27th October 2016       THE ECOLOGIST  www.theecologist.org

Article by Lynne Wycherley 

EXCERPT : With the UK’s Digital Economy Bill set to be finalised today, new 5G microwave spectra are about to be released across the planet without adequate safety testing, writes Lynne Wycherley. Global neglect of the Precautionary Principle is opening the way to corporate profit but placing humans and ecosystems at risk, and delaying a paradigm shift towards safer connectivity.

In Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves, the late geneticist Dr Mae-Wan Ho – a visionary voice who opposed GMOs – identified pollution from wireless technologies as a pressing issue of our times.

Noting evidence for “DNA damage … cancers, microwave sickness, [and], impairment of fertility”, she concluded: “Evidence is emerging that the health hazards associated with wireless microwaves are at least comparable to, if not worse than, those associated with cigarette smoking.”

Since the advent of radar, followed by mobile phones and dense WiFi networks, such anthropogenic radiation has sky-rocketed. Although it is non-ionising, and does not destabilise molecules directly, evidence of other harm has been growing since 1950s studies on radar workers.

According to the updated Bio-initiative Report (2012+) by 29 precautionary scientists, effects on biology feature in several thousand, peer-reviewed papers. Yet troubling new findings rarely filter into the media. Or global Green discourse.

Though many studies have reported ‘no significant effect’, research by University of Washington biology professor Henry Lai, and others, reveals that wireless-industry funding is far more likely to yield such findings.

“Toujours ils créent doubte” (‘they are forever creating doubt’), explains former Luxembourg Green MP Jean Huss, whose research on the wireless industry inspired the Council of Europe to call for many precautions (2011), including protection of warning scientists, and wired internet in schools.

But wireless-product marketing has a loud voice. Few of us realise that genetic effects and free radical damage – both disease risks over time – are the most common, cautionary findings. Device-crowded spaces, such as our peak commuter trains or all-wireless classrooms, may be creating a subtly toxic environment.

Wide-ranging, oxidative harm to animals has been found from WiFi sources. And linked pre-diabetic and pre-cancerous changes. Ground-breaking work by biochemistry professor Martin Pall, Washington State University – winner of eight international awards – reveals a viable mechanism for such harm. But as with other ‘inconvenient truths’, it is going unheard.

Read Full Article HERE

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS (RIA) SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK (Electromagnetic Fields) REGULATIONS 2016 (S.I. No. … of 2016)

Foreword

The Health and Safety Authority, herein after referred to as ‘the Authority’, has prepared this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in line with the Revised RIA Guidelines, (Department of the Taoiseach, 2009).

This RIA considers the options and assesses the impacts of the requirement to transpose the Directive 2013/35/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 26th June 2013 implementing the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC. The deadline for Member States to comply with the Directive is 1st July 2016.

The impact of transposing the Directive through the proposed new Regulations is expected to be minimal for the majority of employers given that many of the obligations already exist in principles expounded in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and Part 2, Chapter 2, Use of Work Equipment and Part 3, Electricity of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007. However there will be compliance costs for employers in a number of specified sectors.

The proposed new Regulations apply the same principles specifically to the issue of electromagnetic fields but are more explicit and specific with regard to certain obligations such as exposure limit values, action levels, assessment of risk, determination of exposure, provisions aimed at avoiding or reducing risks, employee information, training, consultation and participation of employees and health surveillance.

Exposure limit values may be exceeded for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment used in the healthcare sector provided other safe guards are implemented.

All employers will be required to carry out an EMF risk assessment, and the guidance prepared by the EU Commission should assist in making this a fairly simple exercise. For the majority of employers this will not involve calculations or measurements and no further action is needed. However there will be additional compliance costs and requirements for employers in a number of specified sectors, e.g. telecommunications, where calculations or measurements will be required as part of the risk assessment. The costs are likely to be proportionally higher for SMEs than for bigger organisations. Indicative costs are outlined in section 5, Impact Analysis. However these costs are not considered to be disproportionate when balanced against the savings to be made by the reduction of harmful direct and indirect effects in employees caused by electromagnetic fields.

Direct effects are separated into non-thermal effects, such as the stimulation of nerves, muscles and sensory organs, and thermal effects such as tissue heating. Indirect effects occur where the presence of an object within an electromagnetic field may become the cause of a safety or health hazard, e.g. interference with medical equipment or implanted body devices.

The Directive and the proposed Regulations do not cover long term effects, e.g. cancer. Neither do they include risks resulting from contact with live conductors.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Physical_Agents/Electromagnetic_Fields/

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/si/337/made/en/pdf

http://consultation.hsa.ie/Public-Consultations/Electromagnetic-Fields-Regulations-2016/EMF%20RIA%2020may2015.pdf

___________________________________________________________________

UK – The Guide by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to the UK’s new regulations on electromagnetic exposure, which came into force on 1 July 2016, explains how employers must make a risk assessment and give “special consideration” to “employees at particular risk” below the ICNIRP’s heating limits.

Employees who have EHS, including teachers and lecturers, should be able to benefit from this, but others, like pupils and students, also need similar protection.  ES-UK newsletter

http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/nonionising/directive.htm

The Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Directive

Background
On June 29th, 2013, the European Commission repealed Directive 2004/40/EC and published Directive 2013/35/EU on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). The directive can be viewed online link to external website.

The final text of the Directive is largely well balanced and proportionate, and offers a framework within which Member States, including the UK can continue to protect their workers.

Member States have been given 3 years, up to 1st July 2016, to transpose the Directive.

Current information

Additional background information and progress on the transposition of the Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Directive in the UK can accessed via HSE’s Euronews site.

For more general information on electromagnetic fields, please see the non-ionising FAQs page.

Useful links:

Public Health England link to external website
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) link to external website
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) link to external website
European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine & Biology (ESMRMB) link to external website
European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR) link to external website
Association of X-Ray Equipment Manufacturers (AXREM) link to external website
Royal College of Radiologists link to external website
National Grid link to external website
Engineering Employers Federation – EEF link to external website
Confederation of British Metalforming link to external website
Medical research Council link to external website

Resources:

Guide to CEMFAW Regulations – HSG 281

EMF exemption certificate PDF

More resources:

The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016 PDF link to external website
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/588/pdfs/uksi_20160588_en.pdf

S T A T U T O R Y  I N S T R U M E N T S
2016 No. 588
HEALTH AND SAFETY
The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016

The Secretary of State makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 15(1), (2), (5), (8) and 82(3)(a) of, and paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 13(2) and (3), 14, 16, 18 and 20 of Schedule 3 to, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”)(a).
The Regulations give effect without modifications to proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by the Health and Safety Executive (“the Executive”) under section 11(3)(b) of the 1974 Act.
Before submitting those proposals to the Secretary of State, the Executive consulted the bodies that appeared to it to be appropriate as required by section 50(3)(c) of the 1974 Act.

PART 1 INTRODUCTION
Citation and commencement
1. These Regulations may be cited as the Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016 and come into force on 1st July 2016.
Interpretation
2. —(1) In these Regulations— “the 1974 Act” means the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; “AL” means an action level set out in Parts 2 and 3 of the Schedule; “direct biophysical effect” means an effect on human body tissue caused by its presence in an electromagnetic field; lectromagnetic field” means a static electric, static magnetic and time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic field with a frequency of up to 300 GHz;
“ELV” means an exposure limit value set out in Part 2 of the Schedule; “employee at particular risk” means— (a) an employee who has declared to his or her employer a condition which may lead to a higher susceptibility to the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields; or (b) an employee who works in close proximity to electro-explosive devices, explosive materials or flammable atmospheres; “health effect” means a direct biophysical effect which is potentially harmful to human health; “indirect effect” means an effect, caused by the presence of an object or a substance in an electromagnetic field, which may present a safety or health hazard; “sensory effect” means a direct biophysical effectinvolving a transient disturbance in sensory perception or a minor and temporary change in brain function.
(2) In these Regulations a reference to employees is, in relation to an employer, to be treated as a reference to the employees of that employer while they are at work.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/nonionising/directive.htm

Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy  September 2016

Martin L. Pall

Microwave EMFs activate voltage-gated Ca2+ channels (VGCCs) concentrated in the brain.

Animal studies show such low level MWV EMFs have diverse high impacts in the brain.

VGCC activity causes widespread neuropsychiatric effects in humans (genetic studies).

26 studies have EMFs assoc. with neuropsychiatric effects; 5 criteria show causality.

MWV EMFs cause at least 13 neuropsychiatric effects including depression in humans.

Abstract
Non-thermal microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. Calcium channel blockers block EMF effects and several types of additional evidence confirm this mechanism. Low intensity microwave EMFs have been proposed to produce neuropsychiatric effects, sometimes called microwave syndrome, and the focus of this review is whether these are indeed well documented and consistent with the known mechanism(s) of action of such EMFs. VGCCs occur in very high densities throughout the nervous system and have near universal roles in release of neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones. Soviet and Western literature shows that much of the impact of non-thermal microwave exposures in experimental animals occurs in the brain and peripheral nervous system, such that nervous system histology and function show diverse and substantial changes. These may be generated through roles of VGCC activation, producing excessive neurotransmitter/neuroendocrine release as well as oxidative/nitrosative stress and other responses. Excessive VGCC activity has been shown from genetic polymorphism studies to have roles in producing neuropsychiatric changes in humans. Two U.S. government reports from the 1970s to 1980s provide evidence for many neuropsychiatric effects of non-thermal microwave EMFs, based on occupational exposure studies. 18 more recent epidemiological studies, provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects, with several of these studies showing clear dose–response relationships. Lesser evidence from 6 additional studies suggests that short wave, radio station, occupational and digital TV antenna exposures may produce similar neuropsychiatric effects. Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes. In summary, then, the mechanism of action of microwave EMFs, the role of the VGCCs in the brain, the impact of non-thermal EMFs on the brain, extensive epidemiological studies performed over the past 50 years, and five criteria testing for causality, all collectively show that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects.

Keywords
Excessive calcium effects; Oxidative/nitrosative stress; Low-intensity microwave electromagnetic fields

READ FULL PAPER HERE

De Gruyter DOI 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011 Received March 16, 2016; accepted May 29, 2016

Igor Belyaev, Amy Dean, Horst Eger, Gerhard Hubmann, Reinhold Jandrisovits, Markus Kern, Michael Kundi, Hanns Moshammer, Piero Lercher, Kurt Müller, Gerd Oberfeld*, Peter Ohnsorge, Peter Pelzmann, Claus Scheingraber and Roby Thill

Abstract:

Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with non-specific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities are causal or contributing environmental stressors that deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by all other members of the health care community. It seems necessary now to take “new exposures” like electromagnetic fields (EMF) into account. Physicians are increasingly confronted with health problems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical observations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently neglected.

New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose exposure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of these technologies. Common electromagnetic field or EMF sources: Radio-frequency radiation (RF) (3 MHz to 300 GHz) is emitted from radio and TV broadcast antennas, Wi-Fi access points, routers, and clients (e.g. smartphones, tablets), cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, and Bluetooth devices. Extremely low frequency electric (ELF EF) and magnetic fields (ELF MF) (3 Hz to 3 kHz) are emitted from electrical wiring, lamps, and appliances. Very low frequency electric (VLF EF) and magnetic fields (VLF MF) (3 kHz to 3  MHz) are emitted, due to harmonic voltage and current distortions, from electrical wiring, lamps (e.g. compact fluorescent lamps), and electronic devices.

On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI), but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains the environment. In the beginning, EHS symptoms occur only occasionally, but over time they may increase in frequency and severity. Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, a lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive medical history, which should include all symptoms and their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in the context of EMF exposures, is the key to making the diagnosis. The EMF exposure is usually assessed by EMF measurements at home and at work. Certain types of EMF exposure can be assessed by asking about common EMF sources. It is very important to take the individual susceptibility into account. The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of high EMF exposure at home and at the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessibility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many examples have shown that such measures can prove effective. To increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other environmental factors that contribute to the total body burden should also be addressed.

Anything that supports homeostasis will increase a person’s resilience against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can change and why the range of symptoms reported in the context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the adverse effects of peroxynitrite – as has been increasingly used in the treatment of multisystem illnesses – works best.

This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention.

Keywords: accessibility measures; Alzheimer’s disease; cancer; chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI); diagnosis; electric; electromagnetic field (EMF); electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS); infertility; leukemia; magnetic; medical guideline; nitrosative stress; non-ionizing; oxidative stress; peroxynitrite; prevention; radiation; static; therapy; treatment.

READ FULL PAPER HERE

The European Coordination of Organizations for a Regulation of EMF Exposure

SEE MORE IEMFA WEBSITE

Source Article :  Towards Better Health 20th July 2016

The Hidden Marginalization of Persons With Environmental Sensitivities
by Pamela Reed Gibson Department of Psychology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. VOL. 8 NO. 2 JUNE 2016 ECOPSYCHOLOGY

ABSTRACT    This paper constructs persons with environmental sensitivities as comprising a hidden, marginalized group in technological culture that is paying a large price for our industrialized lifestyle. Due to the polluted nature of most public venues, this population is robbed of a sense of “place” necessary to maintain personal relationships. This population is marginalized by health-care providers and shunted into mental health categories, as our current health paradigms are not adequate to frame and categorize health problems caused by our toxic industrial lifestyle. The problem is discussed within the context of the pressures of capitalism, and examples are given of persons with environmental illness receiving mental health diagnoses (an attempted colonization) when they attempt to access mainstream health-care providers who lack knowledge or expertise regarding toxic-induced illness. Key Words: Environmental sensitivities—Multiple chemical sensitivity—Electrical hypersensitivity—Chemical intolerance—Chemical sensitivity—Chemical hypersensitivity.

Read Full Article and Paper HERE

Source Article – Environmental Health Trust

On July 8 2016, the French National Agency of Health Security of Food, Environment and Labour (ANSES) published a new scientific report “Radiofrequency Exposure and the Health of Children”.

Concluding that children are more vulnerable to radio frequency (RF) wireless exposures, the French report recommends immediately reducing exposures to wireless radiation from all wireless devices for young children. Acknowledging the inadequacies of current outdated RF regulations, ANSES recommends strengthening RF exposure limits with child protective safety margins and developing more sophisticated premarket test methods to fully assess human exposures to RF radiation from wireless devices. The new report has made headlines across the country.

“Unlike previous generations, children are exposed today to multiple RF sources at a young age…Children are not miniature adults…because of their smaller size, their anatomical and morphological characteristics and the characteristics of some of their tissues, they are more exposed. In particular, the peripheral areas of their brains are more vulnerable than adults to RF.” –Olivier Merkel, coordinator of the ANSES report:

Recommendations of the Agency

The government agency recommends to “reconsider the regulatory exposure limits” to ensure “sufficiently large safety margins” to protect the health of young children:

• All wireless devices, including tablets, cordless phones, remote controlled toys, wireless toys, baby monitors and surveillance bracelets, should be subjected to the same regulatory obligations as cell phones.
• Compliance with regulatory exposure limits should be insured for the ways that devices are customarily used, such as positioned in contact with the body.
• Exposure limits for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields should be tightened  to ensure sufficiently large safety margins to protect the health and safety of the general population, particularly the health and safety of children.
• Reliance on the specific absorption rate (SAR) to set human exposure limits should be re-evaluated and replaced through the development of an indicator to assess real exposures for mobile phone users that applies to various conditions: signal type,  good or bad reception, mode of use (call, data loading, etc.), location device is used on the body.
• ANSES reiterated its recommendation, as previously stated, to reduce exposure to children: minimize use and prefer a hands-free kit.

READ MORE HERE

http://ehtrust.org/frances-national-health-safety-agency-calls-reducing-childrens-wireless-exposures-anses-2016-report/

http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/frances-national-health-agency-calls-for-reducing-childrens-wireless-exposures-705119.htm

27th May 2016: Source – American Cancer Society Pressroom

“The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) has released partial results from an animal study of the effect of radiofrequency radiation associated with cell phones. The group found radiofrequency radiation was linked to a higher risk of two cancers. Below is a response from Otis W. Brawley, M.D., American Cancer Society Chief Medical Officer.

“For years, the understanding of the potential risk of radiation from cell phones has been hampered by a lack of good science. This report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science.

“The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn’t reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk. It’s interesting to note that early studies on the link between lung cancer and smoking had similar resistance, since theoretical arguments at the time suggested that there could not be a link.

“The new report covers only partial findings from the study, but importantly one of the two cancers linked to cell phone radiation was malignant gliomas in the brain. The association with gliomas and acoustic neuromas had been suspected from human epidemiology studies. The second cancer, called a schwannoma, is an extremely rare tumor in humans and animals, reducing the possibility that this is a chance finding. And importantly, the study found a ‘dose/response’ effect: the higher the dose, the larger the effect, a key sign that this association may be real.

“The fact that this finding was observed only in male rats has some wondering if the data is not reliable. It’s important to note that these sorts of gender differences often appear in carcinogenic studies, so the fact they show up here should not detract from the importance of the findings.

“This new evidence will undoubtedly factor into ongoing assessments by regulators to determine the potential cancer risk posed by cell phones. The American Cancer Society eagerly awaits guidance from government agencies, like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), about the safety of cell phone use.

“The NTP was given the difficult task of trying to answer important questions about the potential cancer risk posed by cell phones, and the group did not shirk from its responsibility. NTP staff were clearly aware of the potential importance of this study and went the extra distance to ensure the best science is used. They used double the number of animals required for this type of study; they convened not one but three panels to look at abnormal tissues from treated animals to ensure that what was identified as a brain and heart tumor was indeed a brain and heart tumor; they solicited review from multiple scientists from outside the NTP to critically review all aspects of the data analysis and study findings, to ensure the findings would stand up to the critical assessment expected once these unexpected findings were released.

“While this study adds significantly to the evidence that cell phone signals could potentially impact human health, it does not actually tell us how certain scenarios of cell phone use change our long-term risks of getting cancer. For example, the animal studies were performed at very high signal strengths, near but below levels that would cause animal tissue to heat up. Additional research will be needed to translate effects at these high doses to what might be expected at the much lower doses received by typical or even high-end cell phone users. Also, cell phone technology continues to evolve, and with each new generation, transmission strengths have declined and with it radio frequency exposures.”

Read  Source Article From American Cancer Society HERE

________________________________

27th May 2016 NEWS RELEASE

The associate director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) will provide an update and answer questions about a series of rodent studies on potential cancer risks from cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

NTP is releasing a report of its findings in rats. These findings are available at http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699. The report is titled, “Report of Partial Findings From the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure).”  Studies in mice are still underway.

31st  May 2016 Source Article –  Bioinitiative.org

Orebro University, Sweden May 31, 2016

The National Toxicology Program under the National Institutes of Health has completed the largest-ever animal study on cell phone radiation and cancer.  The results confirm that cell phone radiation exposure levels within the currently allowable safety limits are the “likely cause” of brain and heart cancers in these animals, according to Dr. John Bucher, Associate Director of the NTP.  One in twelve (12) male rats developed either malignant cancer (brain and rare heart tumors) or pre-cancerous lesions that can lead to cancer.  Tumors called schwannomas were induced in the heart, in the same kind of cells in the brain that have lead to acoustic neuromas seen in human studies.  The NTP says it is important to release these completed findings now given the implications to global health.  No cancers occurred in the control group.

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD of Orebro University says “(T)he animal study confirms our findings in epidemiological studies of an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma among people that use wireless phones, both cell phones and cordless phones (DECT).  Acoustic neuroma is a type of Schwannoma, so interestingly this study confirms findings in humans of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.   In 2013 we called for upgrading the risk in humans to Group 1, the agent is carcinogenic to humans. It is now time to re-evaluate both the cancer risk and other potential health effects in humans from radiofrequency radiation and also inform the public.”  says Hardell.   “This NTP evidence is greatly strengthening the evidence of risk, is sufficient to reclassify cell phone radiation as a known cancer-causing agent, and confirms the inadequacy of existing public safety limits.”

The World Health Organization’s 10-year study of human use of mobile phones concluded there is an increased risk for malignant brain tumors among the heavier mobile phone users, particularly where it is used mostly on one side of the head.  The 2010 Interphone mega-study of cancer in humans using mobile phones found higher cancer risk, but at that time there was little animal testing to support the risks identified in humans.  Now, this NTP study has shown statistically significant risks with a dose-response relationship to the amount of exposure.  It proves that non-ionizing radiation can plausibly cause cancer, not just ionizing radiation like x-rays and puts to rest the traditional scientific argument that cell phone radiation can’t do harm.

Dr. Bucher said the animals’ exposure was about the same as for people who are heavy users of cell phones.  He also confirmed that the exposure of 1.5 W/Kg is lower than currently allowed under FCC public safety limits. Testing on rats is standard in predicting human cancers.

The BioInitiative Report (2014) documents nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies).  This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies). Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies.

Dr. Christopher Portier, formerly with the NTP commented this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear.  “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans”.

See:    www.bioinitiative.org

Contact:    info@bioinitiative.org

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD    lennart_hardell@hotmail.com

+ Cell Phone Radiation Study Confirms Cancer Risk (PDF)

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURES ACT VIA ACTIVATION OF VOLTAGE-GATED CALCIUM CHANNELS. How this leads to diverse impacts on Health

Dr Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University speaking at Breakspear Medical Hospital, UK, April 2016

The effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are often thought to be unable to produce biological effects and current safety guidelines are based on this assumption. However, thousands of primary literature studies repeatedly report diverse health effects from extremely low frequency EMFs. Dr Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, will explain how people may be exhibiting sensitivity to extremely low frequency EMFs in his lecture describing EMF activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCC).