We measured radiofrequency (RF) radiation at the Järntorget square in the Stockholm Old Town in a new study recently published. In a previous study of the Old Town we found especially high RF radiation at that square. The maximum level in the present study was 11.6 V/m at the center of the square, where the antenna was focused. Järntorget’s mean value was 5.2 V/m, median 5.0 V/m, range 1.2-11.6 V/m.
Of interest is that this level can be compared to life-span carcinogenicity study on rats exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM environmental radiation performed at the Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy. A statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant Schwannoma in the heart was found in male rats at the highest dose, 50 V/m. In treated female rats at the highest dose the incidence of malignant glial tumors was increased, although not statistically significant. In conclusion our study showed RF radiation levels at one square, Järntorget, in Sweden was only one order of magnitude lower than those showing increased incidence of tumours in the RI animal study. An increased cancer risk cannot be excluded for those working next to or at Järntorget for longer time periods.
These results indicate that it is pertinent to measure RF radiation levels in the environment and in homes. Such exposure levels should be declared for those intending to settle down in any dwelling.
This Italian study on exposure to radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rats was started in 2005. It was a whole life-span study including 2448 animals. They were divided into 4 groups; 0 exposure (control group), 5 V/m, 25 V/m or 50 V/m. It has now been published and interestingly the results are similar as in the NTP study.
A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m). Furthermore, an increase in the incidence of heart Schwann cells hyperplasia was observed in treated male and female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although this was not statistically significant. An increase in the incidence of malignant glial tumors was observed in treated female rats at the highest dose (50 V/m), although not statistically significant.
The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users. These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.
Considering this study, the NTP study, increasing incidence of glioma, and human epidemiology studies showing increased risk for glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma) for persons using wireless phones it is time for International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to make a new risk assessment. The results indicate that radiofrequency radiation should be a Group 1 carcinogen to humans (sufficient evidence).
The Collegium Ramazzini has published its 17th position statement entitled “Most Types of Cancer are Not Due to Bad Luck”.
The full text of the document and references may be downloaded here.
The Collegium Ramazzini strongly rejects the claim by Tomasetti and Vogelstein that 65% of cancers are due to “bad luck” and result from randomly acquired mutations of the genome (Tomasetti and Vogelstein 2015b). This claim is based on a skewed and highly selective reading of the literature. It examines only a fraction of cancers – 34% – in a single country – the United States (Wild et al. 2015). It ignores enormous differences in cancer incidence and mortality across countries (Wild et al. 2015) (Potter and Prentice 2015). It dismisses abundant clinical and epidemiological research that has discovered scores of environmental and occupational carcinogens to which millions of persons are exposed (Wild et al. 2015). It ignores the very great successes in cancer prevention that have been achieved by controlling exposures to known carcinogens (Ashford et al. 2015; Gotay et al. 2015; Potter and Prentice 2015; Song and Giovannucci 2015; Wild et al. 2015).
The spurious claim of Tomasetti and Vogelstein poses grave danger to public health. It has the potential to undermine governmental programs for cancer prevention and also to discourage individuals from making wise decisions to change lifestyle, diet, and other factors that can reduce exposures to carcinogens.
In rejecting the unsubstantiated claim by Tomasetti and Vogelstein, the Collegium Ramazzini is proud to join the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Wild et al. 2015) and distinguished scientists from around the world (Ashford et al. 2015; Gotay et al. 2015; Potter and Prentice 2015; Song and Giovannucci 2015). We fully endorse the IARC critique of the Tomasetti-Vogelstein report (Wild et al. 2015).
Finally, the Collegium Ramazzini notes that Tomasetti and Vogelstein failed to disclose potentially important financial conflicts of interest (Tomasetti and Vogelstein 2015b).