The close association between WHO and the ICNIRP has been described in a previous article. Unfortunately, this association seems to have prevented actions on health and the environment. ICNIRP is a private NGO based in Germany that acts pro-industry. In fact, exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation has increased in the society. Now the fifth generation, 5G, of wireless communication is implemented in spite of potential risks to human health and the environment. Our appeal (www.5gappeal.eu) asking for a moratorium until research on risks have been performed has not had any positive response either from EU or the Nordic countries.
Microwave news has now published an update with historical views. It is well worth to read. This information is usually not available to the layman.
Already in the 1970’s Russian researchers published animal studies on health effects from radiofrequency radiation in the frequency range that is currently for 5G use; mm waves. These studies were declassified by CIA in 2012 and are now available at internet.
A whole range of detrimental effects on the nervous system, different organs, hormones and the immune system were presented.
These results strengthen the warnings to implement the 5G system before adverse effects on humans and the environment have been investigated by researchers independent from industry.
Unfortunately these appeals seem to have had little or no effect, 5G has its own track, see www.5gappeal.eu and www.emfcall.org.
We have published results on measurements of radiofrequency (RF) radiation in central parts of Stockholm, Sweden. The published article can be found here. Especially high levels were found at the Hay Market and Sergel Plaza; mean levels 10,728 and 7,768 microWatt/m2, respectively. Also at central streets high ambient RF radiation was found from nearby base stations.
The figure below shows the result for the Hay Market. We have inserted the 30-60 microWatt/m2 line for lowest level of biological effects (red line).
We measured radiofrequency radiation in an apartment in Stockholm. The study is open under open access. Due to nearby bases stations high radiation levels were measure both in the apartment and on balconies.
A total of 74,531 measurements were made corresponding to ~83 h of recording. The total mean RF radiation level was 3,811 μW/m2 (range 15.2‑112,318 μW/m2) for the measurement of the whole apartment, including balconies. Particularly high levels were measured on three balconies and 3 of 4 bedrooms. The total mean RF radiation level decreased by 98% when the measured down‑links from the base stations for 2, 3 and 4 G were disregarded. The results are discussed in relation to the detrimental health effects of non‑thermal RF radiation. Due to the current high RF radiation, the apartment is not suitable for long‑term living, particularly for children who may be more sensitive than adults. For a definitive conclusion regarding the effect of RF radiation from nearby base stations, one option would be to turn them off and repeat the measurements. However, the simplest and safest solution would be to turn them off and dismantle them.
Thus, we concluded that of special concern is the levels in bedrooms, especially those two used by children, since they seem to be more vulnerable to adverse health effects than grown‑ups. They have also a longer expected life in which illnesses may later become manifest. The results indicate that this apartment is unsuitable for long‑term living based on current knowledge of the potential adverse effects on health of RF radiation.
Another conclusion is that RF radiation should be measured in homes, especially before moving into a new one.
In this recently published article wireless headsets are discussed. There is no open access to the article, but abstract is as follows:
Wireless-enabled headsets that connect to the internet can provide remote transcribing of patient examination notes. Audio and video can be captured and transmitted by wireless signals sent from the computer screen in the frame of the glasses. But using wireless glass-type devices can expose the user to a specific absorption rates (SAR) of 1.11–1.46 W/kg of radiofrequency radiation. That RF intensity is as high as or higher than RF emissions of some cell phones. Prolonged use of cell phones used ipsilaterally at the head has been associated with statistically significant increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma. Using wireless glasses for extended periods to teach, to perform surgery, or conduct patient exams will expose the medical professional to similar RF exposures which may impair brain performance, cognition and judgment, concentration and attention and increase the risk for brain tumors. The quality of medical care may be compromised by extended use of wireless-embedded devices in health care settings. Both medical professionals and their patients should know the risks of such devices and have a choice about allowing their use during patient exams. Transmission of sensitive patient data over wireless networks may increase the risk of hacking and security breaches leading to losses of private patient medical and financial data that are strictly protected under HIPPA health information privacy laws.
A detailed discussion is made of such items as: What are wireless headsets and why are healthcare professionals being encouraged to use them? What is the problem for the medical professional? What is the problem for the patient? What’s the advice to medical professionals?
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)