This article by Naren et al informs about electromagnetic radiation from different devices. It is important reading for all concerned. The results are also shown in illustrative figures. The whole article is free to download from internet. A summary by the authors follows here:
“In this work, we determine the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence. This study also analyzes the EMR from common devices used in day to day life such as smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, hotspots, wireless earphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth speakers and other wireless accessories using a handheld radio frequency radiation measurement device. The procedure followed in this paper is so presented that it can also be utilized by the general public as a tutorial to evaluate their own safety with respect to EMR exposure. We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to EMR exposure.”
An important part of the NTP study was recently published. The full article can be found here.
“Results of the comet assay showed significant increases in DNA damage in the frontal cortex of male mice (both modulations), leukocytes of female mice (CDMA only), and hippocampus of male rats (CDMA only). Increases in DNA damage judged to be equivocal were observed in several other tissues of rats and mice….these results suggest that exposure to RFR is associated with an increase in DNA damage.”
No doubt these results add to the knowledge on the mechanism of radiofrequency radiation carcinogenesis. By now similar tumor types have been found in human and animal studies supported by laboratory studies on DNA damage for RF radiation. These results show that RF radiation should be classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1 according to the IARC classification.
At a meeting in Paris on 17 April 2019 Eric van Rongen, the present ICNIRP chairman presented a draft on new ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure. The presentation is freely available at the web although labeled as a ’draft – do not cite or quote’.
Most remarkable is that the science on health effects is still based on thermal (heating) effect from RFR just as the evaluations published 1998 and updated in 2009.
In the draft only thermal effects are considered for health effects (page 7). Van Rongen states there is ’No evidence that RF-EMF causes such diseases as cancer’ (page 8).
These comments are based on the power point presentation. However, there is no evidence that non-thermal effects are considered and thus a large majority of scientific evidence on human health effects, not to mention hazards to the environment. Thus the basis for new guidelines is flawed and the whole presentation should be dismissed as scientifically flawed.
If this draft represents the final version on ICNIRP guidelines it is time to close down ICNIRP since their evaluation is not based on science but on selective data such as only thermal effects from RFR, see also www.emfcall.org.
The draft represents a worst-case scenario for public health and represents wishful thinking.
A court in Rome has judged that people must be informed on health risks from use of wireless phones, both mobile and cordless phones. The decision has not been appealed and the information campaign must start by July 16, 2019.
No doubt this is a victory for public health. Similar decision should be made in all countries. We have the knowledge of health risks but the population is not informed due to negligence by government and media like in Sweden. We have the scientific evidence on risks to human beings and also the environment by no action in undertaken. Instead, the 5th generation, 5G, of wireless communication is implemented without proper scientific studies on the risks (www.5gappeal.eu; www.emfcall.org).
More on the Italian verdict can be found here.
The mission of this Agency is according to their home page:
The Public Health Agency of Sweden has a national responsibility for public health issues and works to ensure good public health. The agency also works to ensure that the population is protected against communicable diseases and other health threats.
However, when it comes to radiofrequency radiation and health their report from 2017 gives a wrong evaluation of the state of knowledge. Cancer risks are denied. It was written by a former and a present member of ICNIRP so no doubt the message is not different from that provided by ICNIRP. Our critique is published only in Swedish but can be read here.
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).
This study is now under peer review during March 26 to 28, 2018; the reports can be found here (NTP TR 595; rats) and here (NTP TR 596; mice). It has been able to submit comments and our views can be found here.
Our overall evaluation of levels of evidence of carcinogenic activity are:
Glioma: Clear evidence
Meningioma: Equivocal evidence
Vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma): Clear evidence
Pituitary tumor (adenoma): Equivocal evidence
Thyroid cancer: Some evidence
Malignant lymphoma: Equivocal evidence
Skin (cutaneous tissue): Equivocal evidence
Multi-site carcinogen: Some evidence
Based on the IARC preamble to the monographs, RF radiation should be classified as Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
’This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.’ (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php)
A recent article describes increasing incidence of the most malignant type of brain tumor, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) in England during 1995-2015. The number of patients increased from 2.4 to 5.0 per 100,000 during that time period. In total the yearly increase was from 983 to 2,531 patients, thus a substantial number. The incidence of low-grade glioma decreased but was stabilized from 2004, see figure 2. Thus the increasing incidence cannot be explained by low-grade glioma transforming to high-grade (GBM). The authors conclude that a general environmental factor must be the cause.
The increasing incidence is most pronounced for GBM in temporal or frontal parts of the brain, see figure 6. That is parts with highest exposure to radiofrequency radiation from the handheld wireless phone.
The increasing incidence of GBM was seen in all age groups but was most pronounced in those aged more than 55 years.
We published incidence data on brain tumours for the time period 1998-2015 based on the Swedish Cancer Register. In the age group 60-79 years the yearly incidence of high-grade glioma increased statistically significant in men with +1.68% (+0.39, +2.99 %) (n = 2,275) and in women with +1.38% (+0.32, +2.45%) (n = 1,585), see figures. Few patients were diagnosed in the age group 80+ yielding analysis less meaningful. High-grade glioma includes astrocytoma grades III and IV. Astrocytoma grade IV is the same as glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) with bad prognosis, survival about one year or less.
Our results are similar to those now published from England. All results are in agreement with wireless phones (mobile phones and cordless phones) causing glioma.
Recently we published a new article on brain tumor rates in Sweden using the Inpatient Register for the time period 1998-2015. Also incidence data using the Swedish Cancer Register were analyzed for the same time period. The full article can be found here, see also abstract below.
We used the Swedish Inpatient Register (IPR) to analyze rates of brain tumors of unknown type (D43) during 1998-2015. Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) per 100,000 increased with +2.06%, 95% confidence interval (CI) +1.27, +2.86% in both genders combined. A joinpoint was found in 2007 with Annual Percentage Change (APC) 1998-2007 of +0.16%, 95% CI -0.94, +1.28%, and 2007-2015 of +4.24%, 95% CI +2.87, +5.63%. Highest AAPC was found in the age group 20-39 years. In the Swedish Cancer Register the age-standardized incidence rate per 100,000 increased for brain tumors, ICD-code 193.0, during 1998-2015 with AAPC in men +0.49%, 95% CI +0.05, +0.94%, and in women +0.33%, 95% CI -0.29, +0.45%. The cases with brain tumor of unknown type lack morphological examination. Brain tumor diagnosis was based on cytology/histopathology in 83% for men and in 87% for women in 1980 in the Cancer Register. This frequency increased to 90% in men and 88% in women in 2015. During the same time period CT and MRI imaging techniques were introduced and morphology is not always necessary for diagnosis. If all brain tumors based on clinical diagnosis with CT or MRI had been reported to the Cancer Register the frequency of diagnoses based on cytology/histology would have decreased in the register. The results indicate underreporting of brain tumor cases to the Cancer Register. The real incidence would be higher. Thus, incidence trends based on the Cancer Register should be used with caution. Use of wireless phones should be considered in relation to the change of incidence rates.
Previous studies have reported associations between prenatal cell phone use (exposure to radiofrequent fields) and child behavioral problems. In this study data from 83,884 mother-child pairs in the five cohorts from Denmark (1996-2002), Korea (2006-2011), the Netherlands (2003-2004), Norway (2004-2008), and Spain (2003-2008) were analyzed. Cell phone use was grouped into none, low, medium, and high, based on frequency of calls during pregnancy reported by the mothers. Evidence for a trend of increasing risk of child behavioral problems through the maternal cell phone use categories was observed for hyperactivity/inattention problems; ADHD (OR for problems in the clinical range: 1.11, 95%CI 1.01, 1.22; 1.28, 95%CI 1.12, 1.48, among children of medium and high users, respectively). Thus, maternal cell phone use during pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk for behavioral problems, particularly hyperactivity/inattention problems, in the offspring. Increased risk was also found in the high cell phone use category for overall behavioral problems and emotional problems, although not statistically significant. The study can be found here.
In all analyses low cell phone use was used as the reference category. For no cell phone use decreased risk was found for all studied behavioral problems (overall problems, ADHD and emotional problems). It is unclear why low cell phone use instead of no cell phone use was used as the reference category. Using subjects that never used a cell phone would have given higher risk estimates in the high use category.
In the Dutch cohort cordless phone use was assessed yielding similar results as for cell phone use.