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 The presentation is freely available at the web although labeled as a ’draft – do not cite or quote’.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.
The well known Swedish daily newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, has published an article that does not give correct information on the risk for brain tumours from use of wireless phones. The newspaper has refused to publish our rebuttal. It is now published in the medical journal, Medicinsk Access (only in Swedish).
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.
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.
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)