Biased WHO-commissioned review claims no cancer link to cellphone use

Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Chairman attacks WHO-commissioned review that claims no cellphone-cancer link

Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev, Sept 11, 2024 

(Dr. Grigoriev, one of the world's leading experts, emailed me this message regarding the Karipidis et al. (2024) review and gave me permission to post it.)

A group of little-known scientists have claimed responsibility for all cases of cancer associated with exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These scientists claim that possible, probable, and proven cancer from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields does not exist and never can exist. Thus, responsibility for misleading consumers, industry, and healthcare systems lies with several specific authors.

They made this conclusion based on an analysis of other people's articles, selected using a methodology not developed by them, using analysis criteria that they also did not develop. These scientists themselves are not known for their affiliation with scientific schools studying the biomedical effects of electromagnetism, their fundamental work in the field of biological effects of electromagnetic fields and hygiene is unknown. For an unknown reason, the scientists speak on behalf of the World Health Organization, whose employees remain silent and, in principle, do not have the authority (and competence) to make such categorical conclusions. As is well known, science has no categorical judgments, even geometry from the obvious Euclidean has become non-Euclidean, the theory of relativity has become relative. We do not discover "laws of nature", but only generalize what is known. The physical nature of the electromagnetic field has been and remains a subject of discussion, as well as human nature and the role of natural electromagnetism and electricity in it.

The discussion of the carcinogenic potential of radio frequencies has become one of the topics of the international electromagnetic project after 1996, and we have repeatedly discussed this issue with the participants of the WHO project. I have been directly involved in discussions since 1997. Every specialist involved in experimental work using several species of animals, with volunteers, with hygiene and epidemiology understands how dangerous it is to make a categorical judgment "this exists" or "this does not exist". We all need to be very careful when meeting the statements of such authors who "know the answer" in such a complex area for research as the bioeffects of the electromagnetic field.

Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev 

Dr. Sc. (radiobiology), Ph.D.(radiobiology & hygiene of non-ionizing radiation)

Chairman, Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

Member of the Board, Scientific Council for Radiobiology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Chairman, Non-Ionizing Radiation Section, Russian National Radiobiological Society

Chief Expert of the State Commission on Sanitary Rules (retired)

Member of the IAC WHO EMF Int Project - now WHO Non-ionizing Project (since 2004)

Member of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs

during 2020–2024

==

September 11, 2024 

"Old Wine in New Bottles: Decoding New WHO–ICNIRP Cancer Review; Game Over? Likely Not," Microwave News, Sep 11, 2024. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/old-wine-new-bottles

Microwave News reports on the 20-year history behind the ICNIRP's efforts to convince the scientific community and the public that cellphone radiation cannot cause cancer and the WHO's conflicted relationship with the ICNIRP.

"The fact is that there’s very little new here. The same people have been making similar claims for some 20 years. This is only their latest gambit to make them stick."

 

"In short, the new systematic review is an ICNIRP production.

Indeed, ICNIRP’s scientific secretary, Dan Baaken, is another coauthor of the new review! He serves, with Karipidis, on the Commission’s board of directors. Baaken is on staff at the German Radiation Protection Office (BfS), the principal sponsor of ICNIRP.

ICNIRP has always rejected a cancer risk. No one on ICNIRP has ever broken ranks.* This is not surprising: The Commission is a private, self-perpetuating club. Membership demands swearing allegiance to the no-cancer dogma. Okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

The results of this review were never in doubt. The WHO managers, who selected the Karipidis team, knew what to expect —and they got what they wanted." 

==

September 3, 2024

Today, many major news outlets are promoting a biased review of the literature commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) which claims that cellphone use has no link to cancer.

In my professional opinion, the WHO selected scientists to conduct systematic literature reviews on the biologic and health risks of wireless radiation who had demonstrated their bias through prior publications by either not finding evidence of harm or dismissing any evidence they found. 

Moreover, each WHO team has one or more members of the ICNIRP, a German NGO that issues exposure limits for wireless radiation primarily based on research produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues. The ICNIRP limits, designed to protect humans only from the acute effects of heating induced by wireless radiation, are promoted by the WHO and are similar to those adopted by the FCC. 

In 2019 investigative journalists from eight European countries published 22 articles in major news media that exposed conflicts of interest in this "ICNIRP cartel." The journalists report that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. These reviews have been conducted for the WHO and other government agencies. By preserving the ICNIRP exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund their research. Since then, a former ICNIRP member who served as editor in chief of the Bioelectromagnetics Society journal accused ICNIRP of "groupthink."

Recently, the ICBE-EMF published several peer-reviewed papers refuting the "thermal-only paradigm" upon which the ICNIRP exposure limits are based because the preponderance of peer-reviewed research finds non-thermal effects. 

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environmental Health. 2022. 21:92. DOI:10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

Héroux P, Belyaev I, Chamberlin K, Dasdag S, De Salles AAA, et al. on behalf of the ICBE-EMF. Cell phone radiation exposure limits and engineering solutions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023, 20, 5398. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075398

ICBE-EMF also published a critique of another WHO-commissioned review:

Frank, J.W,, Melnick, R.L, Moskowitz, J.M., on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2024. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0069. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069/html

The pre-proof version of the WHO-commissioned paper that has revived the controversy about the cancer risks of cellphone radiation is now available:

Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes. Environment International (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983

The paper's main conclusions seem biased (although not nearly as strong as reported in the news media)....

"For near field RF-EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic fields] exposure to the head from mobile phone use, there was moderate certainty evidence that it likely does not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, and salivary gland tumours in adults, or of paediatric brain tumours.

For near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from cordless phone use, there was low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma."

My colleagues and I arrived at very different conclusions based upon our 2020 systematic review of 46 case-control studies on cellphone use and tumor risk:

Choi Y-J, Moskowitz JM, Myung S-K, Lee Y-R, Hong Y-C. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):8079. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079

"In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods. Further quality prospective studies providing higher level of evidence than case-control studies are warranted to confirm our findings."

A preliminary comparison of the differences between our review and the new WHO review indicates that our review:

• examined only case-control studies of tumor risk and cellphone use as we did not consider any occupational, cohort or time-trend studies to be of sufficient quality to warrant consideration;

• our rubric for rating risk of bias of individual studies resulted in very different results;

• and most importantly, we employed a more conventional approach to the analysis of the cumulative call time data that examined the effects of heavy cell phone use.

Furthermore, we successfully rebutted criticisms of our review made by three authors of the new WHO review in letters to the editor:

de Vocht F, Röösli M. Comment on Choi, Y.-J., et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(6), 3125; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063125. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3125

Myung S-K, Moskowitz JM, Choi Y-J, Hong Y-C. Reply to Comment on Choi, Y.-J., et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(6), 3326; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063326. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3326

Brzozek C, Abramson MJ, Benke G, Karipidis K. Comment on Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(10): 5459. 2021. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105459. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5459

Moskowitz JM, Myung S-K, Choi Y-J, Hong Y-C. Reply to Brzozek et al. Comment on “Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18(11), 5581. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115581.https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5581

The new WHO review relies heavily on cohort and time-trend studies of cellphone use and cancer risk which we have found to be at least as problematic as case-control studies in terms of drawing causal inferences:

Hardell L, Moskowitz JM. A critical analysis of the MOBI-Kids study of wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and brain tumor risk. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0040

Moskowitz JM. RE: Cellular Telephone Use and the Risk of Brain Tumors: Update of the UK Million Women Study. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022. Djac109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac109

Moskowitz JM, Frank JW, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Belyaev I et al., ICBE-EMF. COSMOS. A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use. Environment International, Volume 190, 2024, 108807, doi: 1016/j.envint.2024.108807. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933

Although no scientific literature review is perfect, I believe that our 2020 review of cellphone use and tumor risk is less biased and will withstand the test of time better than the new review commissioned by the WHO.

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research

The preponderance of peer-reviewed research published since 1990 has found significant adverse effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation and extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. 

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF, has compiled summaries of the research on the biological effects of exposure to radio frequency (RFR) and extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields (EMF). His set of abstracts which covers the period from 1990 to January 2024 constitutes a comprehensive collection of the peer-reviewed research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of studies that examined genetic, neurological and reproductive outcomes has found significant effects: 79% of more than 1,500 studies of RFR, and 87% of more than 900 studies of ELF and static fields reported significant effects.

The collection contains about 2,500 studies. The abstracts for these studies can be downloaded by clicking on the links below.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC had planned to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity; however this review has been postponed. IARC is likely re-classify RFR to either "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) or "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1) if IARC convenes EMF experts who have no conflicts of interest.

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.

Summary of Results (Last update: August 14, 2024)

Radio frequency radiation (RFR)

89% (n=327) of 367 RFR oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1997 reported significant effects including 94% (n=83) of 88 studies with a SAR (specific absorption rate) ≤ 0.40 watts per kilogram (which is ten times less than the 4.0 W/kg threshold of harm that the FCC and the ICNIRP use to base their RFR exposure limits).

70% (n=328) of 466 RFR genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 79% (n=113) of 144 studies of gene expression.

77% (n=333) of 435 RFR neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

83% (n=280) of 335 RFR reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects. Among the studies that reported significant effects, 56 studies used an exposure with a SAR ≤ 0.40 W/kg and 37 studies had a SAR ≤  0.08 W/kg.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields

91% (n=286) of 316 ELF/static EMF oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

84% (n=288) of 344 ELF/static EMF genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 95% (n=168) of 177 studies of gene expression.

91% (n=315) of 345 ELF/static EMF neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

75% (n=65) of 87 ELF/static EMF reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects. 

Links to download each set of abstracts

   RFR = radio frequency electromagnetic fields

   ELF = extremely low frequency or static electromagnetic fields

RFR Oxidative Effects studies

RFR Genetic Effects studies

RFR Neurological Effects studies

RFR Reproduction / Development studies

Studies of biological effects in animals & plants exposed to low intensity RFR (SAR < 0.4 W/kg)

ELF Oxidative Effects studies

ELF Genetic Effects studies

ELF Neurological Effects studies

ELF Reproduction studies

List of  static / ELF low flux density studies that found effects

Intermediate Frequency studies

--

Feb 4, 2023 (Updated Aug 4, 2023)

Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure on Free Radical-Related Cellular Processes (332 studies)

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington

This document contains abstracts for 332 studies published since 1997 that assessed the effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on free radical-related cellular processes.

See pages 180-207 for the Table that summarizes key details about each study.

Summary

1. Of the 332 studies published from 1997- August, 2023, 297 (89%) studies reported significant effects; 36 (11%) studies found no significant effects.

2. Change in cellular free radical status is a consistent effect of radiofrequency radiation.

3. Effects can occur at low specific absorption rates (SAR) or power density of exposure. See 82 studies marked LI for low intensity (less than or equal to 0.4 W/kg); 79 LI studies found effects.

4. Effects have been reported at different frequencies, exposure duration, and modulations, and in many different biological systems, cell lines, and animal species. These data support the assertion that “Radiofrequency radiation affects cellular free radical processes.”

5. Most of the studies are live animal (in vivo) studies with long-term exposure, e.g., daily exposure up to months.

6. Some studies used mobile phones or RFR-emitting devices for exposure (see Table). The SAR and characteristics of RFR in these studies are not well defined. However, these studies should not be overlooked because they represent real-life exposure scenarios. Waveform modulations of radiofrequency radiation during wireless communication usage probably play an important role in biological effects. They are not revealed in studies that used a simple form of radiation (e.g., continuous-wave or GSM) and spatially uniformed fields. Researchers in bioelectromagnetics should realize that the perfect RFR exposure system simulating real life exposures simply does not exist.

Click on the following link to download the 207-page document (pdf): Link

AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe?

Third-Generation AirPods

The third generation of Apple's AirPods (aka AirPods 3) was introduced in 2021. 

The Specific Absorption Rate (or SAR) for the right AirPod is 0.626 watts per kilogram (assessed via the flat phantom & averaged over 1 gram of tissue) (1). The SAR for the left AirPod is 0.614 watts per kilogram (2). 

(1) https://fccid.io/BCG-A2565/RF-Exposure-Info/13685813-S2V2-FCC-Report-SAR-5480054

(2) https://fccid.io/BCG-A2564/RF-Exposure-Info/13685813-S1V2-FCC-Report-SAR-5479999


April 2, 2019

Second-Generation AirPods

The newly-released second generation of Apple's AirPods (aka AirPods 2) emits Bluetooth microwave radiation in the 2.402 – 2.480 GHz frequency range to communicate with a smart phone or other wireless device.

The Specific Absorption Rate (or SAR) for the right AirPod is 0.581 watts per kilogram (averaged over 1 gram). (1) The SAR for the left AirPod is 0.501 watts per kilogram. (2)

News about the potential health risks from use of wireless headsets first went viral in 2016 (see posts below). This story has gone viral again at this time for the following reasons:

• Apple announced that it is taking orders for a new version of its wireless headset, AirPods (aka AirPods 2).
• In the past year, two major studies found conclusive evidence that microwave radiation caused cancer in rats. These studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program in the U.S. and the Ramazzini Institute in Italy received worldwide media coverage.
• The proliferation of new cell towers and antennas in preparation for the deployment of 5G,fifth generation cellular technology, has stimulated many people to seek out information about the health effects from exposure to the radiation these antennas emit on a 24-7 basis in their neighborhoods.
• More people now realize we cannot trust governments to protect us from environmental toxins. Industry has too much influence over government regulatory agencies, and governments have conflicts of interest because the telecom industry pays governments substantial taxes and fees.

For some Bluetooth devices like Apple’s AirPods, the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the body’s maximum exposure to microwave radiation, exceeds that of many smart phones. Moreover, the cumulative exposure to radiation from wireless headsets may be substantial since many users keep these devices on their head for hours at a time and use them to listen to music or podcasts.

I have found only two small studies that examined the short-term effects on hearing from exposure to Bluetooth, the communications standard use in AirPods and other wireless headsets (see below). The health effects from long-term exposure to this type of microwave radiation have not been studied.

The FCC minimum exposure levels were adopted in 1996 based largely upon recommendations from industry-funded scientists and engineers. The guidelines were designed only to protect us from short-term heating risks. We now have hundreds of studies that show harmful biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to low levels of microwave radiation that do not involve heating. The guidelines need to be updated to protect us from these effects.

Although there is no consensus regarding a safe level of exposure to microwave radiation, most scientists who have published research on the effects of this radiation agree that the current exposure limits are much too permissive. In fact, more than 240 scientists from 42 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health totaling over 2,000 papers in professional journals have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal which calls for stronger exposure limits and health warnings. 

Most wireless safety tips recommend the use of wired headsets or hands-free use of smart phones and other electronic devices instead of wireless headsets.

News Stories

Are AirPods and Other Bluetooth Headphones Safe?
Markham Heid, Medium, March 7, 2019
https://medium.com/s/the-nuance/are-airpods-and-other-bluetooth-headphones-safe-214a0449e13a

Are wireless earbuds dangerous? Experts warn that Apple’s AirPods could send an electromagnetic field through your brain

Natalie Rahhal, Daily Mail, March 11, 2019 Revised March 12

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6796679/Are-AirPods-dangerous-250-scientists-warn-be.html

Scientists warn wireless, Bluetooth devices may carry cancer risk
Healio: Hematology/Oncology Today, March 13, 2019
http://bit.ly/BTHealio

Earpods for Cell Phones — Are There Health Risks?
Roxanne Nelson, RN, BSN, Medscape Medical News, March 15, 2019
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910453

Are Bluetooth Headphones Dangerous? Here’s What Experts Think

Julia Ries, Healthline, March 24, 2019 

http://bit.ly/BTHealthline

Controversy surrounding safety of wireless earphones: News Focus 2 with Prof. Joel Moskowitz

This Morning, tbs eFM (Seoul, Korea), March 25, 2019 (10 minute audio)

http://file-ex.ssenhosting.com/data1/tbsadm/tm20190325002.mp3

Did 250 Scientists Warn that Apple Airpods Pose a Cancer Risk?
Bethania Palma, Snopes, March 28, 2019

https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/03/29/apple-airpods-pose-cancer-risk/

References

(1) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Bluetooth Earbud. FCC ID: BCG-A2032. Model Name: A2032. Report Number: 12458150-S2V1. Issue Date: 3/15/2019. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-A2032/RF-Exposure-Info/12458150-S2V1-FCC-Report-SAR-4204549

(2) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Bluetooth Earbud. FCC ID: BCG-A2031. Model Name: A2031. Report Number: 12458150-S1V1. Issue Date: 3/15/2019. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-A2031/RF-Exposure-Info/12458150-S1V1-FCC-Report-SAR-4204479

December 13, 2016

Apple announced today that AirPods can be ordered online and will be available in stores next week. The wireless earbuds will be available in limited quantities in more than 100 countries and territories.

Apple originally planned to ship AirPods in October and has not explained the reason for the delay. The Wall Street Journal reported that the delay was due to problems with the Bluetooth wireless technology employed by this device.

http://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/12/apple-airpods-are-now-available.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-airpod-shipping-delay-causes-holiday-disappointment-1481299202

September 12, 2016

Apple’s new AirPods are wireless earbuds that employ Bluetooth technology to communicate with your smart phone, laptop, or smart watch. 

According to Apple, “After a simple one-tap setup, AirPods are automatically on and always connected.”

The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the AirPods

The right AirPod emits Bluetooth microwave radiation in the 2.402 – 2.480 GHz frequency range to communicate with a smart phone or other wireless device. The Specific Absorption Rate (or SAR) for the right AirPod is 0.466 watts per kilogram (averaged over 1 gram). (1) The SAR  for the left AirPod is 0.510 watts per kilogram. (2)

For more information about the SAR see my post on the iPhone 7.

If one uses the AirPods many hours a day, the cumulative exposure to the brain from this microwave radiation could be substantial. 

According to EE Times, the left AirPod communicates with the right AirPod using a different technology, "near field magnetic induction (NFMI)."

Although there is a substantial research literature on the health risks of exposure to magnetic fields, I am not aware of any biologic research that examines NFMI. Hence, this post focuses on the risks to the brain from exposure to Bluetooth radiation. 

Is Bluetooth safe?

The wireless industry argues that devices that use Bluetooth are safe because the microwave radiation emitted by such devices is low compared to FCC guidelines. The FCC requires the SAR to be 1.6 watts per kilogram or less.

More than 240 scientists who have published research on electromagnetic radiation safety believe that current national and international guidelines for exposure to radio frequency radiation are inadequate to protect human health (see the International EMF Scientist Appeal).

In August 2022, I found only two peer-reviewed studies have examined the effects of exposure to Bluetooth radiation. The studies which employed small samples evaluated the effects of brief exposure to Bluetooth radiation on the auditory system. Given the study limitations, the absence of significant effects is not surprising. These studies do not provide the basis to argue that long-term exposure to Bluetooth radiation is safe. 

The following new study suggests there may be long-term effects from Bluetooth exposure, "Epidemiological exploration of the impact of bluetooth headset usage on thyroid nodules using Shapley additive explanations method"

Zhou N, Qin W, Zhang JJ, Wang Y, Wen JS, Lim YM. Epidemiological exploration of the impact of bluetooth headset usage on thyroid nodules using Shapley additive explanations method. Sci Rep. 2024 Jun 21;14(1):14354. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63653-0.

Abstract

With an increasing prevalence of thyroid nodules globally, this study investigates the potential correlation between the use of Bluetooth headsets and the incidence of thyroid nodules, considering the cumulative effects of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) emitted by these devices. In this study, we analyzed 600 valid questionnaires from the WenJuanXing platform using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) and the XGBOOST model, supplemented by SHAP analysis, to assess the risk of thyroid nodules. PSM was utilized to balance baseline characteristic differences, thereby reducing bias. The XGBOOST model was then employed to predict risk factors, with model efficacy measured by the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). SHAP analysis helped quantify and explain the impact of each feature on the prediction outcomes, identifying key risk factors. Initially, 600 valid questionnaires from the WenJuanXing platform underwent PSM processing, resulting in a matched dataset of 96 cases for modeling analysis. The AUC value of the XGBOOST model reached 0.95, demonstrating high accuracy in differentiating thyroid nodule risks. SHAP analysis revealed age and daily Bluetooth headset usage duration as the two most significant factors affecting thyroid nodule risk. Specifically, longer daily usage durations of Bluetooth headsets were strongly linked to an increased risk of developing thyroid nodules, as indicated by the SHAP analysis outcomes. Our study highlighted a significant impact relationship between prolonged Bluetooth headset use and increased thyroid nodule risk, emphasizing the importance of considering health impacts in the use of modern technology, especially for devices like Bluetooth headsets that are frequently used daily. Through precise model predictions and variable importance analysis, our research provides a scientific basis for the formulation of public health policies and personal health habit choices, suggesting that attention should be paid to the duration of Bluetooth headset use in daily life to reduce the potential risk of thyroid nodules. Future research should further investigate the biological mechanisms of this relationship and consider additional potential influencing factors to offer more comprehensive health guidance and preventive measures.

Open access paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-63653-0

Low-intensity microwave radiation can open the blood-brain barrier

In 1975, Allan Frey published a paper in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences which reported that exposure to low intensity microwave radiation could open the blood-brain barrier in rats. Moreover, pulsed radio frequency waves (like Bluetooth) were more likely to produce this effect than continuous waves. (3)

The blood-brain barrier is a special layer of cells in the brain that prevents chemical toxins in the blood system from reaching the brain. Breaching this barrier could potentially lead to neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases and brain cancer.

More than a dozen peer-reviewed studies have replicated Frey's findings—exposure to low intensity microwave radiation can open the blood-brain barrier (see links below). (3)  

The effect of microwave radiation on the blood-brain barrier is nonlinear—it occurs with low intensity exposures but not at higher intensity exposures.

Although other published studies have failed to find the blood-brain barrier effect, these studies tended to use higher intensity exposures or employed small samples.

Recommendations

We may not be certain of the long-term risks of using Bluetooth devices, but why would anyone insert microwave-emitting devices in their ears near their brain when there are safer ways to use a cell phone?

I recommend the use of corded headsets or hands-free use of cell phones, not wireless earbuds. Moreover, one should never keep a cell phone next to your body, especially during a phone call, but also whenever the phone is powered on. For additional tips on how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation see https://www.saferemr.com/2015/10/tips-to-reduce-your-wireless-radiation.html.

%%%

News coverage

In the past few days, numerous news stories have appeared citing industry-affiliated scientists who claim that AirPods are safe. Nonetheless, a few news reports have addressed the potential health risks from using AirPods:

·         CBS San Francisco: "Apple Unveils iPhone 7 Without Headphone Jack"

·         CNN: “Apple eliminates headphone jack from iPhone 7: Harmful to your health?”

·         Daily Mail: “Could wireless headphones harm your health?”

Since the stories in the Daily Mail and CNN were posted on September 8, over two dozen online news stories have appeared that discuss the potential health risks from the microwave radiation emitted by AirPods.

References

(1) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Wireless Headset. FCC ID: BCG-A1523. Model Name: A1523. Report Number: 16U23784-S6V1. Issue Date: 8/30/2016. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/document.php?id=3118442

(2) UL Verification Services, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report for Wireless Headset. FCC ID: BCG-A1722. Model Name: A1722. Report Number: 16U23784-S1V1. Issue Date: 8/30/2016. Fremont, CA. https://fccid.io/BCG-A1722/RF-Exposure-Info/16U23784-S1V1-FCC-SAR-Report-3118428.pdf

(3) Peer-reviewed studies which reported on the effects of brief exposure to Bluetooth radiation:

Mandalà M, Colletti V, Sacchetto L, Manganotti P, Ramat S, Marcocci A, Colletti L. Effect of Bluetooth headset and mobile phone electromagnetic fields on the human auditory nerve. Laryngoscope. 2014 Jan;124(1):255-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23619813

Balachandran R, Prepageran N, Rahmat O, Zulkiflee AB, Hufaida KS. Effects of Bluetooth device electromagnetic field on hearing: pilot study. J Laryngol Otol. 2012 Apr;126(4):345-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310164

(4) Peer-reviewed studies which reported opening of the blood-brain barrier from exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation:

Sırav B, Seyhan N. Effects of GSM modulated radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation on permeability of blood-brain barrier in male & female rats. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):123-7  23. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26723545

Tang J, Zhang Y, Yang L, Chen Q, Tan L, Zuo S, Feng H, Chen Z, Zhu G. Exposure to 900MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats. Brain Res. 2015 Jan 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25598203

Sirav B, Seyhan N. Effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in male and female rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Dec;30(4):253-60. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22047463

Sirav B, Seyhan N. Blood-brain barrier disruption by continuous-wave radio frequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 2009;28(2):215-22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19811403

Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Salford LG. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):103-12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073

Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L. Exposure to an 890-MHz mobile phone-like signal and serum levels of S100B and transthyretin in volunteers. Toxicol Lett. 2009 Aug 25;189(1):63-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19427372

Eberhardt JL, Persson BR, Brun AE, Salford LG, Malmgren LO. Blood-brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(3):215-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18821198

Belyaev IY,  Koch CB, Terenius O, Roxström-Lindquist K, Malmgren LO, H Sommer W, Salford LG, Persson BR. Exposure of rat brain to 915 MHz GSM microwaves induces changes in gene expression but not double stranded DNA breaks or effects on chromatin conformation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 May;27(4):295-306. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16511873

Salford LG, Brun AE,  Eberhardt JL,  Malmgren L,  Persson BR. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3; discussion A408. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486

Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R. Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. Differentiation. 2002 May;70(2-3):120-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076339

Schirmacher A, Winters S, Fischer S, Goeke J, Galla HJ, Kullnick U, Ringelstein EB, Stögbauer F. Electromagnetic fields (1.8 GHz) increase the permeability to sucrose of the blood-brain barrier in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics. 2000 Jul;21(5):338-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10899769

Fritze K, Sommer C, Schmitz B, Mies G, Hossmann KA, Kiessling M, Wiessner C. Effect of global system for mobile communication (GSM) microwave exposure on blood-brain barrier permeability in rat. Acta Neuropathol. 1997 Nov;94(5):465-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9386779

Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, Persson BR. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech. 1994 Apr 15;27(6):535-42. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8012056

Persson BR, Salford LG, Brun A, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L. Increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by magnetic and electromagnetic fields. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992 Mar 31;649:356-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580510

Frey AH, Feld SR, Frey B. Neural function and behavior: Defining the relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 247: 433–439. 1975. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/46734