Thursday, March 19, 2020

Research on Wireless Radiation Exposure to the Immune System


This compilation of research on the effects on the immune system from exposure to radio frequency radiation consists of excerpts from a research review published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2013 by Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski and a list of references to studies published since 2000 that can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/saferemrImmuneSystem.

Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures

Szmigielski S. Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Science of the Total Environment. 2013 Jun 1; 454-455:393-400. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.034.


Abstract

Radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) radiation have been used in the modern world for many years. The rapidly increasing use of cellular phones in recent years has seen increased interest in relation to the possible health effects of exposure to RF/MW radiation. In 2011 a group of international experts organized by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon) concluded that RF/MW radiations should be listed as a possible carcinogen (group 2B) for humans. The incomplete knowledge of RF/MW-related cancer risks has initiated searches for biological indicators sensitive enough to measure the "weak biological influence" of RF/MWs. One of the main candidates is the immune system, which is able to react in a measurable way to discrete environmental stimuli.

In this review, the impacts of weak RF/MW fields, including cell phone radiation, on various immune functions, both in vitro [cell culture studies] and in vivo [live animal studies], are discussed. The bulk of available evidence clearly indicates that various shifts in the number and/or activity of immunocompetent cells [cells that can develop an immune response] are possible, however the results are inconsistent. For example, a number of lymphocyte [small white blood cells especially found in the lymphatic system] functions have been found to be enhanced and weakened within single experiments based on exposure to similar intensities of MW radiation.

Certain premises exist which indicate that, in general, short-term exposure to weak MW radiation may temporarily stimulate certain humoral* or cellular immune functions, while prolonged irradiation inhibits the same functions.



Excerpts

“Recently, Jauchem (2008) reviewed the effects of RF/MW radiation on the immune system and concluded that although both positive and negative findings were reported in some studies, in a majority of instances no significant health effects were found. However, most studies had some methodological limitations. Some changes in immunoglobulin levels and in peripheral blood lymphocytes were reported in different studies of radar and radio/television-transmission workers (Moszczyński et al., 1999).”

Immunotropic effects of RF/MW exposure in in vitro studies

“In summary, it may be concluded that non-thermal intensities of RF/MW radiation may exert certain measurable effects and shifts in physiology of immunocompetent cells, however these effects appear to be weak, inconsistent and difficult to replicate. Among other stress reactions, induction of heat-shock proteins, altered reaction of lymphocytes to mitogens, weaken phagocytosis and/or bactericidal activity of macrophages were reported after in vitro exposure of isolated cells to arbitrarily chosen conditions of the exposure (frequency and modulation of the RF/MW radiation, power density, time and schedule of exposure, etc.).

From studies performed in our laboratories (Dąbrowski et al., 2003; Stankiewicz et al., 2006, 2010) it may be concluded that in vitro effects of non-thermal RF/MWs cannot be revealed using basic tests for assessment of function of immunocompetent cells (including typical microculture of lymphocytes with mitogen stimulation) and finer techniques (e.g., immunogenic activity of monocytes (LM index), T-cell suppressive activity (SAT index) or release of cytokines in microcultures of PBMC) are required to study the effects of RF/MW exposures. Nevertheless, nothing can be concluded on thresholds of the above phenomena, their mechanisms or relevance to health risks. None of the above discussed studies provides data which can be directly or indirectly linked to cancer development (Table 1).”

Effects of in vivo RF/MW exposures on function of the immune system

“In summary, studies of immune reactions in animals exposed to MWs provide controversial results with some papers reporting no measurable response, while in others positive results were obtained. The available bulk of evidence from numerous experimental studies in vivo aimed to assess the effects of short-term and prolonged low-level MW exposure on function and status of the immune system clearly indicates that various shifts in number and/or activity of immunocompetent cells are possible. However, the results are incoherent; the same functions of lymphocytes are reported to be weaken[ed] or enhanced in single experiments with MW exposures at similar intensities and radiation parameters. There exist premises that in general, short-term exposure to weak MWs may temporarily stimulate certain humoral or cellular immune functions, while prolonged irradiation inhibits the same functions (Grigoriev et al., 2010). There exist papers which report changes in NK [natural killer] cell activity or TNF** release in MW-exposed animals, but clinical relevance or relation to carcinogenicity of these findings is doubtful.” 



[* Humoral immunity is mediated by macromolecules found in extracellular fluids such as secreted antibodies, complement proteins, and certain antimicrobial peptides.]

[** Tumor necrosis factor is a cell signaling protein involved in systemic inflammation.]

---

A new comprehensive review paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is needed to determine whether stronger inferences are warranted at this time.

A list of studies of the biologic and health effects on the immune system from exposure to radio frequency radiation published since the year 2000 can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/saferemrImmuneSystem.

---

Dr. Szmigielski signed the Catania Resolution in 2002:



The Catania Resolution

According to several reports, a group of scientists issued a statement on EMF at a meeting in September.

They were attending the international conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields—Scientific and Legal Issues,” organized by ISPESL, the University of Vienna, and the City of Catania. ISPESL is a technical-scientific branch of the National Health Service that advises industry on protection of occupational health and well-being in the workplace. In Catania, Italy, on Sept. 13 and 14, 2002, they agreed to the following:

Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence for electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.

We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.

There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the European Union.

The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.

We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.

The undersigned scientists agree to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.   https://www.bems.org/node/824 





Sunday, March 15, 2020

Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife

(See the end of this post for additional resources.)


Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation: Evidence and knowledge gaps

Vanbergen AJ, Potts SG, Vian A, Malkemper EP, Young J, Tscheulin T. Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Aug 7;695:133833. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133833.

Highlights

• Anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation (light, radiofrequency) is perceived to threaten pollinators and biodiversity.
• Potential risks are artificial light at night (ALAN) and anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (AREMR).
• We assessed the quantity and quality of evidence, and the level of consensus, to distil key messages for science and policy.
• ALAN can alter pollinator communities and functions, although this remains to be well established.
• Evidence of AREMR impacts is inconclusive due to a lack of high quality, field-realistic studies.
• Whether pollinators and pollination face a threat from the spread of ALAN or AREMR remains a major knowledge gap.

Abstract

Worldwide urbanisation and use of mobile and wireless technologies (5G, Internet of Things) is leading to the proliferation of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and campaigning voices continue to call for the risk to human health and wildlife to be recognised. Pollinators provide many benefits to nature and humankind, but face multiple anthropogenic threats. Here, we assess whether artificial light at night (ALAN) and anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (AREMR), such as used in wireless technologies (4G, 5G) or emitted from power lines, represent an additional and growing threat to pollinators. A lack of high quality scientific studies means that knowledge of the risk to pollinators from anthropogenic EMR is either inconclusive, unresolved, or only partly established. A handful of studies provide evidence that ALAN can alter pollinator communities, pollination and fruit set. Laboratory experiments provide some, albeit variable, evidence that the honey bee Apis mellifera and other invertebrates can detect EMR, potentially using it for orientation or navigation, but they do not provide evidence that AREMR affects insect behaviour in ecosystems. Scientifically robust evidence of AREMR impacts on abundance or diversity of pollinators (or other invertebrates) are limited to a single study reporting positive and negative effects depending on the pollinator group and geographical location. Therefore, whether anthropogenic EMR (ALAN or AREMR) poses a significant threat to insect pollinators and the benefits they provide to ecosystems and humanity remains to be established.



Oct 31, 2018

EKLIPSE Project: Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife

Implications for 5G deployment

A new report found that electromagnetic fields emitted by power lines, Wi-Fi, broadcast and cell towers pose a “credible” threat to wildlife, and that 5G (fifth generation cellular technology) could cause greater harm.

The analysis of 97 peer-reviewed studies by the EKLIPSE project concluded that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a potential risk to insect and bird orientation and to plant health.

The report concluded that: 
  • EMR represents a potential risk to the orientation or movement of invertebrates and may affect insect behavior and reproduction;
  • bird orientation can be disrupted by weak magnetic fields in the radiofrequency range, and the same may be true for other vertebrates including mammals; and
  • EMR exposure may affect plant metabolism due to production of reactive oxygen species often resulting in reduced plant growth.
  • Moreover, there is “an urgent need to strengthen the scientific basis of the knowledge on EMR and their potential impacts on wildlife.”
The review was conducted by a multidisciplinary, expert steering group composed of four biologists/ecologists who specialized in different taxonomic groups, and two physicists who study electromagnetic fields. This technical report represents the first step in an analysis of currently available knowledge and future research needs.

The reviewers pointed out the need for more high quality research. They rated the quality of 82 studies--56 had good to excellent biologic or ecologic quality, and 39 had good to excellent technical quality.

EKLIPSE (Establishing a European Knowledge and Learning Mechanism to Improve the Policy-Science-Society Interface on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) is funded by the European Union to answer requests from policy makers and other societal actors on biodiversity-related issues.

For more information about the EKLIPSE conference held January 22-25, 2018, including slides and video, see: http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/emr_conference.

References

Malkemper EP, Tscheulin T, VanBergen AJ, Vian A, Balian E, Goudeseune L (2018). The impacts of artificial Electromagnetic Radiation on wildlife (flora and fauna). Current knowledge overview: a background document to the web conference. A report of the EKLIPSE project. http://bit.ly/Eklipseoverview

Goudeseune L, Balian E, Ventocilla J (2018). The impacts of artificial Electromagnetic Radiation on wildlife (flora and fauna). Report of the web conference. A report of the EKLIPSE project. http://bit.ly/EKLIPSEconfreport

Also see:

--

The EKLIPSE review was conducted at the request of Buglife, the only European organization devoted to the conservation of invertebrates. Invertebrates are vitally important to humans and other life forms which could not survive without them; yet, thousands of species are declining, and many are heading towards extinction. 

According to a news story in The Telegraph:

“… the charity Buglife warned that despite good evidence of the harms there was little research ongoing to assess the impact, or apply pollution limits.

The charity said ‘serious impacts on the environment could not be ruled out’ and called for 5G transmitters to be placed away from street lights, which attract insects, or areas where they could harm wildlife.

Matt Shardlow, CEO of Buglife said: ‘We apply limits to all types of pollution to protect the habitability of our environment, but as yet, even in Europe, the safe limits of electromagnetic radiation have not been determined, let alone applied.

There is a credible risk that 5G could impact significantly on wildlife, and that placing transmitters on LED street lamps, which attract nocturnal insects such as moths increases exposure and thereby risk.

Therefore we call for all 5G pilots to include detailed studies of their influence and impacts on wildlife, and for the results of those studies to be made public.’

Buglife called for 5G transmitters to be moved away from street lights where insects are drawn.

As of March, 237 scientists have signed an appeal to the United Nations asking them to take the risks posed by electromagnetic radiation more seriously.”


Additional Resources (Updated March 15, 2020)


Aikaterina L, Stefi AL, Vassilacopoulou D, Margaritis LH, Christodoulakis NS. Oxidative stress and an animal neurotransmitter synthesizing enzyme in the leaves of wild growing myrtle after exposure to GSM radiation. Flora. 243:67-76. June 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2018.04.006


Granger J, Walkowicz L, Fitak R, Johnsen S. Gray whales strand more often on days with increased levels of atmospheric radio-frequency noise. Curr Biol. 2020 Feb 24;30(4):R155-R156. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32097638

Nyqvist D, Durif C, Johnsen MG, De Jong K, Forland TN, Sivle LD. Electric and magnetic senses in marine animals, and potential behavioral effects of electromagnetic surveys. Mar Environ Res. 2020 Mar;155:104888. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32072990

Panagopoulos DJ, Balmori A, Chrousos GP. On the biophysical mechanism of sensing upcoming earthquakes by animals. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Jan 29;717:136989. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32070887

Russell, C. Wireless Silent Spring. Santa Clara County Medical Association Bulletin. Oct 2018. http://www.sccma-mcms.org/Portals/19/SilentSpringAticle_color_pr2.pdf

Saturday, March 14, 2020

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies

Note: This is not a comprehensive list. I have focused on more recent papers and tried to be parsimonious. The links to all abstracts and open access papers below were checked and updated on June 7, 2019.  I will update this list periodically.


Tumor risk review papers

   Myung et al (2009) Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clinical Oncology. http://bit.ly/2F0IdUS
   Khurana et al (2009) Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology. http://bit.ly/2WTQwfk
   Levis et al (2011) Mobile phones and head tumours: the discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epi studies-how do they arise. Environ Health. http://bit.ly/2IsQy4r
   Levis et al (2012) Mobile phones and head tumours: a critical analysis of case-control epi studies. Open Environ Sciences. http://bit.ly/2EXT5ml
   WHO (2013) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. http://bit.ly/10oIE3o
   Morgan et al (2015) Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review). Int J Oncology. http://bit.ly/2XwgVNa
   Wang Y, Guo X (2016) Meta-analysis of association between mobile phone use and glioma risk. J Cancer Research Therapy http://bit.ly/2o1dVcn
   Bortkiewicz et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors - A meta-analysis. Int J Occ Med Envir Health. http://bit.ly/2nVJC5d
   Prasad et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. Neurol Sci. http://bit.ly/2Xxp83P
   Carlberg, Hardell (2017) Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. Biomed Res Int. http://bit.ly/2WwBX1K

   Miller, et al (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environ Res. http://bit.ly/2rJD7Fu

    Also see Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk

Tumor risk studies

   Interphone Study Group (2010) Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2MzsceR
   Interphone Study Group (2011) Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2Ix7BlQ
   Aydin et al (2011) Mobile phone use & brain tumors in children & adolescents: a multi-center case-control study. (CEFALO Study). JNCI. http://bit.ly/31j0JBa
   Hardell et al (2013) Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int J Oncologyhttp://bit.ly/2ZaVJg5
   Hardell et al (2013) Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncology. http://bit.ly/31gbDaO
   Coureau et al (2014)  Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. http://bit.ly/1DWgzRi
   Grell et al (2016) The intracranial distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones: Analyses from the INTERPHONE Study. Am J Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2ZcawHu


    Also see: Acoustic neuroma risk and cell phone use studies and 
Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?

Breast cancer

   West et al (2013) Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. Case Rep Med. http://bit.ly/2WW8n52

Brain tumor incidence trends

   Inskip et al (2010) Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro Oncology. http://bit.ly/2K6rEuz
   Zada et al (2012) Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992-2006. World Neurosurg. http://bit.ly/2Wq1Dbm
   Hardell & Carlberg (2015) Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish National Inpatient Register & the Causes of Death Register. Int J Environ Res Public Health. http://bit.ly/1aDHJm
   Devocht (2016) Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls. Environ Int. http://bit.ly/2jJlbZu      corrigendum (2017): http://bit.ly/2Cuq2nU
   Hardell & Carlberg (2017) Mobile phones, cordless phones and rates of brain tumors in different age groups in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Cancer Register during 1998-2015. PLOS One. http://bit.ly/H-C2017
  Philips et al (2018) Brain tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995-2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Environ Public Health http://bit.ly/2KIY4aI

    Also see: Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phone & Cordless Phone Use


Mechanisms

   Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. http://bit.ly/2EXGaRb 
   Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. Indian J Exp Biology. http://bit.ly/2Xx0Gzr 
   Giuliani and Soffritti (2010). Nonthermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Ramazzini Institute. 403 pp. http://bit.ly/2HUnO7R
   Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/2MAQ7KJ
   Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. http://bit.ly/2KyjIBT
   Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. http://bit.ly/2K5yO2e
   Calderon et al (2014) Assessment of extremely low frequency magnetic field exposure from GSM mobile phones. http://bit.ly/2EA1N7e
   Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between radiofrequencies emitted from wireless technologies & oxidative stress. J Chem Neuroanat. http://bit.ly/2EXN88W
   Yakymenko et al (2016) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnet Biol Med. http://bit.ly/2qCGM4F
   Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. IEEE Power Electronics J. http://bit.ly/1WvQGiY
   Tamrin et al (2016)  Electromagnetic fields and stem cell fate: When physics meets biology. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. http://bit.ly/2b6Ht3y
   Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. J Chem Neuroanat. http://bit.ly/2WQw2E1
   Havas (2017) When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? Environ Pollution. http://bit.ly/2DssMS2
   Barnes & Kandala (2018) Effects of time delays on biological feedback systems and electromagnetic field exposures. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/2EZkZPS
  Belpomme et al (2018) Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollution. http://bit.ly/IntlEMFreview
  Hinrikus et al (2018) Understanding physical mechanism of low-level microwave radiation effect. Int J Radiation Biol. http://bit.ly/2EwNyoU
  Mortazavi et al (2019) Evaluation of the validity of a nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship in cancers induced by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. J Biomed Phys Eng. http://bit.ly/37FlDxP
  Nielsen et al (2019) Towards predicting intracellular radiofrequency radiation effects. PLOS One. http://bit.ly/2uaeFxY
  Panagopoulos (2019) Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields. Mutation Res. http://bit.ly/2HACI1O
  Halgamuge et al (2020) A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015). Environmental Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109227.


Reproductive Health Effects

   LaVignera et al (2011) Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. J Andrology. http://bit.ly/2wL7zRO
   Aldad et al (2012) Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Science Reports. http://bit.ly/2Z6H45I
   Divan et al (2012) Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. J Epidemiol Commun Health. http://bit.ly/2EV1bw8
   Adams et al (2014) Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproduction. http://bit.ly/1pUnmDq
   Houston et al (2016) The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction. http://bit.ly/2cJJ2pE
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

    See: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Exposure

   Kelsh et al (2010) Measured radiofrequency exposure during various mobile-phone use scenarios. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol. http://bit.ly/2IuYH8s
   Gandhi et al (2012) Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biol Med. http://bit.ly/2EZilbN
   Schmid & Kuster (2015) The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics. http://bit.ly/31j46be
   Sagar et al. (2018) Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environ Int. http://bit.ly/2E5QR10
  Gandhi OP (2019) Microwave emissions from cell phones exceed safety limits in Europe and the US when touching the body. IEEE Access. http://bit.ly/2QUTI4N

Blood-Brain Barrier Studies

    AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-Brain Barrier Effects)


5G and Millimeter Wave Studies
Other

    Huss et al  (2007) Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspec. http://bit.ly/2wBEmYp
    Fragopoulou et al (2010) Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. http://bit.ly/2tWiXHP
    Alster, N (2015) Captured agency: How the FCC is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Harvard University. http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured
    Consumer Reports (2015) "Does cell-phone radiation cause cancer?" http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation
    International EMF Scientist Appeal (2015) https://emfscientist.org/
    International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European J Oncology. 20(3/4). 2015. http://bit.ly/EMFAppealEurOncol
    Kostoff R, Lau C (2017). Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature. In C.D. Geddes (ed.), Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. http://b.gatech.edu/2uyMAz0
   Bandara P, Carpenter DO (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health. http://bit.ly/2GqpJQF
   Foerster et al (2018). A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Environ Health Perspect. http://bit.ly/2wJs0Pm
   Hertsgaard, M, Dowie, M (2018). "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation." The Nation, March 29, 2018. http://bit.ly/BigWireless
   Miller et al (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front. Public Health http://bit.ly/2TsUNlN

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

WHO Radiofrequency Radiation Policy


Following are my comments (in bold) regarding the World Health Organization's 5G Q & A:


"To date, and after much research performed, no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies."

This statement is false. Hundreds of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on animals have found adverse health effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields produced by wireless technologies. RCTs enable scientists to make causal inferences regarding these adverse health effects. Furthermore, many of these results are reproducible (i.e., they have been replicated by other researchers).

"Health-related conclusions are drawn from studies performed across the entire radio spectrum but, so far, only a few studies have been carried out at the frequencies to be used by 5G."

Although this statement is partially true, many studies have been carried out using frequencies close to those deployed for 5G. These studies have found adverse biologic and health effects. 5G frequencies include low-band, mid-band and high-band microwaves, and soon will involve millimeter wave frequencies (30 GHz or higher). Besides using different carrier frequencies than older wireless technology, 5G employs technologies that have yet to be studied for health effects including phased arrays, beam forming and massive MIMO. These new technologies are likely to increase risk of harm from exposure to short bursts of intense radiation. Although many scientists are concerned about non-thermal effects from these exposure, some are even concerned about the short-term heating effects.

More than 300 scientists and medical doctors have called for a moratorium on the rollout of 5G "until independent scientists can assure that 5G and the total radiation levels caused by RF-EMF (5G together with 2G, 3G, 4G, and WiFi) will not be harmful for EU-citizens, especially infants, children and pregnant women, as well as the environment." For more information see the 5G Appeal.

"Tissue heating is the main mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency fields and the human body. Radiofrequency exposure levels from current technologies result in negligible temperature rise in the human body."

This statement is false. Hundreds of studies have found adverse biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity (i.e. non-thermal levels of) radiofrequency fields. Furthermore, human studies have found adverse health effects from exposure to radiation from cellular and Wi-Fi technology in current use.

"As the frequency increases, there is less penetration into the body tissues and absorption of the energy becomes more confined to the surface of the body (skin and eye).

Although it is true that there is less body penetration for higher frequencies especially millimeter wave frequencies, there are adverse secondary effects from these exposures especially on the testes, the sweat glands, the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system.

"Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated."

This statement is false. More than 240 EMF scientists from 43 nations believe that international guidelines are inadequate to protect public health. All of these scientists have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. These scientists who arguably constitute the majority of EMF scientists in the world have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

For more information see the International EMF Scientist Appeal:

"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development.  By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency."

Inadequate non-ionizing EMF international guidelines

The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.  The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”. These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health...."


Also see:


--

Nov 4, 2019

Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit?

Recognition of Non-Thermal Effects Hangs in the Balance


Microwave News, Nov 4, 2019
"After eight years of work, the World Health Organization (WHO) is reopening its review of the health effects of [radio frequency] RF radiation for a summary report intended to serve as a benchmark for its more than 150 member countries.
The move might suggest that the WHO EMF/RF program is poised to reassess its long-held policy of rejecting non-thermal effects, and to loosen its deep ties to ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation with its heat-only dogma.

The reputation of both organizations has never recovered from the rampant industry cronyism of Mike Repacholi, who created them in the 1990s. A close look at the WHO radiation program and its approach to this new review show that not much has changed in Geneva.

In other words: Don't count ICNIRP out just yet."
For the rest of the story see: 
Also see:


--

June 21, 2017

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health 
- a hard nut to crack (Review)

The International Journal of Oncology published a critique of the World Health Organization's pending review of the adverse health effects of wireless (i.e., radio frequency or RF) radiation. The critique was written by Dr. Lennart Hardell, the world's preeminent researcher on brain tumor risk and long-term cell phone use. 

His paper provides an historical overview of WHO's EMF Project, WHO's relationship to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the relationships of both organizations to the military and electric and telecom industries.

Dr. Hardell notes that the WHO has relied heavily on members of ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization "with serious conflict of interest." In their reviews of the scientific evidence for adverse health effects from wireless radiation exposure, ICNIRP dismisses the evidence for biological effects due to non-thermal exposures. By focusing only on short-term heating effects and ignoring the effects of chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of RF radiation, ICNIRP has been able to adopt RF exposure guidelines about 300,000 times more permissive than otherwise would be required. RF exposure standards in many nations including the U.S. have been heavily influenced by these guidelines. 
"The ICNIRP guidelines are of huge importance to the influential telecommunications, military and power industries."
Dr. Hardell calls upon the public, NGOs, and the scientific community "to exert pressure on politicians to change the WHO agenda on RF radiation and health hazards and decide that WHO's purpose is to support world health instead of industry interests."

--

Lennart Hardell. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). International Journal of Oncology. Published online June 21, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2017.4046

Abstract

In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased.

In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.

Open Access Paper: http://bit.ly/WHOhardell and http://bit.ly/WHOhardellpaper


Excerpts

The exposure guideline used by many agencies was established in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and was based only on established short-term thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation neglecting nonthermal biological effects (18).

Basis for limiting exposure according to ICNIRP: ‘Only established effects were used as the basis for the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions, although epidemiological research has provided suggestive, but unconvincing, evidence of an association between possible carcinogenic effects.’

The guidelines were updated in 2009 but still do not cover cancer and other long-term or non-thermal health effects. ICNIRP gives the guideline 2 to 10 W/m2 for RF radiation depending on frequency, thus only based on a short-term immediate thermal effect (19). ICNIRP is a private organisation (NGO) based in Germany. New expert members can only be elected by members of ICNIRP. Many of ICNIRP members have ties to the industry that is dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines. The guidelines are of huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecom/IT and power industry.

In contrast to ICNIRP, the BioInitiative Reports from 2007 and updated in 2012, based the evaluation also on non‑thermal health effects from RF radiation (20,21). The scientific benchmark for possible health risks was defined to be 30 to 60 μW/m2. Thus, using the significantly higher guideline by ICNIRP gives a ‘green card’ to roll out the wireless digital technology thereby not considering non-thermal health effects from RF radiation. Numerous health hazards are disregarded such as cancer (8), effects on neurotransmitters and neuroprotection (22,23), blood-brain-barrier (24,25), cognition (26-29), psychological addiction (30-32), sleep (33-36), behavioral problems (37-41) and sperm quality (13,42,43). No doubt the IARC decision started a world-wide spinning machine to question the evaluation. It was similar to the one launched by the tobacco industry when IARC was studying and evaluating passive smoking as a carcinogen in the 1990s (44). Sowing confusion and manufacturing doubt about scientific facts is a well-known strategy used by the tobacco and other industries (8,45-48).

The biophysicist Michael Repacholi from Australia was the first chairman of ICNIRP in 1992. His own research within this field is scanty, although a study on lymphoma incidence in mice exposed to RF radiation published in 1997 has attracted interest (49). Repacholi suggested in 1995 that WHO should start the EMF project. This was adopted by WHO in 1996 ....Repacholi was during 1996-2006 the leader of the WHO department of electromagnetic radiation, the WHOEMF project.

Michael Repacholi immediately set up a close collaboration between WHO and ICNIRP (being head of both organizations) inviting the electric, telecom and military industries to meetings. He also arranged for large part of the WHO EMF project to be financed by the telecommunication industry's lobbying organisations; GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum, now called Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) (51) in addition to WHO ...

Repacholi acted like a representative for the telecom industry while responsible for the EMF health effects department at the WHO.... Since he left WHO in 2006 he has been involved in industry propaganda video interviews with GSM Association and Hydro Quebec ...

Repacholi recruited Emilie van Deventer to the WHO EMF Project in 2000. She is the current project manager at WHO for the EMF project. She has been a long time member of the industry dominated organization Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE is the world's most powerful federation of engineers. The members are or have been employed in companies or organizations that are producers or users of technologies that depend on radiation frequencies, such as power companies, the telecom and the military industry. IEEE has prioritized international lobbying efforts for decades especially aimed at the WHO ..

Van Deventer is an electrical engineer. She has no formal or earlier knowledge in medicine, epidemiology or biology, so it is surprising that she was selected for such an important position at the WHO ...

WHO radio frequency fields: Environmental health criteria monograph
It must be regarded to be unusual and scientifically inadequate not to provide for review the health risk assessment and protective measures which would be most important parts of the Monograph. Furthermore, it turned out that of the six members in the WHO Core Group four are active members of ICNIRP and one is a former member. This was published in 2016 (52) and also discussed more recently (8). Only one person seems to be independent of ICNIRP, see Table I. Several persons have also affiliation(s) to other advisory groups, authorities and/or committees. Six of the 20 additional experts are affiliated with ICNIRP.
Being a member of ICNIRP is a conflict of interest in the scientific evaluation of health hazards from RF radiation through ties to military and industry. This is particularly true since the ICNIRP guidelines are of huge importance to the influential telecommunications, military and power industries. Another conflict of interest is for members officially assessing possible health effects below their own set ICNIRP guidelines, which they have already stated as beeing safe, see also discussion in (52).
It should be noted that the Ethical Board at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden concluded already in 2008 that being a member of ICNIRP may be a conflict of interest that should be stated officially whenever a member from ICNIRP makes opinions on health risks from EMF (Karolinska Institute diary number: 3753-2008-609). No statement of such conflict of interest can be found in the WHO draft of the Monograph on RF radiation.
It was stated by the WHO officials that ICNIRP is an NGO with an official relationship with WHO that ‘helps us a lot in our analyses’ and their members work as WHO's experts. Thus, in spite of five of six persons in the Core Group for the Monograph being affiliated with ICNIRP, WHO seems to have no intention to change these members. On the other hand, the Task Group is not finalized.
According to the meeting all experts are selected on individual basis and not as members of ICNIRP. Further, it was stated that the WHO guideline documents are in full WHO's responsibility. It is not known when the Monograph on RF radiation will be published. WHO still ‘keeps looking at the evidence’ and is still adding new documents to the Monograph.
In the draft of the Monograph a large bulk of peer-reviewed scientific publications on non-thermal effects are dismissed, c.f. as also by ICNIRP (19). Most remarkable is that WHO has no intention to replace the Core Group of experts affiliated with ICNIRP. Thereby ICNIRP is given full access to and exclusive possibilities to influence the Monograph. In view of the huge economic interests built into the ICNIRP guidelines, and several of its expert members' ties to industry, no doubt this is a large conflict of interest that will seriously undermine not only the credibility of the Monograph on RF radiation but also the credibility of WHO as a protector of world health. Seriously enough, the Monograph will be the hallmark for years to come on evaluation of health hazards from RF radiation and pave the way for increasing exposure to RF radiation to people and environment, e.g. the fifth generation (5G), internet of things, etc.
Children and adolescents may be more sensitive to RF radiation than adults (2). Thus as an authoritative agency, WHO has an obligation to reference all the scientific research results and call the experts from all the related fields like engineering, health and medicine to engage in the re-evaluation of all health effects including non-thermal of RF radiation. Related agencies should launch an objective and transparent project for this assessment.
Protests and comments by scientific experts and several organizations seem to be ignored. The Monograph might be political and industry supportive more than scientific and health promoting. For a definitive conclusion a more thorough review of the whole draft document would be needed. By now it is time for laymen, NGOs and scientists to exert pressure on politicians to change the WHO agenda on RF radiation and health hazards and decide that WHO's purpose is to support world health instead of industry interests. It is also time to evaluate the competence of the persons making the evaluations and decisions before publishing the Monograph. Of note, evidence has been published (52) which indicated that members of ICNIRP have written scientifically incorrect and misleading information. It is unknown if WHO has responded to this evidence of suggested scientific misconduct.

April 1, 2017


ECERI Meeting with WHO on Electromagnetic Fields

ECERI Newsletter No. 5, March 2017

"Maria Neira, Director, Public Health and the Environment Department, World Health Organisation (WHO) and Emilie van Deventer, Team Leader of the Radiation Programme at the WHO received on March the 3rd, in Geneva, a scientific delegation of the European Cancer and Environment Research Institute (ECERI), composed of Dominique Belpomme (F), Igor Belyaev (SKA), Ernesto Burgio (I), Christine Campagnac (F), David Carpenter (US), Tarmo Koppel (EE) and Lennart Hardell (SE) to discuss the health effects of EMFs.
David Carpenter introduced the talk, reminding that there are numerous significant human health hazards of concern, due to non-thermal effects of EMFs. He expressed the particular concern of the ECERI Group that a new WHO Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) document on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) is scheduled to be released in 2017, and that the members of the EHC Core Group are in denial of serious non-thermal effects of RF EMFs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Regarding the particular vulnerability of children and their high exposure, the scientific group urges WHO to address the hazards of RF EMF.
Igor Belyaev pointed at genotoxicity induced by exposure to RF can under specific conditions of exposure (type of cells, type of signal etc) and at all other biological effects of RF (blood brain barrier, melatonin, oxidative stress, gene/protein proliferation) induced under specific conditions of non-thermal RF exposure.
In contrast to the Russian National Committee of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the ICNIRP safety standards do not take into account non-thermal effects and prolonged exposures, and are in evident contradiction with classification of RF as possible carcinogen, group 2B, by IARC.

Igor Belyaev delivers to Maria Neira a letter from Oleg Grigoriev, Head of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP). “Based on multiple Russian studies and  emerging number of studies coming from other countries, RNCNIRP has consistently warned against possible health effects from mobile communication” writes Oleg Grigoriev, requesting that WHO balances the RF working group in the evaluation of RF health effects to get more credible conclusions.
Lennart Hardell presented the results of his epidemiological studies on brain tumor risks and exposure to EMF. His data strongly suggest that RF EMF should be classified not as Group IIB, as it is presently the case, ie as possible carcinogenic, but as IIA, ie as probably carcinogenic. His  studies  were recently confirmed by other independent scientific group (see page 4 of the present letter).
Dominique Belpomme pres.ented the results of his study on electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Based on a series of 1,500 EHS and/or MCS cases, it was found that EHS can be objectively characterized by a battery of biomarkers reflecting oxidative stress, low grade neuro-inflammation and BBB opening.
Presently 1-10% of the investigated population in Europe is estimated to be EHS-self reporting persons. The ECERI group calls WHO to urgently accomplish its humanitarian worldwide public health mission: (1) by reexamining objectively the EHS-related health problem, independent of non- science-based external types of conflicting pressures; (2) by considering EHS and MCS as two new emerging well identified pathological disorders; (3) by including EHS and MCS in separate codes in the next version of the WHO ICD.
Ernesto Burgio pointed at the epigenetics mechanisms by which children are very vulnerable to RF EMF. EMFs (both ELF and RFR) are among the environmental factors already proven to be at the same time constantly increasing in the environment and mostly interfering on the less differentiated cells, on stem cell differentiation and on the early stages of brain development, on cell migration and synaptogenesis, and on the gametes.
This raises concerns for public health, regarding the possible effects (neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer etc.) of long-term exposure to low intensity, environmental daily life levels on the directly exposed subjects and even on the future generations. He concluded that this may impose a drastic reduction of the exposure to EMFs of pregnant women and infants.
Emilie van Deventer invited the ECERI scientific group to provide as many additional publications as possible, particularly peer-reviewed meta-analysis.
Regarding the preliminary monography released last year, she stated that the conclusions were not included given that the document was not final. She added that the Task Group was not defined yet, and that it was still possible to apply. The date for the final release of the monography is not planned yet either.
International EMF Expertise Group
Following the meeting with Maria Neira, the ECERI group defined a new strategy on EMFs for the future. The present members unanimously decided to join efforts to make non-thermal effects of EMF definitely recognized at an international level. The principle of an ECERI collective scientific publication on non-thermal effects of EMFs was agreed. This publication should be issued by June. An  International EMF Expertise  Group  issued  from ECERI  is  under  development, aiming at publishing meta-analysis on EMFs health effects, in order to counterbalance ICNIRP’s political influence."

March 1, 2017

The chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) sent a letter to the World Health Organization (WHO) which criticizes the WHO working group on the evaluation of health effects from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) because the working group is primarily composed of past and present members of ICNIRP, a "private self-selected organization." 

The letter asserts that the working group "is not balanced" and does not represent the perspective of the majority of the scientific community that studies the effects of RFR.

ICNIRP does not recognize the non-thermal effects of RFR and upholds RFR guidelines adopted in 1996 that only protect against harmful thermal effects.
"Based on multiple Russian studies and emerging number of studies coming from other countries, RNCNIRP has consistently warned against possible health effects from mobile communication. The point of view of RNCNIRP is supported by hundreds of new publications including well known recent RF studies in human and animals."


May 31, 2013

The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking input on its radiofrequency (RF) policies.  Although the WHO is applying a "risk management" framework to this issue, recent presentations by the WHO and by ICNIRP, its standard setting body, suggest these organizations perceive RF radiation to be more of a public relations problem than a public safety issue.

How long will the WHO (and ICNIRP) continue its denialist policy regarding radiofrequency bioeffects and long term health risks from low intensity, microwave radiation associated with use of mobile phones and Wi-Fi?  More importantly, what will it take to get the WHO to embrace the precautionary principle?


Announcement of International Stakeholder Seminar on Radiofrequency Policies and call for examples of good risk management practices
 
The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking the views of stakeholders and interested parties in the process of preparing an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) monograph on radiofrequency (RF) fields. The monograph will include a scientific review of all studied health outcomes and it will provide an overview of risk management policies and practices around the world.


As part of the EHC process, the WHO is convening a seminar on 5 June 2013 at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) in Paris, France. The purpose of the seminar is to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to present their views on specific questions to be addressed during the course of this project. The discussions at the seminar and their conclusions will be considered carefully in the development of the WHO monograph.


http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/stakeholder_announcement.pdf


 

RF and Health: A WHO Perspective 

Emile Van Deventer, ITU Workshop on EMF, May 9, 2013

At the ITU International Workshop on EMF in May 2013, Dr Emilie van Deventer from the WHO provided an overview of the WHO EMF program advising the EHC review process was already underway and was expected to be completed in 2015.

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/climatechange/emf-1305/Documents/Presentations/s0p1-EmilieVanDeventer.pdf

 

EMF Safety Guidelines -- The ICNIRP View

Rüdiger Matthes, International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), May 2013



Also at the ITU workshop, Rüdiger Matthes, Chairman of the International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) presented an overview of the EMF Safety Guidelines and told delegates that the Guidelines would be reviewed following the WHO EHC.

Following are some key quotes from his presentation:

  • "no convincing evidence from epidemiology"
  • "very few epidemiological data available (no recent studies)"
  • "insufficient evidence from animal studies"
  • "still insufficient evidence for firm conclusions"
  • "data are still too limited for an appropriate risk assessment"
  • "biological effects have not been studied very well"
  • "recent high quality animal studies consistently report lack of an effect"
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/climatechange/emf-1305/Documents/Presentations/s2part1p1-RuedigerMatthes.pdf


IARC Monograph Vol. 102 on ‘Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Published

On the 19th April 2013, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published Monograph Vol. 102 on ‘Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.‘

Monograph 102 - Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (April 2013) 

Additional Information:


(EMF Explained is a series developed by three wireless industry associations.)