal electromagnetic activity of the brain, which is stabilized at around the age of 12 years and may be related to the large increase in cases of hyperactivity, autism and epilepsy recent years.
"The adverse effects of electrosmog may take decades to be appreciated, although some, like carcinogenicity, are already starting to surface. This gigantic experiment on our children and grandchildren could result in massive damage to mind and body with the potential to produce a disaster of unprecedented proportions, unless proper precautions are immediately implemented." Paul Rosch, professor of medicine at New York Medical School 
The continuous and long-term exposure to a variety of artificial radiation sources may be associated with the development of a range of health symptoms in a significant portion of the population
The occurrence of allergic reactions such as nausea, ringing in the ears, numbness in the face, dry eyes, tachycardia, redness and rashes, swollen sinuses, etc. in areas with high electromagnetic fields is called electrohypersensitivity (EHS).
Researchers Hallberg and Oberfeld studying the growth rates of cases, predicted that by 2017 allergic reactions to artificial radiation will display in 50% of the population 
Electrohypersensitivity is already recognized as a disability in Sweden and other countries are also moving in this direction, due to the fact that those affected find it difficult to work and move in public places because of excessive levels of artificial radiation.
"Sensitivity to EMF has been given the general name “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” or EHS. It comprises nervous system symptoms like headache, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin symptoms like prickling, burning sensations and rashes, pain and ache in muscles and many other health problems. Whatever its cause, EHS is a real and sometimes a disabling problem for the affected persons. Their EMF exposure is generally several orders of magnitude under the limits of internationally accepted standards." World Health Organization 
"The European Parliament calls on Member States to follow the example of Sweden and to recognise persons that suffer from electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate protection as well as equal opportunities.” European Parliament resolution on the health problems associated with electromagnetic fields (2008/2211) 
Many insurance companies already exclude coverage for the risks associated with electromagnetic fields
Insurance companies do not "close their eyes" to the issue of radiation as most people do. They are already taking precautions, since potential claims for damage from artificial radiation can cost them dearly.
Especially on the effects of mobile phones, Guy Malyon, head broker insurance of Aon Global notes that "The concern is that it could be the next big thing" while the insurance giant Lloyd's of London notes that "the number of reports on mobile telecommunications and its impact on health is immense, and the study findings are often conflicting"  .
Read the following interesting quote from the relevant article of the magazine "The Observer"  :
"Concern about the safety of mobile phones has prompted a leading Lloyd's underwriter to refuse to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users' health."
The move comes amid mounting concern about the industry's influence on research into the long-term effects of using a mobile.
The London market provides insurance for everything from aircrafts to footballers' legs. But fears that mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease have prompted John Fenn, of underwriting group Stirling, to refuse to cover manufacturers against the risk of being sued if mobiles turn out to cause long-term damage.
Fenn said: ''There are people in the insurance market who close their eyes to the issue because they say there is no scientific proof of a problem. If you go back to asbestos, it "wasn't a problem" at one time either.' Asbestos claims helped bring the Lloyd's market to its knees in the early 1990s."
"The European Parliament is greatly concerned about the fact that insurance companies are tending to exclude coverage for the risks associated with EMFs from the scope of liability insurance policies, the implication clearly being that European insurers are already enforcing their version of the precautionary principle." European Parliament resolution 2008/2211 
You can not rely on the government to protect you from the growing electromagnetic pollution
Today most governments refuse to warn people about the potential dangers despite repeated warnings by the European Parliament and many scientific organizations.
Given the changes that will be required, the losses of revenue (eg. taxes on mobile phones talk time and telecommunication companies have become a huge source of revenue for governments), the authorities wait until there is undeniable "proven" health impact to apply new legislation.
Nowadays new wireless applications that emit radiation with new waveforms are permitted without prior research on the effects on human health.
In the past however, a corresponding delay in taking measures has adversely affected the health of the population, as shown by the report of the European Environment Agency in the course of the delayed reactions of the authorities on issues such as asbestos, PCB, X-rays, etc.
"Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco." Council of Europe, Resolution 1815/2011 
It's easy to reduce your daily burden from artificial electromagnetic radiation!
Reducing your daily exposure to radiation does not depend only on avoiding mobile phone use or some electrical appliances, the use of which is usually transient and not continuous.
Deviations from the recommended limits for safe exposure might be due to a variety of hidden and obvious radiation sources such as cell phone towers (they are now in every neighborhood - often camouflaged), cordless phones and wireless modems (from your own or from neighboring homes), transformers, electricity cables, ungrounded electrical appliances, problems in electrical wiring (damaged insulation, errors in connections) etc.
What can you do?
- Read the Home Biology guide with several simple protection tips from the most common sources of radiation.
- To determine if the areas where you spend most of your time, have radiation values that exceed the proposed safety limits buy a simple to use radiation meter.
“A major contemporary threat to the health of Society is man-made ‘electrosmog’. This non-ionising electromagnetic pollution of technological origin is particularly insidious, in that it escapes detection by the senses – a circumstance that, in general, tends to promote a rather cavalier attitude, particularly with respect to the necessity of ensuring an adequate degree of personal protection. Yet the nature of the pollution is such that there is literally ‘nowhere to hide’.” Dr. Gerard Hyland, Biophysics, University of Warwick, 2 times Nobel Prize contender Medicine 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actual Or Potential Effects of ELF and RF / MW Radiation on Enhancing Violence and Homicide, and accelerating Aging of Human, Animal Or Plant Cells. Dr Neil Cherry Associate Professor of Environmental Health Lincoln University New Zealand www.neilcherry.com/documents/90_s8_EMR_and_Aging_and_violence.pdf  European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields (2008/2211(INI))  http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/Physiological.html  www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=INI/2007/2252  Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1815 (2011), The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment  Camilla Rees- Magda Havas, Public Health SOS - The Shadow Side of The Wireless Revolution  Hallberg O., G. Oberfeld (2006), we Will All Become electrosensitive; Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25: 189-191  WHO International Seminar and Working Group meeting on EMF Hypersensitivity (Prague, October 25-27, 2004)  Lloyd's preparing for personal injury related to cell phone use, Canadian Underwriter http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000071020&issue=10222007  Insurers Balk at Risks of Phones, Sarah Ryle, The Observer,http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/apr/11/sarahryle.theobserver  Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1815 (2011), The Potential dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and Their Effect on The Environment G.J. Hyland, University of Warwick, International Institute of Biophysics, The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation’ http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/Physiological.html