Can electrosmog be measured, and who measures it?

We have already said that the thermal effects of radiation (whose threshold is around 4mW per square centimetre) are well known and are easily avoidable. But, nowadays, effects difficult to recognise are feared also at lower doses. Even though little damage of this sort (non thermal and aspecific) has been noted scientifically, it still receives wide coverage in the media. They generally talk of a wide range of pathologies which are difficult to characterize (from the simple headache to leukemia, from depression to Alzheimer's disease, from reduced libido to anorexia, from a loss of balance to all forms of oncogenesis). The most feared health problems are those which develop only later on, when a diagnosis is made only a long time (years, decades, even generations) after the event that first induced the molecular modification. The problem is known as "long term damage" which develops only when successive disturbances occur which spark off the atypical formation itself . It is evident that such behaviour complicates scientific studies and often weakens epidemiological data. As a matter of fact, even the most serious epidemiological analysis cannot give definite answers unless the observed effects abundantly exceed the statistical error of the same pathologies present in the control groups. Statistical fluctuations are usually very large because of the natural heterogeneity of the human population and also because of the long observation periods needed. Experimental studies "in vitro" and "in vivo" exist, but there are many perplexities concerning the validity of transferring the results directly to the human population. At the moment, it is difficult both to state a correct "cause/effect" connection, and to indicate a real pattern of the function that indicates the response according to the dose (linear/non-linear response...?). This makes it less meaningful to extrapolate patterns deriving from observed results for high doses.

We have briefly mentioned the difficulties regarding ELF. As far as radiofrequencies and microwavesare concerned we are better off, because the energy transferred to the crossed materials can be measured precisely and the subsequent chemical and physical modifications may be better understood. Exposure effects, then, may  be referred to the average absorbed energy, normally indicated as SAR (specific absorbed rate). But at decreasing SAR and particularly for very low doses interpretation remains difficult.
Living organisms manifest individual differences both in specific sensibility and also in the reactions activated. Besides, even a minimal disturbance may become the cause of serious damage if not recognized and repaired or eliminated (think of carcinogenesis on the one hand, and on the other consider hormesis; i.e. the possibility that a disturbance may become "beneficial" as it could improve the system's ability to recognize anomalies and to defend itself and return to normal). This possibility cannot be excluded a priori for the electromagnetic radiations.
If we want to stick to the facts and answer people's worries about the damage caused by electrosmog noxiousness, with more precise answers also at low doses, we have to wait until scientific observations are ready. For the moment, we can say that if a real risk exists, it is so small that it gets confused in the normal incidence intervals of the pathologies in question. At best, we should get used to comparing this risk with the many others already known which we readily accept without worrying. Such mental exercise is particularly useful for our society, which is not yet accustomed to perceiving and evaluating different risks. Too often the risks are not correctly described and often some of them are blown up out of all proportion, while more serious ones are overlooked.
When we perceive a risk, we want to see it eliminated. This is clearly utopian, unless all the activities connected to the risk are also suppressed, thus also eliminating all the benefits that come with it.