Sunday, April 27, 2025

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)



New WHO-Funded Study Reports High Certainty of the Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer in Animals

Scientific Experts Urge the FCC to Establish Science-Based Exposure Limits to Address Wireless Health Risks

Media Contact: communications@icbe-emf.org

Press Release April 27, 2025

Environment International has published a new systematic review, partially funded by the World Health Organization, concluding that there is high certainty of the evidence linking cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation to two types of cancer in animals. In response, leading scientists from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) are calling for immediate policy action to protect public health and the environment, warning that further delay could have serious consequences amid the global surge in the use of wireless communication devices.

What the Review Found

A new systematic review of 52 animal studies, “Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure on Cancer in Laboratory Animal Studies” by Mevissen et al. (2025), concluded there is high certainty of the evidence linking RF radiation exposure to two types of tumors: gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the heart. Notably, the same types of tumors have also been observed in human studies, adding significant confidence that the associations observed in human studies are real.  

The review also found moderate certainty of evidence of an increased risk of rare tumors, such as pheochromocytomas in the adrenal glands and hepatoblastomas in the liver. Additionally, some studies indicated a possible association with lymphomas, although the findings were inconsistent.

ICBE-EMF highlights that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation (RF-EMF) as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen, noting limited animal evidence. Since then, major animal studies — including those by the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute — have found that RF radiation exposure causes cancer in rats. 

The new WHO-funded review, concluding there is “high certainty” animal evidence of cancer causation, reinforces calls for IARC to urgently reevaluate the cancer classification of RF radiation.

Given this high level of certainty, government policymakers worldwide should immediately move to revise their RF radiation exposure limits to protect public health and the environment. 

Statements by Experts of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 

“The evidence is now clear —cell phone radiation can cause cancer in animals in concordance with the tumor types identified in human studies of mobile phone users. As animal studies are essential for predicting cancer risk in humans, governments should develop science-based safety standards to protect human health. The conclusion of the study commissioned by the WHO shows that the long-standing assumption current government limits are based on  — that cell phone RF radiation can only cause harm through tissue heating — is wrong” stated Ron Melnick, PhD, Chair of the ICBE-EMF and former senior toxicologist and Director of Special Programs at the National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

“The preponderance of the research published since 1996 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to low levels of modulated or pulsed wireless RF radiation. Given the widespread global usage of wireless among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease will have broad implications for public health,” stated Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, also an ICBE-EMF member.

“To protect public health and the environment, exposure to cell phone and wireless radiation must be significantly reduced,” said Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Director of ICBE-EMF. She referenced the EMF Scientist Appeal now signed by 267 scientists from 45 nations. “Hundreds of scientists worldwide agree that current exposure limits are outdated and do not adequately protect against health risks.”

ICBE-EMF emphasizes that governments must act immediately to strengthen regulatory limits on wireless radiation to protect public health. Wildlife exposures must be mitigated. Current exposure standards, based on outdated assumptions, do not reflect the scientific evidence linking RF radiation to cancer and other health effects.

ICBE-EMF also highlights practical steps the public can take to reduce exposure — such as using speakerphone or wired headsets, keeping devices away from the body, and limiting wireless use among children — but stresses that personal actions are not a substitute for government-enforced safety standards. Stronger, science-based regulations are urgently needed to address the widespread and increasing exposure to wireless radiation.

About the ICBE-EMF 

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields including wireless RF radiation. Wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi and cell towers emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation. 

ICBE-EMF recently published major scientific papers concluding that current government safety limits for wireless radiation are not protective of public health and highlighting engineering solutions that could dramatically reduce radiation emissions from cell phones. 

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment. icbe-emf.org

Video of Dr. Ronald Melnick on the Cell Phone Cancer Study 


--

July 29, 2024

ICBE-EMF issues statement on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

--

July 15, 2024

ICBE-EMF finds serious problems with WHO-Commissioned review of human observational studies 
on the effects of exposure to radio-frequency EMFs
TUCSON, AZ – July 15, 2024 – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) documented serious problems with a WHO-commissioned review of research on the effects of exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in a commentary published today in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health.
Our commentary, “A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms,” discusses major problems with a recent review of human observational studies on this topic by Röösli and colleagues (2024) that was published in the journal Environment International.
We call for a retraction of this paper. Contrary to the opinion of the authors, we conclude that the body of evidence reviewed for this paper is not adequate to either support or refute the safety of current exposure limits – largely due to the very small number and low methodological quality of the relevant primary studies to date, and the fundamental inappropriateness of meta-analysis for the handful of very heterogeneous primary studies identified for each of the analyzed exposure/outcome combinations.
Furthermore, the ICBE-EMF calls for an impartial international investigation, by unconflicted experts, of both the currently available evidence base on these issues, as well as related research priorities for the future.
The ICBE-EMF is made up of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors and related professionals who are involved with research related to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies up to and including 300 GHz. The organization makes recommendations that include and go beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines based on the best peer-reviewed scientific research publications.
Frank J, Melnick R, Moskowitz J, on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2024. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0069. 


Also see: https://www.saferemr.com/2021/09/who-radiofrequency-emf-health-risk.html

--

June 26, 2024

ICBE-EMF exposes major flaws in COSMOS cell phone brain tumor risk study in journal letter published today

Contacts:
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, jmm@berkeley.edu
Ronald Melnick, PhD, ronmelnick@gmail.com

New peer-reviewed letter presents 
scientific case for retraction of conclusions
of COSMOS brain tumor risk study.

TUCSON, AZ – June 26, 2024 – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) exposed major flaws with the COSMOS study of brain tumor risk from cell phone use in a letter to the editor published today in the journal Environment International"COSMOS: A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use."

The letter discusses serious problems with a recent COSMOS paper that provided interim results about brain tumor risk from mobile phone use. The letter calls for a retraction of the paper's conclusions and demands that the data set be made available to independent investigators who have no industry ties. Excerpts from the letter appear below.

The response to our letter by the authors of the COSMOS paper failed to adequately address our concerns.

COSMOS (“Cohort Study on Mobile Phone Use and Health”) is a 20-30-year cohort study investigating the possible health effects of long-term use of mobile phones and other wireless technologies. The study enrolled over 290,000 mobile phone users from six European countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). 

The ICBE-EMF is made up of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors and related professionals who are involved with research related to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies up to and including 300 GHz. The organization makes recommendations that include and go beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines based on the best peer-reviewed scientific research publications.

Also see: https://www.saferemr.com/2024/06/COSMOS.html


--

Sep 6, 2023

"Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Sources: 
Are Safety Limits Safe?

The recordings and slides from the following webinar are now available.


David Gee: “Wireless Radiation; An Emerging Hazard 1972-2003”

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe“Non-Ionizing Radiation Health Effects; Vulnerable Populations; Critical Role of Medical Doctor”

Dr. Kent Chamberlin:  "Towards the Better Protection of People and Planet from Wireless Radiation; Work of the New Hampshire Commission and the ICBE-EMF"

Dr. James C. Lin“A Critique of RF Exposure Limits and Recommendations for the Better Protection of Workers and the Public"

Dr. John Frank“Reflections and Key Questions”

​To view the videos and ​download the slides from this webinar: 


--

April 4, 2023



NEWS RELEASE

Simple engineering fixes could dramatically reduce cellphone radiation, scientists say

Industry will now have to start competing on safety

ICBE-EMF, Tucson, AZ, April 4, 2023 -- Six simple engineering fixes could dramatically reduce radiation emitted by cellphones according to a group of scientists. The fixes are easy to implement, and in one case the fix relies on technology already patented by the industry.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) reported its findings today in an open access, peer-reviewed article, "Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions," published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

“Given the growing evidence of the health effects of radiation from cellphones and cell towers, I believe the wireless industry is going to have to start competing on safety,” said Joel Moskowitz, one of the authors who is also director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

“With the proliferation of online advice and consultants helping people reduce their exposures, the concern about the safety of cellphones and other wireless devices has moved into the mainstream,” Moskowitz added.

“We will undoubtedly hear from many in the industry that a move toward safer cellphones and other wireless devices will be too costly and unnecessary,” Moskowitz said. “But carmakers said the same thing when the public demanded safer cars and the government required them. Today, those same carmakers compete on safety.”

“This competition for safety can move forward without a change in the current government standards,” Moskowitz explained. “Ultimately, I believe governments around the world will be playing catch-up with industry and consumers.”

“The six engineering solutions outlined in this paper provide a significant move forward in cellphone safety,” said Elizabeth Kelley, one of the authors of the paper and managing director of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. “The scientists and engineers proposing them stand ready to assist the cellphone industry with implementing them as soon as is practical.”

Kelley added, “Some of the proposed solutions are just common sense. Using Wi-Fi to make cellphone calls whenever feasible dramatically reduces radiation emissions from the phone.” And, when a cellphone is sitting on the nightstand while the user is sleeping, it doesn’t need to communicate constantly with a cell tower to relay its location. “Why not shut down these transmissions—which cause frequent radiation emissions—when our phones are stationary such as when they sitting on a bedside table as we sleep or on our desk next to us as we work?”

Kelley said, “These common-sense changes can quickly and dramatically reduce radiation exposure from cellphones. Implementing them will create a healthier environment for all of us while still allowing us to stay connected to others and to the information we need daily.”

The paper also examines the history behind the current cellphone emissions standards and finds a trail of dated assumptions and poorly designed experiments and tests that don’t reflect how people use cellphones today.

Paul Héroux, the first author of this paper and a professor in the School of Population and Global Health at McGill University in Montreal, said the team of scientists and engineers who worked on the paper “identified seven blind spots in the methods and experiments upon which our current cellphone radiation emission standards and guidelines are based. These blind spots call into serious question the validity of those standards."


For example, tests to gauge the hazards of wireless radiation upon which our current standards rest only used exposures lasting between 40 and 60 minutes. Such exposures “can hardly be said to be representative of the 24/7 chronic exposures which all of us are and will be subject to for the rest of our lives.”

Héroux added, “Combined, these seven blind spots tell us that our current cellphone emissions standards cannot be trusted. We cannot and should not tell the public that we know cellphones are safe.”

In his written statement Héroux recommends that two things be done right away:

  • Test cellphones “using test designs that represent actual use and that rely on the growing body of research demonstrating biological effects from radiation emitted by cellphones.”
  • “Demand a quantitative health risk assessment of cellphone use and wireless infrastructure. This type of scientific assessment is routinely used by government agencies worldwide. In the United States the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration all use quantitative health risk assessments to determine potential human health risks associated with exposure to hazardous agents or activities.”

To download the paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5398



--


Oct 18, 2022 (Updated Nov 2, 2022)

Wireless Technology Not Adequately Assessed for Hazards to Human Health and Environment

New peer-reviewed paper presents scientific case for revision of limits

TUCSON, AZ – October 18, 2022 – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is challenging the safety of current wireless exposure limits to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and is calling for an independent evaluation.

Published today in the journal Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” demonstrates how the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have ignored or inappropriately dismissed hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at exposures below the threshold dose claimed by these agencies, which was used to establish human exposure limits. The authors argue that the threshold, based on science from the 1980s – before cell phones were ubiquitous -- is wrong, and these exposure limits based on this threshold do not adequately protect workers, children, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the public from exposure to the nonionizing radiation from wireless data transmission.

“Many studies have demonstrated oxidative effects associated with exposure to low-intensity RFR, and significant adverse effects including cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, neurological disorders, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, and sperm damage,” explains Dr. Ronald Melnick, Commission chair and a former senior toxicologist with the U.S. National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “These effects need to be addressed in revised and health-protective exposure guidelines. Furthermore, the assumption that 5G millimeter waves are safe because of limited penetration into the body does not dismiss the need for health effects studies.”


Dr. Lennart Hardell
, former professor at Örebro 
University Hospital in Sweden and author of  more than 100 papers on non-ionizing radiation, added, “Multiple robust human studies of cell phone radiation have found increased risks for brain tumors, and these are supported by clear evidence of carcinogenicity of the same cell types found in animal studies.”

The Commission believes that an independent evaluation based on the scientific evidence with attention to the knowledge gained over the past 25 years is needed to establish lower exposure limits. The Commission is also calling for health studies to be completed prior to any future deployment of 5G networks.

Elizabeth Kelley, the Commission's managing director, noted that “ICBE-EMF was commissioned by the advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition signed by more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 papers on EMF, biology, and health, and that “The commissioners have endorsed the Appeal’s recommendations to protect public and environmental health.”

For background on the paper and its co-authors see:

Media contact: 
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD
email to: media.inquiries@icbe-emf.org


Key points
  • ICBE-EMF scientists report that exposure limits for radiofrequency (or wireless) radiation set by ICNIRP and the FCC are based on invalid assumptions and outdated science, and are not protective of human health and wildlife.
  • ICBE-EMF calls for an independent assessment of the effects and risks of radiofrequency radiation based on scientific evidence from peer-reviewed studies conducted over the past 25 years. The aim of such assessment would be to establish health protective exposure standards for workers and the public.
  • The public should be informed of the health risks of wireless radiation and encouraged to take precautions to minimize exposures, especially for children, pregnant women and people who are electromagnetically hypersensitive.
  • ICBE-EMF calls for an immediate moratorium on further rollout of 5G wireless technologies until safety is demonstrated and not simply assumed.
--

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

Abstract


In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. 

In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. 

Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. 

Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.

Open access paper: 


Co-authors:

Ronald L. Melnick: National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (retired), Ron Melnick Consulting LLC, Logan, Utah, USA (corresponding author)
Igor Belyaev: Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia
Carl Blackman: US Environmental Protection Agency (retired), North Carolina, USA
Kent Chamberlin: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, USA
Suleyman Dasdag: Biophysics Department, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Medical School, Turkey
Alvaro DeSalles: Graduate Program on Electrical Engineering (PPGEE), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil 
Claudio Fernandez: Division of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS), Canoas, Brazil
Lennart Hardell: Department of Oncology, Orebro University Hospital (retired), The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Orebro, Sweden
Paul Héroux: Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Canada
Elizabeth Kelley: ICBE-EMF and International EMF Scientist Appeal, and Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Arizona, USA
Kavindra Kesari: Department of Applied Physics, School of Science, Aalto, University, Espoo, Finland
Don Maisch: EMFacts Consultancy; The Oceanic Radiofrequency, Scientific Advisory Association, Tasmania, Australia
Erica Mallery-Blythe: Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment; British Society of Ecological Medicine; Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, UK
Anthony Miller: Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Professor Emeritus), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Joel M. Moskowitz: School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Wenjun Sun: School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
Igor Yakymenko: National University of Food Technology, Kyiv Medical University, Ukraine


About the International Commission 

on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields


Founded in 2021, ICBE-EMF was commissioned by the advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Commission is dedicated to ensuring the protection of humans and other species from the harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation. Our primary purpose is to make recommendations, based on peer-reviewed scientific research, that includes and goes beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines to ensure safety. ICBE-EMF is made up of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors, and related professionals who are or have been, involved with research related to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies up to and including 300 GHz.


==


Selected News Stories


"New Challenge to ICNIRP: Dissident Scientists Seek Tighter Health Limits. Will They Succeed Where Others Failed?" Microwave News, November 1, 2022. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/new-challenge-icnirp


André Fauteux."Hundreds of studies on wireless radiation toxicity 'inappropriately ignored or discounted'." La Maison du 21e Siecle, Oct 18, 2022. https://maisonsaine.ca/english?id=100353In French: https://maisonsaine.ca/article?id=100352



Tuesday, April 22, 2025

National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study reports



April 22, 2025

NTP Meetings on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Health Effects Draft Technical Reports
NIEHS, March 26-28, 2018

Since the $30 million dollar NTP cell phone radiation study is one of the most important studies on the health effects of this technology, the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences recently posted to YouTube all 20 hours of the video recording of the expert review of the draft technical reports.

Peer Review Panel Meeting Session 1 (March 26, 2018)

Peer Review Panel Meeting Session 2 (March 26, 2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DcQdSj1oCc

Peer Review Panel Meeting Session 3 (March 27, 2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HItIlBE_1w

Peer Review Panel Meeting Session 4 (March 27, 2018)

Peer Review Panel Meeting Session 5 (March 28, 2018)

Peer Review Panel Meeting Session 6 (March 28, 2018)


November 19, 2018

Review of the NTP and Ramazzini Institute Studies 
by the Swiss Expert Group on EMF and Non-Ionizing Radiation (BERENIS)

Conclusions

The NTP and Ramazzini studies are most comprehensive animal studies with regard to cancer and exposure to mobile phone and base station signals that have been conducted to date. The scientific quality and standard of laboratory techniques are high, especially in the NTP study…”

“The results of these two animal studies are of great scientific relevance and importance for health policy because according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), positive results from animal studies with lifetime exposure are very important with regard to the classification of cancer risk of an agent, together with data from epidemiological and mechanistic studies. Based on the observed evidence regarding a correlation between mobile phone use and gliomas as well as acoustic neuroma, the latter data led to the IARC classification of mobile phone radiation as ‘possibly carcinogenic’ (group 2B) in 2011…”

“Despite the methodological differences, both new animal studies showed relatively consistent results in schwannomas and gliomas, as well as a dose-dependent trend to an increase in the carcinogenicity of these tumors. The NTP study used high whole-body doses (SAR – specific absorption rates) as compared to the regulatory limits for whole-body exposure recommended by ICNIRP. For the general public, this limit is 0.08 W/kg, with Switzerland additionally having introduced lower precautionary limits. The question arises of how transferable the NTP study results are to real-life exposure of the public, considering that mobile phone use exposes only parts of the body to EMF levels comparable to the ones applied to the whole animal by the NTP study. First, it is common practice in toxicology to study higher doses to evaluate possible hazards of an agent. Second, the NTP study found an increase in carcinogenicity for GSM and CDMA exposure conditions. Since the findings are similar for both types of exposure, they indicate that the modulation of the signals does not seem to be relevant. Third, mobile phone use can cause local SAR values up to 2 W/kg, averaged over a cube of 21 mm side length in the closest proximity of the phone (e.g. at the ear, cheeks, hand, pocket locations, etc.). Thus, the results of the NTP study are mostly relevant for the exposure situation when using a mobile phone close to the body. In contrast, the Ramazzini study observed carcinogenicity at levels as high as the environmental exposure limits, with no statistically significant effect at lower doses. However, a dose-dependent trend was found for malignant heart schwannomas, which is consistent with the findings of the NTP study. This may indicate that the non-significant increase in case numbers at lower exposure levels represents a true effect that has not reached statistical significance due to the given sample size.

In summary, BERENIS supports a precautionary approach for regulating RF EMF based on the findings and their evaluation. A full risk assessment analysis taking into account all available studies (animal studies and epidemiological studies) is necessary to assess whether the current standards should be changed."

Complete review:  http://bit.ly/NTPBerenis


October 24, 2018

Peer-reviewed comments on NTP cellphone radiation study by Hardell and Carlberg

    Hardell L, Carlberg M. Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology. Published Oct 24, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606

    Abstract

    During the use of handheld mobile and cordless phones, the brain is the main target of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. An increased risk of developing glioma and acoustic neuroma has been found in human epidemiological studies. Primarily based on these findings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) classified in May, 2011 RF radiation at the frequency range of 30 kHz‑300 GHz as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B. A carcinogenic potential for RF radiation in animal studies was already published in 1982. This has been confirmed over the years, more recently in the Ramazzini Institute rat study. An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) study on rats and mice. The NTP final report is to be published; however, the extended reports are published on the internet for evaluation and are reviewed herein in more detail in relation to human epidemiological studies. Thus, the main aim of this study was to compare earlier human epidemiological studies with NTP findings, including a short review of animal studies. We conclude that there is clear evidence that RF radiation is a human carcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma). There is some evidence of an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer, and clear evidence that RF radiation is a multi‑site carcinogen. Based on the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, RF radiation should be classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1.




    September 24, 2018

    Peer-reviewed comments on NTP cell phone data for assessing human health risks
    by Ronald Melnick, Former NTP Director of Special Programs

    Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ Res. 2018 Sep 19;168:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010. 


    Abstract

    The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted two-year studies of cell phone radiation in rats and mice exposed to CDMA- or GSM-modulated radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at exposure intensities in the brain of rats that were similar to or only slightly higher than potential, localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head. This study was designed to test the (null) hypothesis that cell phone radiation at non-thermal exposure intensities could not cause adverse health effects, and to provide dose-response data for any detected toxic or carcinogenic effects. 

    Partial findings released from that study showed significantly increased incidences and/or trends for gliomas and glial cell hyperplasias in the brain and schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in the heart of exposed male rats. These results, as well as the findings of significantly increased DNA damage (strand breaks) in the brains of exposed rats and mice, reduced pup birth weights when pregnant dams were exposed to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, and the induction of cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats clearly demonstrate that the null hypothesis has been disproved. 

     The NTP findings are most important because the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as a "possible human carcinogen" based largely on increased risks of gliomas and acoustic neuromas (which are Schwann cell tumors on the acoustic nerve) among long term users of cell phones. The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR strengthens the animal-to-human association. 

    This commentary addresses several unfounded criticisms about the design and results of the NTP study that have been promoted to minimize the utility of the experimental data on RFR for assessing human health risks. In contrast to those criticisms, an expert peer-review panel recently concluded that the NTP studies were well designed, and that the results demonstrated that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RFR were carcinogenic to the heart (schwannomas) and brain (gliomas) of male rats.


    Note: Dr. Melnick was a senior toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. He led the design of the cell phone radiation studies discussed in this commentary.


    September 6, 2018

    Official Summary of Peer Review Meeting about the NTP's Cell Phone 
    Radiofrequency Radiation Studies

    The official summary of the three-day peer review meeting to discuss the draft technical reports about the cell phone radiation studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program is now available.

    National Toxicology Program (NTP). Peer Review of the Draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 2018. pp. 1-51. 


    May 3, 2018

    Videos of NTP Peer Review Meeting

    Videos with closed captions for the peer review meeting of the draft NTP technical reports on cell phone radiation are now available on the NTP website at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/events/panels/tr/2018/03/videos/videos.





    April 10, 2018

    Experts Find "Clear Evidence" of Cancer from Cell Phone Radiation in NTP Study

    March 28, 2018 (Last updated April 10)

    Eleven experts convened by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) over a three day period to review the draft technical reports from the NTP's cell phone radiation studies concluded that there is "clear evidence" that exposure to cell phone radiation caused a rare cancer in the hearts of male rats, and "there is equivocal evidence" in the hearts of female rats.

    The expert panel also reported "some evidence" that cell phone radiation exposure caused brain cancer in male and female rats and cancer of the adrenal glands in male rats. 

    Additionally, "equivocal evidence" of cancer risk was reported in the pituitary, adrenal, and prostate glands and pancreas and liver in male rats and adrenal glands in female rats.

    The mice in the study, exposed to a different cell phone radiation frequency than the rats (1800 MHz vs. 900 MHz), displayed less evidence of cancer risk. Equivocal evidence of cancer risk from cell phone radiation was reported for lymphoma in male and female mice. Equivocal evidence was also reported for skin, lung, and liver cancer in male mice.

    In seven instances, the expert group upgraded the evaluations of evidence published by NTP staff in the draft technical reports. Thus, the NTP scientists appear to have been overly conservative in their assessment of the hazards of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation. According to a former NTP scientist, "There was never a time when so many upgrades were recommended."

    The following table based upon NTP's official summary of actions compares the evaluations of evidence of carcinogenicity prepared by NTP staff with the expert committee's findings. The two-page document which also contains the committee's findings for nonneoplastic lesions can be be downloaded from 
    http://bit.ly/NTP180330

    The presentations and oral public comments are available at the following link: http://bit.ly/2qmvtQg.

    Definitions
    Clear Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity is demonstrated by studies that are interpreted as showing a dose-related (i) increase of malignant neoplasms, (ii) increase of a combination of malignant and benign neoplasms, or (iii) marked increase of benign neoplasms if there is an indication from this or other studies of the ability of such tumors to progress to malignancy.
    Some Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity is demonstrated by studies that are interpreted as showing a chemical-related increased incidence of neoplasms (malignant, benign, or combined) in which the strength of the response is less than that required for clear evidence.
    Equivocal Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity is demonstrated by studies that are interpreted as showing a marginal increase of neoplasms that may be chemically related.
    No Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity is demonstrated by studies that are interpreted as showing no chemical-related increases in malignant or benign neoplasms.
    https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/pubs/longterm/defs/index.html 
    Note: Although the definitions typically are applied to chemical agents, NTP also uses them with physical agents like cell phone radiation.

    PDF of document also includes nonneoplastic results & definitions: http://bit.ly/NTP180330



    March 16, 2018 (Updated March 25)

    To view webcast of NTP review meeting on March 26-28 from 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM EDT: 
    https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/webcasts/cellphones_032618/

    The National Toxicology Program (NTP) requested public comments about the two draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation. Due to a lag between when comments were submitted and posted to the NTP website, below are links to selected comments from scientists and environmental health organizations about the reports.


    Public Comments: Scientists

    George Carlo, PhD, The Science and Public Policy Institute

    C.K. Chou, PhD, CK Chou Consulting

    Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Michael Carlberg, MSc, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden; Lena Hedendahl, MD, The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation

    Magda Havas, PhD, Trent University 

    Ronald Kostoff, PhD

    Ronald Melnick, PhD, Retired Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program

    Joel Moskowitz, PhD, University of California, Berkeley

    Cindy Russell, MD, Physicians for Safe Technology

    Annie J. Sasco, MD, DrPH, SM, MPH, retired Director of Research,INSERM (French NIH); former Unit Chief, IARC-WHO


    Public Comments: Organizations

    Association Alerte Phonegate (Dr. Marc Arazi)

    EMF Research Committee, Korean Institute of Electromagnetic Engineering and Science (KIEES), South Korea

    Environmental Health Trust

    Environmental Working Group

    More Information

    Peer Review

    The members of the two peer review committees for the NTP meeting have been announced.

    David Eaton, PhD, University of Washington, Chair

    Technical Panel 1: Reverberation Chamber Exposure System: Assess the reverberation chamber technology for evaluating the effects of cell phone radiofrequency radiation exposure in rats and mice.

    Members:
    Frank Barnes, PhD, University of Colorado Boulder
    Asimini Kiourti, PhD, Ohio State University
    James Lin, PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago

    Technical Panel 2: NTP Findings in Rats and Mice: (1) Review and evaluate the scientific and technical elements of the study and its presentation; (2) Determine whether the study’s experimental design, conduct, and findings support the NTP’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenic activity and toxicity of the test agent.

    Members:
    Rick Adler, DVM, PhD, DACVP, Glaxo Smith Kline
    Lydia Andrews-Jones, DVM, PhD, DACVP, Allergan, Inc,
    J. Mark Cline, DVM, PhD, DACVP, Wake Forest School of Medicine
    George Corcoran, PhD, ATS, Wayne State University
    Susan Felter, PhD, Proctor & Gamble
    Jack Harkema, DVM, PhD, DACVP, Michigan State University
    Wolfgang Kaufmann, DVM, PhD, DECVP, Fellow IATP, Merck (retired)
    Tyler Malys, PhD, National Cancer Institute
    Kamala Pant, MS, BioReliance
    Matthias Rinke, DVM, PhD, FTA Pathology, CVP, Fellow IATP, Bayer Pharma (retired)
    Laurence Whiteley, DVM, PhD, DACVP, Pfizer 



    Jan 29, 2018 (Updated Jan 31, 2018)

    The following information was excerpted from the Federal Register.

    On January 29, 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced a meeting to peer review two draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation. These reports present the results of NTP studies conducted to evaluate the impact of cell phone radiofrequency radiation exposure in mice and rats.

    The peer-review meeting will be held at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Research Triangle Park, NC and is open to the public. Registration is requested for attendance at the meeting either in-person or by webcast and to present oral comments. Information about the meeting and registration will be available at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/36051.

    Meeting

    Tentatively scheduled for March 26, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to adjournment on March 28, 2018, at approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The preliminary agenda will be available at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/​36051 and will be updated one week before the meeting.

    Document Availability

    The NTP will post the two draft technical reports at 12 noon (Eastern Standard Time) on Friday, February 2 on the NTP web site: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/​36051.

    Deadlines

    Written Public Comment Submissions: March 12, 2018
    Registration for Oral Comments: March 12, 2018
    Registration to Attend Meeting In-person: March 28, 2018
    Registration to View Webcast: March 28, 2018

    Background

    Personal (cellular) telecommunications is a rapidly evolving technology that uses radiofrequency energy or radiation for mobile communication. According to a 2016 survey, 95 percent of American adults now use cell phones. Given such broad use, adverse health effects shown to be associated with cell phone use could be a widespread public health concern.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nominated cell phone radiofrequency radiation for NTP study because (a) widespread human exposure is possible, (b) current exposure guidelines are based largely on protection from acute injury due to thermal effects, (c) little is known about the potential health effects of long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, and (d) currently available human studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk of cancer from cell phone use.

    NTP studied in rats and mice the effects of exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation from two system modulations: Global System for Mobile Communications and Code Division Multiple Access. NTP released the “Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure)” in May 2016 (https://doi.org/​10.1101/​055699). The partial findings will be included in the draft NTP technical report for rats. The two draft NTP technical reports present results for all NTP studies on rats and mice on the toxicity and carcinogenicity of cell phone-emitted radiofrequency radiation.

    Public Comment Registration

    NTP invites written and oral public comments on the draft NTP technical reports: Guidelines for Public Comments.

    The deadline for submission of written comments is March 12, 2018. Written public comments should be submitted through the meeting website. Persons submitting written comments should include name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, email, and sponsoring organization (if any). Written comments received in response to this notice will be posted on the NTP website, and the submitter will be identified by name, affiliation, and sponsoring organization (if any). Comments that address scientific or technical issues will be forwarded to the peer-review panel and NTP staff prior to the meeting.

    Registration to provide oral comments is on or before March 12, 2018, at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/​36051. Registration is on a first-come, first-served basis, and registrants will be assigned a number in their confirmation email. Oral comments may be presented in person at NIEHS or by teleconference line. The access number for the teleconference line will be provided to registrants by email prior to the meeting. Each organization is allowed one time slot per comment period. The agenda allows for two public comment periods: The first comment period on the exposure system (12 commenters, up to 5 minutes per speaker), and the second comment period on the NTP findings in rats and mice (24 commenters, up to 5 minutes per speaker). After the maximum number of speakers per comment period is exceeded, individuals registered to provide oral comment will be placed on a wait list and notified should an opening become available. Commenters will be notified after March 12, 2018, the deadline to register for oral public comments, about the actual time allotted per speaker.

    If possible, oral public commenters should send a copy of their slides and/or statement or talking points to Canden Byrd by email: NTP-Meetings@icf.com by March 12, 2018.

    Background Information on NTP Peer-Review Panels

    NTP panels are technical, scientific advisory bodies to provide independent scientific peer review. These panels help ensure transparent, unbiased, and scientifically rigorous input to the program. Scientists interested in serving on an NTP panel should provide their current curriculum vitae to Canden Byrd by email: NTP-Meetings@icf.com.

    More information about the meeting

    http://bit.ly/FedRegNTP

    https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/​36051

    Information about NTP Partial Report of Findings

    http://bit.ly/NTPpartreport