Friday, November 1, 2019

Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 
Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)


Part II: Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

 Last revision: November 1, 2019
The FCC received more than 1,200 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radio frequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the media and to the public. 
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.

Although fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken our radiation standards instead of strengthen them.
In all, more than 1,200 submissions were made to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and November 1, 2019. Many submissions include multiple documents. To access these papers go to the FCC's web site for Proceeding Number 13-84.

Part II which appears below contains a list of key research papers and monographs submitted to the FCC and links to these documents which  enable people to download the papers.
See Part I for key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.
See Part III for links to petitions signed by EMF scientists calling for stronger regulations of electromagnetic fields (EMF) including radio frequency fields. The International EMF Scientist Appeal was signed by more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on EMF and biology or health.
 Published Research Papers

 Adams et al. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment Int. 2014. 70(2014): 106-112.  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040814

 Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep. 2012;2:312. doi: 10.1038/srep00312. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311532

Altun et al. Effects of mobile phone exposure on metabolomics in the male and female reproductive systems. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:700-707.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091314126731/Effects%20of%20mobile%20phone%20exposure%20on%20metabolomics%20in%20the%20male%20and%20female%20T%20reproductive%20systems.pdf

Balmori A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):191-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940774

 Balmori A. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of Total Environment. 518-519:58-60. 2015.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109303096909269/Balmori%202015.pdf 

 Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Role of radical pairs and feedback in weak radio frequency field effects on biological systems. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:165-170.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913119016386/Role%20of%20radical%20pairs%20and%20feedback%20in%20weak%20radio%20frequency%20field%20effects%20on%20biological%20systems.pdf

Belpomme et al. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizingradiation: An international perspective. Envir Pollution. 242:643-658. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/nonionizing%20radiation%20international%20perspective%20Belpomme%20Hardell%20Carpenter%202018.pdf

Belyaev et al. Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro—Dependence on physical, Physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 48(11):2172-2179. 2000. 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10711815002508/2000%20Belyaev%20IEEE_MTT_%20MMW%20Review.pdf

 Betzalel et al. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver–Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Envir Research. 163:208-216. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/The%20human%20skin%20as%20a%20sub-THz%20receiver%20%E2%80%93%20Does%205G%20pose%20a%20danger%20to%20it%20or%20not%20(1).pdf

 Buchner K, Eger H. Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields—A long-term study under real-life conditions. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 24(1):44-57. 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940778

 Blackman CF. Treating cancer with amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields: a potential paradigm shift, again? Br J Cancer. 2012 Jan 17;106(2):241-2. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.576. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940777

Chou CK, Guy AW, Kunz LL, Johnson RB, Crowley JJ, Krupp JH. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 1992;13(6):469-96.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60002060833

Costa et al. Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.292.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940776

Cucurachi et al. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:116-40. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940763

Davis et al. Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.03.001.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520943925

Everaert J, Bauwens D. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(1):63-72. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940767

Falcioni et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:496-503. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913119016386/Report%20of%20final%20results%20regarding%20brain%20and%20heart%20tumors%20in%20Sprague-Dawley%20rats%20exposed%20from%20prenatal%20life%20until%20natural%20death%20to%20mobile%20phone%20radiofrequency%20field%20representative%20of%20a%201.8%20GHz%20GSM%20base%20station%20environmental%20emission.pdf

 Fernández et al. Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:694-699. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/Absorption%20of%20wireless%20radiation%20in%20the%20child%20versus%20adult%20brain%20and%20eye%20from%20T%20cell%20phone%20conversation%20or%20virtual%20reality.pdf

 Foerster et al. A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Envir Health Perspectives. 126(7). July 2018. 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/ProspectiveCohortStudyofAdolescents%E2%80%99%20Memory%20PerformanceandIndividual%20Brain%20DoseofMicrowaveRadiation.pdf

Fragopoulou et al. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):307-17.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940752

Gandhi, OP. Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults. IEEE Spectrum. 3:985-988. July 10, 2015.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001122233

Gandhi, OP, Kang G. Inaccuracies of a plastic pinna SAM for SAR testing of cellular telephones against IEEE and ICNIRP safety guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 52(8):2004-2012. Aug 2004; DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2004.832689.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311473

Gandhi et al. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311190

Giuliani L, Soffritti M. (Eds.) Non-thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter. ICEMS Monograph. European J Oncology. Vol. 5. 2010.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940834

Güler et al. The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Apr;88(4):367-73. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2012.646349.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311528

Haggerty K. Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations.International Journal of Forestry Research, vol. 2010, Article ID 836278, 7 pages, 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/836278. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940764

Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):117-22. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941823

Hardell L. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncology. 51:405-413. 2017.

Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):75-84. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958029

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link - Part I. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):191-209. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.001.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958030

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):211-34. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.002.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958031

Houston et al. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. 2016.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1093016723166/RF%20Impact%20on%20Spermatozoa.pdf

 Kane RC. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(2):195-7.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941400

Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2012 Jan;166(2):379-88. doi: 10.1007/s12010-011-9433-6.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939750

 Kocaman et al. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:71-79.  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091314126731/Genotoxic%20and%20carcinogenic%20effects%20of%20non-ionizing%20electromagnetic%20fields.pdf

Kundi M, Hunter H-P. Mobile phone base stations—Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology. 2009.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109303096909269/Kundi%20%26%20Hutter%2C%202009.pdf

 Lai H. Exposure to Static and Extremely-Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Cellular Free Radicals. Electromagn Biol Med. 2019 Aug 26:1-18. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/Henry%20Lai%20ELF%20static%20field%20review%20paper%202019.pdf

 Levis AG, Gennaro V, Garbiso S. Business bias as usual: The case of electromagnetic pollution.  In Elsner W, Frigato P, Ramazzotti P eds: “Social Costs Today. Institutional Analyses of the Present Crises”. Routledge (Taylor&Francis Group), London and New York 2012: 225-68.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958478

Levis et al. Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise? Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-59.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940825

Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Res. 18:369-395. 2010.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311466

Li DK, Ferber JR, Odouli R, Quesenberry CP Jr. A prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci Rep. 2012;2:540. doi: 10.1038/srep00540. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311533

 Lin JC. Human exposure to RF, microwave, and millimeter-wave radiation. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 17(6):32-36. 2016.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018263449175/IEEE%20MWM%20RF%20Exposure%2007464988%20James%20C%20Lin%202016.pdf

 Lin, JC. The significance of primary tumors in the NTP study of chronic rat exposure to cell phone radiation. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 20(11):18-21. 2019.  
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018805901388/Lin%20NTP%20Primary%20Tumors%2008866792.pdf

 Lissak G. Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: Literature review and case study. Environ Res. 2018 Jul;164:149-157. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/Adverse%20physiological%20and%20psychological%20effects%20of%20screen%20time%20on%20children%20and%20adolescents%3A%20Literature%20review%20and%20case%20study.pdf 

 McKee L. Meeting the imperative to accelerate environmental bioelectromagnetics research. Environ Res. 2018 Jul;164:100-108. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Meeting%20the%20imperative%20to%20accelerate%20environmental%20bioelectromagnetics%20research.pdf

 Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ Research. 168:1-6. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001332406626/Melnick-Commentary%20on%20the%20utility%20of%20the%20National%20Toxicology%20Program%20study.pdf

 Miller et al. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Envir Research. 2018. 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/12103008105187/Miller%20et%20al%20(1).%20Cancer%20epidemiology%20update%20copy%202.pdf

 Myung et al. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5565-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940706

Nittby et al. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.001.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941405

Nittby et al. Review. Radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):103-26. doi: 10.1080/15368370802061995.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941406

Odaci E, Bas O, Kaplan S. Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study. Brain Res. 2008 Oct 31;1238:224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.013. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311527

Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941801

Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. J Chemical Neuroanatomy. 2015.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001669617135/PallNeuropsychiatric2015.pdf

 Pall ML. WiFi is an important threat to human health. Environ Research. 164: 405-416. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/WIF%20threat%20Martin%20Pall%202018%20Environmental%20Research%20.pdf

Panagopoulos DJ. Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electric fields. Mutation Research--Reviews in Mutation Research. 781:53-62. 2019. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10429016089243/Panagopoulos-2019-Mut%20Res%20Rev%20Comparing%20DNA%20damage%20induced%20by%20mobile%20telephony%20and%20other%20types%20of%20man-made%20electromagnetic%20fields.pdf

Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663. Print 2013. Erratum in: PLoS One.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520938512

Peleg M, Nativ O, Richter ED. Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:123-133.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Radio%20frequency%20radiation-related%20cancer%3A%20assessing%20causation%20in%20the%20occupational%3Amilitary%20setting.pdf

 Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks. 3:455-461.1997. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941992

Rea et al. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity. 10(1&2):242-256. 1991.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520937451

Russell CL. 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environ Research. 165:484-495. 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001332406626/CindyRussell5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunications%20expansion.pdf

 Sage C, Carpenter DO. Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology . 16: 233–246. 2009. 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109303096909269/Sage%20%26%20Carpenter%2C%202009.pdf 

 Sagar et al. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ Int. 2018 May;114:297-306. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/RF%20microenvironment%206-nation%20study%20Environment%20Intl%20Sagar%20Roosli%202018.pdf

 Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from
cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review. Biology and Medicine 4(4):202-216. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940779

 Thielens et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Reports. 8: 3924. 2018.  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/Exposure%20of%20Insects%20to%20RadioFrequency%20Electromagnetic%20Fields%20from%202%20to%20120GHz%205g%20.pdf

 Tseng et al. Induction of vertebrate regeneration by a transient sodium current. J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 29;30(39):13192-200. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3315-10.2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940761 

 Wall et al. Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Res. 2019 Apr;171:581-592.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Real-world%20cell%20phone%20radiofrequency%20electromagnetic%20field%20exposures.pdf

 Yahyazadeh A, Deniz ÖG, Kaplan AA. The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:684-693.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109131837001830/The%20genomic%20effects%20of%20cell%20phone%20exposure%20on%20the%20reproductive%20system.pdf

Yakymenko et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Posted online on July 7, 2015. 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001122232

Zothansiama et al. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2017. 

Papers and Monographs

Austrian Medical Association. Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome): Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group. Vienna, Austria. Mar 2012.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940750

Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons. Addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies *Worldwide (NGIC-I 147-101-98) Study. Undated classified document released by the Dept of the Army Dec 13, 2006. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311621

BioInitiative Working Group. Sage C, Carpenter DO. (Eds). BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for  Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation. www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012. (29 chapter authors)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939958 

Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Doc. 12608. May 6, 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311504

Dart P. Alterations in Hormone Physiology. Undated.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940905

Dart P. Cell Phones and Risk of Brain Tumor. Undated.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940911

Dart P. Consequences of Chronic Microwave RF Exposure. Undated.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940908

Dart P. Effects of Microwave RF Exposure on Fertility. Undated.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940909

Dart P. Health Effects of Microwave Radio Exposures: Acute Symptoms from RF Exposure. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940904

Dart P. Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures. Undated.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940906

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A. Public Health Implications of the Proposed Cell Phone Transmission Tower at Oakway Golf Course. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311419

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A, Knackstedt J, Morgan J, Wible P, Baker S. Biological and health effects of microwave radiofrequency transmissions: A review of the research literature. A report to Eugene Water and Electric Board. Jun 4, 2013.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940903

European Environment Agency. Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions, Washington, 15 September 2009. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311538

Frey A. Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk? The Scientist. Sep 25, 2012.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311550

Frey AH. On the Safety of Cell Phone Radiation. British Medical Journal. Nov 7, 2011.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311551

Glaser ZR. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation: Research Report No. 2 Revised. Naval Medical Research Institute. Oct 4, 1971. Second printing w/ revisions. Apr 20, 1972. (Contains more than 2,000 references.) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311479

Goldsworthy A. The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields. Mar 2012.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311211

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Chapter 21. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk: early warnings early actions?  In Emerging issues: Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation. European Environment Agency Report 1/2013. Jan 2013. Pp. 541-561. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941294

 IARC. Non-Ionizing Radiation. Part 2. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Volume 102. Lyon, France: International Agency for Cancer Research, World Health Organization. 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1071413202273/Monograph%20radiofrequecy%20radiation%20WHO%3AIARC.pdf

 International EMF Scientist Appeal. August 25, 2019. 10 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916233196437/International_EMF_Scientist-Appeal%208-25-2019.pdf

Kane RC. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective. New York: Vantage Press. 2001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941881

 Kucinich D. 112th H.R. 6358. A bill to examine, label, and communicate adverse human biological effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields from cell phones and other wireless devices. Congress. 2d Session. Aug 3, 2012.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311505

Lai H. Exhibit D: An Update on Neurological Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 169 pp.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098237

Lai H. Exhibit E: An Update on the Genetic Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 94 pp.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098238

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on the biological effects of radiofrequency and cell phone radiation (1990-2017). Dec 13, 2017. 1,013 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916020933093/RFR%20ResearchSummary%20Henry%20Lai%202017.pdf

Lai H. A summary of recent literature on neurobiological effects of radiofrequency radiation. in “Mobile Communications and Public Health” Markov, M. (ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018, Chapter 8, pp.187-222. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916020933093/Neurological%20effects%20of%20RF%20Henry%20Lai%20chapter%20Markov%202018.pdf

Lai H. Neurological effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Oct 1, 2017. 237 pp. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916020933093/RFR-neurological-effects-%20Henry%20Lai%202017.pdf

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on radiofrequency radiation and free radical (oxidative) effects. Apr 19, 2019. 118 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/RF-Free-Radical-oxidative-effect%20Henry%20Lai%204-19-2019.pdf

Lai H. Radiofrequency radiation comet assay studies. Apr 1, 2013. 40 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/RFR%20DNA%20comet-assay-studies%20Henry%20Lai%202017.pdf

Lai H. Percent comparison showing effect vs. no effect in neurological effect studies. Aug, 2019. 1 p.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/Neurological%20Effects-Percent-Graphic-Henry%20Lai%20August-2019.pdf

Lai H. Percent comparison showing effect vs. no effect in comet assay and free radical (oxidative) (radiofrequency radiation and static field/ extremely low frequency field effect studies. Dec, 2017 and Apr, 2019. 1 p.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916151357910/Genotoxic%20studies-Percent-Graphic-Henry%20Lai%202019.pdf

Lai H. Abstracts of research publications on neurological effects of static and extremely-low frequency electromagnetic fields (2007-2019). Sep 13, 2019. 117 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/Henry%20Lai%20static%20field%20ELF%20neurological%20effects%202007-2019%209-13-2019.pdf

Lai H. Supplementary Material: Literature on free radical generation after exposure to static and extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields (as of July 2019). 63 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10920151427784/Henry%20Lai-ELF%20static%20fields%20free%20radicals%20supplementary%20material%207-2019.pdf

Leszczynski, D. FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP should tighten safety standards. Washington Times Communities. Apr 9, 2013.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022272017

Markova E, Malmgren L, Belyaev I. Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells Stronger than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environ Health Perspect. 118(3):394-399. Mar 2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311529

Moskowitz JM. Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed”. Aug 15, 2012 (rev. Aug 24, 2012).
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940705

Moskowitz JM. Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S.: A compilation of original press releases from April 2012 – November 2013. Nov 5, 2013.
http://bit.ly/1b9FG37

Moskowitz JM. Wireless radiation and EMF abstracts published from August, 2016 - August, 2019. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley. Sep 13, 2019. 527 pp.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091330786203/Wireless%20radiation%20and%20EMF%20abstracts%20August%202016%20-%20August%202019%20Joel%20Moskowitz%209-13-2019.pdf

Moskowitz JM. We have no reason to believe 5G is safe. Scientific American. Oct 17, 2019.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018805901388/191017_Scientific_American_We%20Have%20No%20Reason%20to%20Believe%205G%20is%20Safe%20Moskowitz.pdf

 Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of reported biological phenomena ('effects') and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation. NTIS. 1972. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1001034847591/Naval-Medical-Research-Institute-1972.pdf

 National Toxicology Program. Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures). Draft 5/19/2016. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60002090569.pdf

Powerwatch. 1,670 peer-reviewed scientific papers on electromagnetic fields and biology or health. Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. Oct 22, 2018.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1018805901388/181022_EMF%20Studies%20from%20Powerwatch.pdf

 Roe S. We tested popular cellphones. Now the FCC is testing them. Chicago Tribune. Aug 21, 2019.  
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091340619273/We%20tested%20popular%20cellphones%20for%20radiofrequency%20radiation.%20Now%20the%20FCC%20is%20investigating.%20-%20Chicago%20Tribune.pdf

Russell C. Wireless Silent Spring. Santa Clara County Medical Association Bulletin. Oct 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1022423602512/Wireless%20Silent%20Spring_%20SCCMA%20Oct%202%2C%202018.pdf

 Sierck  PH. Smart Meter—What We Know: Measurement Challenges and Complexities. A Technical Paper to Clarify RF Radiation Emissions and Measurement Methodologies. Encinitas, CA: ET&T Indoor Environmental Surveys. Dec 2011.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311412

U.S. Department of the Army. Bioeffects of Nonlethal Weapons. Feb 17, 1998 (Unclassified Dec 13, 2006). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311476.pdf

 U.S. E.P.A. Electric and Magnetic Fields: An EPA Perspective on Research Needs and Priorities for Improving Health Risk Assessment. Washington: EPA. Dec 1992. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311520

U.S. EPA. EPA Comments to the Federal Communications Commission on FCC 93-142 April 1993. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Guidlines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. http://bit.ly/2avzSMU

U.S. EPA. Letter from Norbert Hankin to Janet Newton re: inadequacy of FCC radiofrequency guidelines. Jul 16, 2002. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311328.pdf

 Wargo J, Taylor HS, Alderman N, Wargo L. Cell Phones: Technology | Exposures | Health Effects. Environment & Human Health, Inc. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311531

Wisz, J. Potential Hazards of Cellular Phone Radiation: Responses to Fear and Uncertainty. Harvard University. 2002. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001335019
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports


--

NTP Study: DNA damage found in rats and mice from 14-19 weeks of exposure to cellphone radiation

Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, Winters JW, Hobbs CA, Shepard KG, Green AS, Kissling GE, Shockley KR, Tice RR, Bucher JR, Witt KL. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1002/em.22343.

Abstract

The National Toxicology Program tested two common radiofrequency radiation (RFR) modulations emitted by cellular telephones in a 2-year rodent cancer bioassay that included interim assessments of additional animals for genotoxicity endpoints.

Male and female Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats and B6C3F1/N mice were exposed from gestation day 5 or postnatal day 35, respectively, to code division multiple access (CDMA) or global system for mobile (GSM) modulations over 18 hours per day, at 10 minute intervals, in reverberation chambers at specific absorption rates (SAR) of 1.5, 3, or 6 W/kg (Watts/kilogram) (rats, 900 MHz) or 2.5, 5, or 10 W/kg (mice, 1900 MHz). After 19 (rats) or 14 (mice) weeks of exposure, animals were examined for evidence of RFR-associated genotoxicity using two different measures. Using the alkaline (pH > 13) comet assay, DNA damage was assessed in cells from three brain regions, liver cells, and peripheral blood leukocytes; using the micronucleus assay, chromosomal damage was assessed in immature and mature peripheral blood erythrocytes.

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. No significant increases in micronucleated red blood cells were observed in rats or mice. In conclusion, these results suggest that exposure to RFR is associated with an increase in DNA damage.
Excerpts

The NTP bioassay was designed to evaluate non-thermal effects of cell phone RFR exposure, which meant that body temperature could not change more than 1 degree Centigrade under our exposure conditions .... Therefore, we consider it unlikely that thermal effects were a confounding factor for our genetic toxicity tests, although more work in general is needed to clarify the thermal effects of RFR on different tissues, and the degree to which increases in body or tissue temperature affect genomic integrity.

... our results and the results of other experiments suggest that non-thermal exposure of cells or whole organisms to RFR may result in measurable genotoxic effects, despite varied and weak responses across studies overall (Brusick et al., 1998; Ruediger, 2009; Verschaeve et al., 2010). Induction of oxygen radicals or interference with DNA repair processes have been proposed as possible mechanisms by which RFR could cause DNA damage (Ruediger 2009; Yakymenko et al. 2015).

... NTP Technical Reports on the results of the 2-year cancer bioassay for exposure to RFR for rats (TR 595) and mice (TR 596) were finalized, peer reviewed, and made publicly available in 2018. The NTP concluded that results demonstrated clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of cell phone RFR (both modulations) based on incidences of malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats. Malignant gliomas in the brain were also observed in male rats exposed to cell phone RFR and were considered to be related to exposure. Female rats exhibited malignant schwannomas of the heart and malignant gliomas, but incidences of these tumors were considered equivocal. The observation that cell phone RFR affects heart and brain tissue in Sprague Dawley rats after long-term exposure was replicated in a similar study (that used only the GSM modulation) by the Ramazzini Institute (Falcioni et al., 2018). The gliomas and schwannomas observed in rats are similar to the tumor types reported in some epidemiology studies to be associated with cell phone use. The NTP bioassay findings in mice, in which different organs were affected compared to rats, were considered equivocal....

The highest exposure of 6 W/kg in rats and 10 W/kg in mice, for a total of 9 hours 10 minutes a day (achieved by cycling for 10 min on, 10 min off over 18 hours  20 minutes), produced higher exposures than experienced by humans under normal cellular phone use conditions. Thus, whether the findings in the NTP animal studies (e.g. malignant gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the hearts of male rats; increased levels of DNA damage in hippocampal cells of male rats and the frontal cortex of male mice) indicate a potential for adverse health outcomes in humans remains a question. Because one of the most important questions prompted by our results concerns the mechanism(s) by which RFR might induce biological effects, follow-up studies by the NTP to investigate mechanisms of genetic damage associated with RFR exposure are underway.

---

The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation

The following paper by Dr. James C. Lin, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Professor of Bioengineering, and Professor of Physiology and Biophysics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was published in the November issue of the IEEE Microwave Magazine. Dr. Lin was one of the 14 scientists selected by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to perform the expert review of the $30 million cell phone radiation study conducted by the National Toxicology Program.  Dr. Lin has received numerous professional awards and honors over the past four decades.


Lin JC. The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 20(11):18-21. Nov 2019. DOI:10.1109/MMM.2019.2935361.

Abstract

Most media accounts of the U.S. National Toxicology Program's (NTP's) final report have understandably focused on the statistically significant finding of "clear evidence" that both GSM and code-division multiple access (CDMA)-modulated 900-MHz wireless RF radiation led to the development of malignant schwannoma, a rare form of tumor, in the hearts of male rats. In addition to this, unusual patterns of cardiomyopathy, i.e., damage to heart tissue, were observed in both RF-exposed male and female Sprague-Dawley rats compared with concurrent control animals, although the findings for female rats were deemed as providing only uncertain or "equivocal" evidence for schwannomas and malignant gliomas, compared to concurrent controls.


Excerpts

"A Closer Look at the NTP Findings

“In all fairness, the primary cancer or overall cancer rates detected in any organ or tissue inside the animal body do not appear to have been purposefully overlooked or unnoticed. Indeed, the results for total primary cancer or tumor occurrences in NTP animal studies can be found in the appendices of its final reports [1]. However, although the data may not have been purposefully disregarded or ignored, the NTP excluded them from its publicized report summaries. An independent analysis of the data showed that rats exposed to GSM and CDMA RF radiation had significantly higher overall or total primary tumor rates than did the concurrent control rats [4].

In particular, the highest overall cancer (or malignant tumors) rates were found in male rats exposed to whole-body SARs of 3 W/kg from 900-MHz cell phone RF radiation (42 and 46% for GSM and CDMA, respectively), and the lowest rate was found in the concurrent control group (27%). Thus, the RF-exposed groups had significantly higher overall or total primary cancer rates than did the concurrent control rats. Moreover, the highest overall tumor rates (either a benign or malignant tumor in any organ or tissue) were observed in male rats exposed to SARs of 3-W/kg (87 and 84% for GSM and CDMA, respectively) cell phone RF radiation. As stated previously, the lowest rate was seen in the concurrent control group (63%). The RF-exposed groups had significantly higher overall tumor rates than did the concurrent control rats. Male rats in the lowest RF-exposed groups (whole-body SARs of 1.5 W/kg) had significantly higher rates of benign primary tumors (76 and 73% for GSM and CDMA, respectively) than did concurrent or sham control groups (54%).”

[4] J. Moskowitz, “National toxicology program publishes final cell phone radiation study reports,” Electromagn. Radiation Safety, Nov. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/11/NTP-final-reports31.html

"IARC Assessment

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessed the then available scientific literature and concluded that the epidemiological studies on humans that had reported increased risks for malignant gliomas and acoustic neuromas among heavy or long-term users of cell phones were sufficiently strong to support a classification of 2B, i.e., possibly carcinogenic to humans [9]. With its classification of RF radiation as a 2B carcinogen, the IARC suggested that it also believed the available scientific evidence was incomplete and limited, especially with regard to results from animal experiments.

“The time is right for the IARC to upgrade its previous epidemiology-based classification of RF exposure to higher levels in terms of the carcinogenicity of RF radiation for humans. Recently, two relatively well-conducted RF and microwave exposure studies employing the Sprague–Dawley strain of rats—without, however, using any cancer-promoting agents (or cocarcinogens)—showed consistent results in significantly increased total primary cancer or overall tumor rates in animals exposed to RF radiation.”

It is important to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini animal RF exposure studies presented similar findings in heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. The increased schwannomas and abnormal heart tissue development/damage to heart tissue are significant findings in RF-exposed animal research studies. In addition to this, the incidence of benign pheochromocytomas of the adrenal medulla was found to be higher in the exposed group than in the sham controls for the 2,450-MHz circular waveguide experiment [6]. Interestingly, in the recent NTP study, there was “some evidence” of carcinogenicity in the adrenal gland. The number of pheochromocytomas was significantly higher (p <0.05) in male rats at 1.5 and 3 W/kg, compared with the concurrent controls. Moreover, the increase in malignant tumor-like hyperplasia in the adrenal gland of female rats was significantly higher at 6 W/kg, relative to the concurrent controls (p <0.05)."

"Postscripts

... It is important to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini animal RF exposure studies presented similar findings in heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. The increased schwannomas and abnormal heart tissue development/damage to heart tissue are significant findings in RF-exposed animal research studies....

A particular perspective to keep in mind is that, with the induction of cancer by a carcinogen, an agent is typically considered carcinogenic if it induces a significant response in a specific tissue.”
November 1, 2018 (Updated: Nov 16, 2018)

National Toxicology Program (NTP) cell phone radiation studies, the NTP press release, and a new NTP fact sheet can be found below along with the FDA press release that addresses these studies.

 In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked the NTP to conduct cell phone radiation studies on animals.The FCC's exposure guidelines for cell phone radiation adopted in 1996 and still in effect today were designed to protect humans from thermal (or heating) effects. However, scientists at that time were concerned that low level exposures could increase cancer risk through nonthermal mechanisms. This was the basis for the FDA's request to the NTP in 1999:
"The existing exposure guidelines are based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR exposure, and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures. Animal exposure research reported in the literature suggests that low level exposures may increase the risk of cancer by mechanisms yet to be elucidated, but the data is conflicting and most of this research was not conducted with actual cellular phone radiation."
Nineteen years later on November 1, 2018, the NTP published the final reports on the effects of two-years of exposure to 2G (GSM and CDMA) cell phone radiation on rats and mice. Since these studies utilized radiation levels that would not induce significant heating (greater than one degree Centigrade), any observed effects would be due to nonthermal mechanisms (e.g., oxidative stress).

 The NTP final reports found "clear evidence" of increased cancer risk in male rats from low level (i.e., nonthermal) exposures (c.f., heart schwannoma). Furthermore, many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have found evidence of biologic and health effects from low level exposures to cell phone radiation. Hence, the FCC's exposure guidelines must be re-assessed as they are likely inadequate to protect human health. 

--

Following are my comments about the studies based primarily on the NTP's press release and media teleconference conducted on October 31.

The NTP final reports indicate that the NTP staff has accepted the peer review committee’s recommendations about the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation. A summary of these recommendations can be found at: http://bit.ly/NTP180330.  

 Information about the NTP study and the peer review process is available at:

 National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer
National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study reports

Besides "clear evidence" (the highest category) of cancer in male rats from long term exposure to cell phone radiation, the NTP found degeneration in the hearts of male and female rats, decreased birth weights in rats exposed prenatally, and DNA damage in mice and rats as compared to sham controls.

Nonetheless, the NTP seems to be downplaying the significance of the results for public health of their $30 million cell phone radiation studies.

In my opinion, the results of the NTP cell phone radiation studies in conjunction with the results of the recent Ramazzini Institute study provide conclusive evidence that long term exposure to cell phone radiation causes DNA damage and cancer.

To follow up on the comments I submitted to the NTP in March, during the telebriefing yesterday, I asked whether the NTP conducted a statistical analysis of the overall tumor rates (across all organs) for each group. Dr. Bucher responded that there is a "philosophical difference" about whether to examine overall tumor risk in toxicology studies because the overall tumor rate is generally "driven by common tumors." Thus, such an analysis is usually overly conservative (i.e., biased toward the null).

However, there is a precedent for conducting such an analysis in the NTP cellphone studies since the entire body of the animals was exposed to cellphone radiation. A 5-year, $5 million Air Force study found low incidences of many types of tumors in male rats exposed to microwave radiation (Chou et al, 1992). In that study, the exposed rats were three times more likely to get cancer than the control rats. The study employed much lower intensity microwave radiation than the NTP studies. 

We should learn from our colleagues who study tobacco research. Early toxicology research on the effects of tobacco found low incidences of many types of tumors among animals exposed to tobacco smoke. Scientists dismissed this evidence because they assumed an agent could not cause cancer in different types of tissue. History later proved them wrong.

Dr. Wyde's response to my question was that the overall tumor rates appear in Appendices A through D of the NTP final reports. Unfortunately, these results remain buried in the appendices when in my opinion they should be featured as key results of the study.

The data in the following tables were extracted from Tables A2 and C2 in the NTP final report on the 2-year rat study (pp. 149-150 and 203-204). The tumor rates across all organs for the male rats are tabled by exposure condition for GSM and CDMA cell phone radiation for benign tumors, malignant tumors, and for either type of tumors.


























The above tables show that the highest overall tumor rates (i.e., the presence of either a benign or malignant tumor in any organ) were found in male rats exposed to 3 watts per kilogram of either GSM (87%) or CDMA (84%) cell phone radiation, and the lowest rate was found in the sham control group (63%). The exposed groups had significantly higher overall tumor rates than the sham controls even after adjusting for survival differences among the groups (see the Poly-3 test p values).

 The highest cancer rates (i.e., malignant tumors) were found in male rats exposed to 3 watts per kilogram of either GSM (42%) or CDMA (46%) cell phone radiation and the lowest rate was found in the sham control group (27%). Here too, the exposed groups had significantly higher overall cancer rates than the sham controls.

Moreover, male rats in the lowest exposure groups (1.5 watts per kilogram) had significantly higher rates of benign tumors (76% for GSM; 73% for CDMA) than the sham control group (54%).

Is it justifiable to bury these results in the appendices to the final reports?

The results of the NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies reaffirm the concerns raised by the scientific community in the International EMF Scientist Appeal about the harm caused by chronic exposure to low-intensity electromagnetic fields (EMF). The Appeal, which has been signed by more than 240 EMF scientists who have published over 2,000 papers on EMF and biology or health in professional journals, calls for warning the public and strengthening EMF guidelines, especially to protect children and pregnant women.

We are guinea pigs in a massive technological experiment that threatens our health. Our government needs to fund the research needed to determine a safe level of long-term exposure to wireless radiation and then strengthen the FCC's radio frequency exposure limits.

In the meantime, the government should impose a moratorium on technologies that increase our exposure to wireless radiation, especially new forms of wireless radiation like 5G.

Related posts:

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer
National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study reports
NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats
Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study

International EMF Scientist Appeal
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G
5G Moratorium Website Launched

Cell Tower Health Effects
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

--

NTP Final Reports

National Toxicology Program. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR 595. Research Triangle Park, NC. November, 2018. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp-temp/tr595_508.pdf

SUMMARY

Background

Cell phones utilize a specific type of radio waves, or radio frequency radiation (RFR), to transmit between the devices and the network. Exposure of people to RFR occurs primarily through use of cell phones and other wireless devices. We studied the effects of nearly lifetime exposures to two different types, or modulations, of RFR (GSM and CDMA) used in cellular telephone networks in the United States in male and female rats and mice to identify potential toxicity or cancer-related hazards.

Over the years, cell phone technology has evolved from the original analog technology (1G) commercially introduced in the 1980s to digital networks that supplanted analog phones. The digital network, referred to as 2G or the 2nd generation of technology, was commercially launched in the 1990s, with 3G and 4G subsequently deployed in the intervening years. When the current studies were being designed, 2G technology was the industry standard, and 3G technologies were under development. While newer technologies have continued to evolve, it is important to note that these technologies have not completely replaced the older technologies. In fact, today’s phones are very complex in that they contain several antennas, for wi-fi, GPS, 2G/3G bands, etc. Thus, the results of these studies remain relevant to current exposures, although the power levels of the exposures were much higher than typical patterns of human use.

Methods

We exposed groups of 90 male and 90 female rats to 1.5, 3, or 6 W/kg RFR that was modulated in the same manner in which signals are emitted from cell phones and other similar wireless communication devices. Other groups of male and female rats housed in the same type of chambers without any exposure to RFR were used as the controls. Animals were exposed to RFR in utero, postnatally, and during adulthood for approximately 9 hours a day, 7 days per week, for 2 years. Tissues from more than 40 sites were examined for every animal.

Results

Exposure to RFR caused decreased body weights of pregnant rats during gestation and lower birth weights in their offspring. However, a few weeks after birth body weights returned to normal and were similar to non-exposed rats. In general, RFR-exposed male rats lived longer than non-exposed rats. The higher survival of exposed males was attributed to a lower severity of a natural, age-related kidney disease typically observed in male rats at the end of these types of studies, which may have been related to the RFR exposure. In both studies (GSM and CDMA), exposure to RFR in male rats resulted in higher numbers of animals with tumors of the heart and brain. In the GSM study, increased numbers of animals with tumors of the adrenal gland were also observed in exposed males. In both studies, there were tumors that occurred in several organs that we were unable to clearly determine whether these resulted from exposure or were just incidental findings. For the GSM studies, these lesions included tumors of the prostate gland, pituitary gland, and pancreas in males and of the heart in females. For the CDMA studies, these equivocal lesions included tumors of the pituitary gland and liver in males and of the heart, brain, and adrenal gland of females.

Conclusions

In males for both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RFR, we conclude that exposures increased the number of animals with tumors in the heart. Tumors of the brain were also considered to be related to exposure; and increased numbers of male rats with tumors of the adrenal gland were also related to exposure. We are uncertain whether occurrences of prostate gland, pituitary gland, and pancreatic islet tumors in male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR and pituitary gland and liver tumors in male rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR were related to RFR exposures. This was also the case with female rats, where we conclude that exposure to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR may have been related to tumors in the heart. For females exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, occurrences of brain and adrenal gland tumors may have been related to exposure.

--

National Toxicology Program. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR 596.  Research Triangle Park, NC. November, 2018. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp-temp/tr596_508.pdf

SUMMARY

Background

Cell phones utilize a specific type of radio waves, or radio frequency radiation (RFR), to transmit voice and data between the devices and the network. Exposure of people to RFR occurs primarily through use of cell phones and other wireless devices. We studied the effects of nearly lifetime exposure to two different types, or modulations, of RFR (GSM and CDMA) used in cellular telephone networks in the United States in male and female rats and mice to identify potential toxic or cancer-related hazards.

Over the years, cell phone technology has evolved from the original analog technology (1G) commercially introduced in the 1980s to digital networks that supplanted analog phones. The digital network, referred to as 2G or the 2nd generation of technology, was commercially launched in the 1990s, with 3G and 4G subsequently deployed in the intervening years. When the current studies were being designed, 2G technology was the industry standard, and 3G technologies were under development. While newer technologies have continued to evolve, it is important to note that these technologies have not completely replaced the older technologies. In fact, today’s phones are very complex in that they contain several antennas, for Wi-Fi, GPS, 2G/3G bands, etc. The results of these studies remain relevant to current exposures, although the power levels of the exposures were much higher than typical patterns of human use.

Methods

We exposed groups of 90 male and 90 female mice to 2.5, 5, or 10 W/kg RFR that was modulated in the same manner in which signals are emitted from cell phones and other similar wireless communication devices. Other groups of male and female mice housed in the same type of chamber without any exposure to RFR were used as the controls. Animals were exposed to RFR for approximately 9 hours a day, 7 days per week, for 2 years. Tissues from more than 40 sites were examined for every animal.

Results

There were higher rates of survival in males at the low (2.5 W/kg) and mid (5 W/kg) exposures to CDMA- and GSM-modulated RFR, respectively. Body weights in the exposed groups of animals were similar to their controls. In both studies (GSM and CDMA), there were higher incidences of malignant lymphoma in all groups of female mice exposed to RFR compared to controls. However, the incidences in all of the exposed females were within the range historically observed in this strain of mouse in other NTP studies. There were higher incidences of skin and lung tumors in males exposed to the highest two levels of GSM-modulated RFR (5 and 10 W/kg), and of liver tumors at the mid-dose (5 W/kg) of CDMA-modulated RFR.

Conclusions

For GSM-modulated RFR, we conclude that exposure to RFR may have caused tumors in the skin and lungs of male mice and malignant lymphomas in female mice. For CDMA-modulated RFR, we conclude that exposure to RFR may have caused tumors in the liver of male mice and malignant lymphomas in female mice.

--
NTP Press Release (November 1, 2018)

High exposure to radio frequency radiation associated with cancer in male rats

National Toxicology Program releases final reports on rat and mouse studies of radio frequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phone technologies

Press Release, National Toxicology Program, Nov 1, 2018

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded there is clear evidence that male rats exposed to high levels of radio frequency radiation (RFR) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones developed cancerous heart tumors, according to final reports released today. There was also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were associated with exposure to RFR. The final reports represent the consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in February.

“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”

The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted. 

“We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed,” said Bucher. 

The $30 million NTP studies took more than 10 years to complete and are the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of health effects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones. 2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting.

“A major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received — something that’s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires,” said Michael Wyde, Ph.D., lead toxicologist on the studies.

He also noted the unexpected finding of longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. “This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats,” Wyde said.

The animals were housed in chambers specifically designed and built for these studies. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5 to 6 weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.

These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.

“5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde.

For future studies, NTP is building smaller RFR exposure chambers that will make it easier to evaluate newer telecommunications technologies in weeks or months, rather than years. These studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential effects from RFR. These may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated cell phone RFR for study by NTP because of widespread public use of cell phones and limited knowledge about potential health effects from long-term exposure. NTP will provide the results of these studies to FDA and the Federal Communications Commission, who will review the information as they continue to monitor new research on the potential effects of RFR.

NTP uses four categories to summarize the evidence that a substance may cause cancer:

·      Clear evidence (highest)
·      Some evidence
·      Equivocal evidence
·      No evidence (lowest) 

More information on the categories is available at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/pubs/longterm/defs/index.html

 https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm

--

Transcript of NTP Press Conference, October 31, 2018

 https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/11012018transcript_508.pdf

--

NTP Cell Phone Radiation Fact Sheet (November, 2018)




https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf

--

FDA contradicts NTP

 According to NTP Report (NTP TR 595, p. 25):

"The FDA does not currently regulate the use of wireless communications devices or the devices themselves. The FDA also does not require safety evaluations for radiation-emitting wireless communication devices. It does maintain the authority to take regulatory action if it is demonstrated that exposure to the emitted cell phone RFR from these devices is hazardous to the user."
Dr. Bucher, an NTP senior scientist and former associate director, stated in the NTP's press release (Nov 1, 2018), "We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed.” 

 Nonetheless, the FDA dismissed the NTP results in its press release. FDA Center Director, Dr. Shuren, stated “these findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage ... we believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” 

 This is rather odd since the FDA requested that the NTP conduct these animals studies in 1999 because the agency was concerned that the FCC's cell phone "safety limits" did not protect human safety since the limits were based on a thermal model. Now that we have hundreds of animal studies demonstrating non-thermal biologic effects and several major epidemiologic studies demonstrating increased cancer risk in heavy cell phone users, FDA should be more concerned than ever that the FCC exposure guidelines are inadequate.

--

FDA. Press Release: Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health on the National Toxicology Program’s report on radiofrequency energy exposure. FDA, Nov 1, 2018.
"We know that cell phones are an important, everyday tool to most Americans. We use them now for much more than just talking—from booking travel on an app to using mobile wallets to pay for groceries. Our ubitquitious use of cell phones inevitably means that we must continue to review and ensure their safety.
The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cell phones— and any radiation-emitting electronic product—are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cell phones, called radiofrequency energy.
We have relied on decades of research and hundreds of studies to have the most complete evaluation of radiofrequency energy exposure. This information has informed the FDA’s assessment of this important public health issue, and given us the confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiofrequency energy exposure remain acceptable for protecting the public health.
When new studies or information becomes available, the FDA conducts thorough evaluations of the data to continually inform our thinking. We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences within the National Institutes of Health, on radiofrequency energy exposure. After reviewing the study, we disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.
In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones. Doing this was intended to help contribute to what we already understand about the effects of radiofrequency energy on animal tissue. In fact, we only begin to observe effects to animal tissue at exposures that are 50 times higher than the current whole body safety limits set by the FCC for radiofrequency energy exposure.
Our colleagues at NTP echoed this point in a statement earlier this year about their draft final report, including the important note that “these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage.”
We agree that these findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.
NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports. The FDA was not a participant in that process, but was invited to observe the panel discussions, which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report. Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambigious) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment.
In addition, as we’ve noted previously, there were unusual findings in the study, such as: the rats exposed to whole body radiofrequency energy lived longer than rats that were not exposed to any radiation (control group); only male rats exposed to the highest radiofrequency energy dosage developed a statistically significant number of heart schwannomas, which are very rare in humans, when compared to the control group in this experiment. There was also no true dose response, or a lack of a clear relationship between the doses of radiation administered to the animals and their subsequent tumor rate.
Researchers will need to consider all of the findings when exploring future human epidemiological studies.
As scientists, we welcome new studies. Animal studies like this one contribute to our discussions on this topic, but we must remember the study was not designed to test the safety of cell phone use in humans, so we cannot draw conclusions about the risks of cell phone use from it. We also must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study.
As part of our commitment to protecting the public health, the FDA has reviewed, and will continue to review, many sources of scientific and medical evidence related to the possibility of adverse health effects from radiofrequency energy exposure in both humans and animals and will continue to do so as new scientific data are published.
Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products."
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)