Wednesday, July 1, 2020

American Cancer Society: Cell Phone Radiation Risk

"The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer. ACS generally looks to other expert organizations to determine if something causes cancer (that is, if it is a carcinogen), including:

  • The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO)
  • The US National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is formed from parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Other major organizations also sometimes comment on the ability of certain exposures (such as cell phone use) to cause cancer."


--

Why has the American Cancer Society relied on advice from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a self-selected group of scientists, many of whose members have conflicts of interestWhy does the Society ignore the advice of its former chief medical director, Otis W. Brawley, M.D. regarding the NTP study (see 2016 ACS press release below.)

--

Cellular (Cell) Phones

American Cancer Society, Revised June 1, 2020

Cellular (cell or mobile) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s. Since then, along with the large and still growing number of cell phone users (both adults and children), the amount of time people spend on their phones has also risen sharply.

Cell phones give off a form of energy known as radiofrequency (RF) waves, so the safety of cell phone use has raised some concerns. The main concerns have focused on whether cell phones might increase the risk of brain tumors or other tumors in the head and neck area, as these areas are closest to where the phone is usually held while talking or listening on a call.

How do cell phones work?

Cell phones send signals to (and receive them from) nearby cell towers (base stations) using RF waves. This is a form of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum that falls between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA (genes) inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) rays. Ionizing radiation can break the chemical bonds in DNA, which might lead to cancer.

The electromagnetic spectrum illustration shows the possible frequencies of electromagnetic energy, ranging from extremely low frequencies (such as those from power lines) to exposures from extremely high frequencies (x-rays and gamma rays), and includes both non-ionizing and ionizing radiation.

Image credit: National Cancer Institute

At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. But the levels of energy given off by cell phones are much lower, and are not enough to raise temperatures in the body.

How are people exposed?

The RF waves come from the cell phone's antenna, which is part of the body of a hand-held phone. The waves are strongest at the antenna and lose energy quickly as they travel away from the phone. The phone is often held against the head when a person is on a call. The closer the antenna is to a user's head, the greater their expected exposure to RF waves. The body tissues closest to the phone absorb more energy from RF waves than tissues farther away.

Many factors can affect the amount of energy from RF waves that a person is exposed to, including:

  • The amount of time the person is on the phone.
  • Whether the person is holding the phone close to the head, or is instead using the speaker mode or a hands-free device. The farther away from a person's body the phone is, the less they are exposed.
  • The distance and path to the nearest cell phone tower. Cell phones adjust their power to use the minimum amount for a good signal. Being farther away from the tower requires more energy to get a good signal, as does being inside a building.
  • The amount of cell phone traffic in the area at the time. Higher traffic (from many people using cell phones) may require more energy to get a good signal.
  • The model of phone being used. Different phones give off different amounts of energy.

Cell phone specific absorption rate (SAR)

The specific absorption rate (SAR) is the amount of RF energy from the phone absorbed by the user’s body. Different cell phones have different SAR levels. Cell phone makers are required to report the maximum SAR level of their product to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This information can often be found on the manufacturer’s website or in the user manual for the phone. The upper limit of SAR allowed in the United States according to FCC safety guidelines is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) of body weight.

But according to the FCC, comparing SAR values between phones can be misleading. The listed SAR value is based only on the phone operating at its highest power, not on what users would typically be exposed to with normal phone use. The actual SAR during use varies based on a number of factors, so it’s possible that a phone with a lower listed SAR value might sometimes expose a person to more energy from RF waves than one with a higher listed SAR value.

Do cell phones cause tumors?

Because cell phones usually are held near the head when a person is on a call, the main concern has been whether the phones might cause or contribute to tumors in this area, including:

  • Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas
  • Non-cancerous tumors of the brain, such as meningiomas
  • Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (vestibular schwannomas, also known as acoustic neuromas)
  • Tumors of the salivary glands

A few studies have also looked at possible links to other types of cancer.

What do studies show?

Researchers use 2 main types of studies to try to determine if something might cause cancer:

  • Studies done in the lab (using lab animals or cell cultures)
  • Studies looking at groups of people

In most cases neither type of study provides enough evidence on its own to show if something causes cancer in people, so researchers usually look at both lab-based and human studies.

The following is a brief summary of some of the major studies that have looked at this issue to date. However, this is not a comprehensive review of all studies that have been done.

Lab studies of RF waves

As noted above, the RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phones might be able to cause cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.

Large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for most or all of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.

While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF waves from cell phones. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.

Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that RF waves from cell phones might somehow impact human health.

Studies in people

Several dozen studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors. Most of these studies have focused on brain tumors. Many of these have been case-control studies, in which patients with brain tumors (cases) were compared to people who didn't have brain tumors (controls), in terms of their past cell phone use.

These studies have had mixed results. Some studies have found a possible link between cell phone use and brain tumors, while others have not. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of brain tumors in people using cell phones. However, there was no apparent overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these reports.

Three large studies deserve special mention:

The INTERPHONE study

The 13-country INTERPHONE study, the largest case-control study done to date, looked at cell phone use among more than 5,000 people who developed brain tumors (gliomas or meningiomas) and a similar group of people without tumors. Overall, the study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time, or cell phone use for 10 or more years. There was a suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma, and a smaller suggestion of an increased risk of meningioma, in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most. But this finding was hard to interpret because some people in the study reported implausibly high cell phone use. The researchers noted that the shortcomings of the study prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions, and that more research was needed.

Another part of the INTERPHONE study compared more than 1,000 people with acoustic neuromas to more than 2,000 people without tumors, who served as matched controls. As with gliomas and meningiomas, there was no overall link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. There was again a suggestion of a possible increased risk in the 10% of people who used their cell phones the most, but this finding was hard to interpret because some people reported implausibly high cell phone use.

The Danish cohort study

A large, long-term study has been comparing all of the people in Denmark who had a cell phone subscription between 1982 and 1995 (about 400,000 people) to those without a subscription to look for a possible increase in brain tumors. The most recent update of the study followed people through 2007. Cell phone use, even for more than 13 years, was not linked with an increased risk of brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, or cancer overall, nor was there a link with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain.

This type of study (following a large group of people going forward in time and not relying on people’s memories about cell phone use) is generally thought to provide stronger evidence than a case-control study.

But this study also has some drawbacks. First, it is based only on whether or not people had a cell phone subscription at the time. It didn’t measure how often these people used their phones (if at all), or if people who didn’t have a subscription used someone else’s phone. There are also limits as to how well this study might apply to people using cell phones today. For example, while the cell phones used at the time of the study tended to emit higher levels of RF waves than modern cell phones do, people also probably used their phones quite a bit less than people use their phones today.

The Million Women Study

A large prospective (forward-looking) study of nearly 800,000 women in the UK examined the risk of developing brain tumors over a 7-year period in relation to self-reported cell phone use at the start of the study. This study found no link between cell phone use and brain tumors overall or several common brain tumor subtypes, but it did find a possible link between long-term cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. The authors of this study, however, did note the possibility that this link might have been due to more intensive medical investigation in long-term cell phone users because of media coverage at the time.

All studies done so far have limitations

In summary, studies of people published so far have not established a clear link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. However, these studies have had some important limitations that make them unlikely to end the controversy about whether cell phone use affects cancer risk.

First, studies have not yet been able to follow people for very long periods of time. After a known cancer-causing exposure, it often takes decades for tumors to develop. Because cell phones have been widely used for only about 20 years in most countries, it is not possible to rule out possible future health effects.

Second, cell phone usage is constantly changing. People are using their cell phones much more than they were even 10 years ago, and the phones themselves are very different from what was used in the past. This makes it hard to know if the results of studies looking at cell phone use in years past still apply today.

Third, most of the studies published so far have focused on adults, rather than children. (One case-control study looking at children and teens did not find a significant link to brain tumors, but the small size of the study limited its power to detect modest risks.) Cell phone use is now widespread even among younger children. It is possible that if there are health effects, they might be more pronounced in children because their bodies might be more sensitive to RF energy. Another concern is that children’s lifetime exposure to RF waves from cell phones will be greater than adults’, who started using cell phones when they were older.

Finally, the measurement of cell phone use in most studies has been crude. Most have been case-control studies, which have relied on people’s memories about their past cell phone use. In these types of studies, it can be hard to interpret any possible link between cancer and an exposure. People with cancer are often thinking about possible reasons for it, so they may sometimes recall their phone usage differently from people without cancer.

With these limitations in mind, it is important to continue to study the possible risk of cell phone exposure, especially with regard to use by children and longer-term use.

What do expert agencies say?

The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer. ACS generally looks to other expert organizations to determine if something causes cancer (that is, if it is a carcinogen), including:

  • The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO)
  • The US National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is formed from parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Other major organizations also sometimes comment on the ability of certain exposures (such as cell phone use) to cause cancer.

Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) 

More recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a technical report based on studies published between 2008 and 2018, as well as national trends in cancer rates. The report concluded: “Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure and [tumor formation].”

So far, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has not included RF radiation in its Report on Carcinogens, which lists exposures that are known to be or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. (For more on this report, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)

According to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC):

“[C]urrently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used.”

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

“At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects.”

How can I lower my exposure to RF waves from cell phones?

It is not clear at this time that RF waves from cell phones cause harmful health effects in people, but studies now being done should give a clearer picture of the possible health effects in the future. Until more is known, there are several things that people who are concerned about RF waves can do to limit their exposure.

Use the speaker mode or video chat feature on the phone, or a hands-free device such as a corded or cordless earpiece. This moves the antenna away from your head, which decreases the amount of RF waves that reach the head. Corded earpieces emit virtually no RF waves (although the phone itself still emits small amounts of RF waves that can reach parts of the body if close enough, such as on the waist or in a pocket). Bluetooth® earpieces typically transmit RF waves at much lower power levels than cell phones themselves (see below).

Texting instead of talking on the phone may be another way to reduce your exposure. But it may not be a good option in some situations, especially if you are driving. For safety reasons, it is especially important to limit or avoid the use of cell phones (especially texting) while driving.

Limit your (and your children’s) cell phone use. This is one of the most obvious ways to limit your exposure to RF waves from cell phones. For example, you may want to limit the amount of time you spend talking on the phone (at least with your phone up to your ear). Parents who are concerned about their children’s exposure can limit how much time they spend talking on the phone.

Consider choosing a phone with a low SAR value. Different models of phones can give off different levels of RF waves. But as noted above, according to the FCC the SAR value is not always a good indicator of a person’s exposure to RF waves during normal cell phone use. One way to get information on the SAR level for a specific phone model is to visit the phone maker’s website. The FCC has links to some of these sites. If you know the FCC identification (ID) number for your phone model (which can often be found somewhere on the phone or in the user manual), you can also go to the following web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid. On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number.

Are phones on 5G networks any different?

Fifth generation (5G) cellular networks are now being rolled out in many parts of the United States and in other countries. 5G networks are capable of transmitting much larger amounts of data over shorter periods of time than previous generations (4G, 3G, etc.).

5G networks (and the phones that use them) operate on some higher frequency (higher energy) RF wavelengths than older generation networks (although newer phones can typically still use the older networks as well). But the newer 5G signals still use RF waves, so they are still forms of non-ionizing radiation, which is not thought to have the ability to directly damage DNA.

The studies that have been done so far to look at possible links between cell phone use and cancer have focused on older generation (mainly 2G and 3G) signals. At this time, there has been very little research showing that the RF waves used in 5G networks are any more (or less) of a concern than the other RF wavelengths used in cellular communication. For more on 5G networks, see Cell Phone Towers.

What about cordless phones?

Cordless phones, commonly used in homes, have base units that are plugged into telephone jacks and wired to a local telephone service. They are not considered cell phones. Cordless phones operate at about 1/600 the power of cell phones, so they are much less likely to be a concern in terms of health effects.

What about Bluetooth® devices (including earbuds)?

Many wireless devices now communicate over shorter distances using Bluetooth technology. For example, many phones now have the option of using wireless (Bluetooth) earbuds. Phones can also connect to other devices (tablets, laptops, car dashboard computers, etc.) using Bluetooth.

Bluetooth devices use RF waves in a similar wavelength range as those used for cell phones. But because the signals only need to travel a short distance (such as from the phone to a person’s ears), they can operate at much lower power levels than those used by phones, which in theory might make them less of a health concern. But as with other devices that give off RF waves, possible health effects from these devices cannot be ruled out completely at this time.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html


--

ACS Responds to New Study Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer

Press Release, American Cancer Society, May 27, 2016

The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) has released partial results from an animal study of the effect of radiofrequency radiation associated with cell phones. The group found radiofrequency radiation was linked to a higher risk of two cancers. Below is a response from Otis W. Brawley, M.D., American Cancer Society Chief Medical Officer.

“For years, the understanding of the potential risk of radiation from cell phones has been hampered by a lack of good science. This report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science.

“The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn’t reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk. It’s interesting to note that early studies on the link between lung cancer and smoking had similar resistance, since theoretical arguments at the time suggested that there could not be a link.

“The new report covers only partial findings from the study, but importantly one of the two cancers linked to cell phone radiation was malignant gliomas in the brain. The association with gliomas and acoustic neuromas had been suspected from human epidemiology studies. The second cancer, called a schwannoma, is an extremely rare tumor in humans and animals, reducing the possibility that this is a chance finding. And importantly, the study found a ‘dose/response’ effect: the higher the dose, the larger the effect, a key sign that this association may be real.

“The fact that this finding was observed only in male rats has some wondering if the data is not reliable. It’s important to note that these sorts of gender differences often appear in carcinogenic studies, so the fact they show up here should not detract from the importance of the findings.

“This new evidence will undoubtedly factor into ongoing assessments by regulators to determine the potential cancer risk posed by cell phones. The American Cancer Society eagerly awaits guidance from government agencies, like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), about the safety of cell phone use.

“The NTP was given the difficult task of trying to answer important questions about the potential cancer risk posed by cell phones, and the group did not shirk from its responsibility. NTP staff were clearly aware of the potential importance of this study and went the extra distance to ensure the best science is used. They used double the number of animals required for this type of study; they convened not one but three panels to look at abnormal tissues from treated animals to ensure that what was identified as a brain and heart tumor was indeed a brain and heart tumor; they solicited review from multiple scientists from outside the NTP to critically review all aspects of the data analysis and study findings, to ensure the findings would stand up to the critical assessment expected once these unexpected findings were released.

“While this study adds significantly to the evidence that cell phone signals could potentially impact human health, it does not actually tell us how certain scenarios of cell phone use change our long-term risks of getting cancer. For example, the animal studies were performed at very high signal strengths, near but below levels that would cause animal tissue to heat up. Additional research will be needed to translate effects at these high doses to what might be expected at the much lower doses received by typical or even high-end cell phone users. Also, cell phone technology continues to evolve, and with each new generation, transmission strengths have declined and with it radio frequency exposures.”

https://acspressroom.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/ntpcellphones/


January 13, 2015

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recently revised a 58-page document entitled, “Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors in Adults” and updated its website page on “Cellular Phones.”

Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors in Adults

“Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors in Adults” dismisses the potential cancer risk from using cell phones and refers readers to the ACS web site for further information:

Cell phone use
"This has been the subject of a great deal of debate in recent years. Cell phones give off radiofrequency (RF) rays, a form of energy on the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and those used in microwave ovens, radar, and satellite stations. Cell phones do not give off ionizing radiation, the type that can cause cancer by damaging the DNA inside cells. Still, there have been concerns that the phones, whose antennae are built-in and therefore are placed close to the head when being used, might somehow raise the risk of brain tumors.

Some studies have suggested a possible increased risk of brain tumors or of vestibular schwannomas with cell phone use, but most of the larger studies done so far have not found an increased risk, either overall or among specific types of tumors. Still, there are very few studies of long-term use (10 years or more), and cell phones haven’t been around long enough to determine the possible risks of lifetime use. The same is true of any possible higher risks in children, who are increasingly using cell phones. Cell phone technology also continues to change, and it’s not clear how this might affect any risk.

These risks are being studied, but it will probably be many years before firm conclusions can be made. In the meantime, for people concerned about the possible risks, there are ways to lower your exposure, such as using an earpiece to move the phone itself away from the head. For more information, see our document Cellular Phones."  (p. 15)

Can brain and spinal cord tumors in adults be prevented?

"The risk of many cancers in adults can be reduced with certain lifestyle changes (such as staying at a healthy weight or quitting smoking). But other than radiation exposure, there are no known lifestyle-related or environmental causes of brain and spinal cord tumors, so at this time there is no known way to protect against most of these tumors." (p. 17)  http://bit.ly/1y8vS9B.

Cellular Phones

The ACS web site reviews the research on cell phone radiation and downplays the cancer risk from long-term exposure to cell phone and cordless phone radiation.

Although the ACS seems skeptical there is any cancer risk from cell phone use, they recommend "several things that people who are concerned about RF [radio frequency] waves can do to limit their exposure":

"Use the speaker mode on the phone or a hands-free device such as a corded or cordless earpiece. This moves the antenna away from your head, which decreases the amount of RF waves that reach the head. Corded earpieces emit virtually no RF waves (although the phone itself still emits small amounts of RF waves that can reach parts of the body if close enough, such as on the waist or in a pocket). Bluetooth® earpieces have an SAR value of around 0.001 watts/kg (less than one thousandth the SAR limit for cell phones as set by the FDA and FCC).

Texting instead of talking on the phone may be another option to reduce your exposure. But it may not be a good option in some situations, especially if you are driving. For safety reasons, it is especially important to limit or avoid the use of cell phones while driving.

Limit your (and your children’s) cell phone use. This is one of the most obvious ways to limit your exposure to RF waves from cell phones. You may want to use your cell phone only for shorter conversations, or use it only when a conventional phone is not available. Parents who are concerned about their children’s exposure can limit how much time they spend on the phone.

Some people might consider choosing a phone with a low SAR value. Different models of phones can give off different levels of RF waves. But as noted above, according to the FCC the SAR value is not always a good indicator of a person’s exposure to RF waves during normal cell phone use. One way to get information on the SAR level for a specific phone model is to visit the phone maker’s website. The FCC has links to some of these sites here: www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones. If you know the FCC identification (ID) number for a phone model (which can often be found somewhere on the phone or in the user manual), you can also go to the following web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid. On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number.”     http://bit.ly/1z7mZNm

After reviewing and dismissing the growing body of scientific evidence which finds that long-term cell phone phone use is associated with increased brain cancer risk, the ACS makes the following recommendation:

"With these limitations in mind, it is important that the possible risk of cell phone exposure continue to be researched using strong study methods, especially with regard to use by children and longer-term use."   http://bit.ly/1z7mZNm

Since virtually everyone in the U.S. uses a cell phone and all are exposed to cell phone radiation, one might wonder what the ACS has done to ensure that there is adequate funding for strong research on the cancer risk. Has the ACS devoted any research funding to the study of this environmental risk? Has the ACS used its influence to ensure that Federal agencies prioritize health and safety research regarding this risk?

Sources

American Cancer Society. Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors in Adults. Last revised Jan 7, 2015. URL: http://bit.ly/1y8vS9B.

American Cancer Society.  Cellular Phones.  Last revised Dec 12, 2014. URL: http://bit.ly/1z7mZNm.


Wednesday, June 24, 2020

IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR)

Although no research has been published on the bioeffects or health effects from exposure to 5G radiation, the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) has published an "expert statement" in the journal Health Physics that claims "(w)ithin current exposure limits, there appears to be little or no risk of adverse health effects related to radiofrequency (RF) exposure from 5G system."

According to the IEEE press release (below): 
"... COMAR is an organization composed of physicians, biologists, epidemiologists, engineers and physical scientists who are experts on health and safety issues related to electromagnetic fields who work voluntarily and collaboratively on a consensus basis."
Is COMAR qualified to issue an "expert statement" regarding health effects? By my count, the membership of COMAR consists of nineteen engineers, four physicists, two physiologists, one psychologist, and one M.D. Almost all of COMAR's members work for industry or rely on industry funding for their research. 

How many members of COMAR have published peer-reviewed research on the health effects of non-ionizing radiation? How many do not have conflicts of interest?

How can COMAR assume that current exposure limits ensure our safety when the International EMF Scientist Appeal claims these limits are inadequate? This appeal has been signed by more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the bioeffects or health effects of non-ionizing radiation, totaling more than 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals.

Finally, the 5G Appeal calls for a moratorium on the rollout of 5G "until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry." This appeal has been signed by more than 200 scientists and over 170 medical doctors (as of January 24, 2020).

--

'Very low' risk of unknown health hazards from exposure to 5G wireless networks

Expert statement in health physics journal seeks to counter online misinformation

News Release, Wolters Kluwer Health, Jun 24, 2020

June 24, 2020 - Experts weigh in on recent online reports that warn of frightening health consequences from new fifth generation (5G) wireless networks. Within current exposure limits, there appears to be little or no risk of adverse health effects related to radiofrequency (RF) exposure from 5G systems, concludes an evidence-based expert review in the June issue of Health Physics, official journal of the Health Physics Society. The journal is published in the Lippincott portfolio by Wolters Kluwer.

"While we acknowledge gaps in the scientific literature, particularly for exposures at millimeter-wave frequencies, [we judge] the likelihood of yet unknown health hazards at exposure levels within current limits to be very low, if they exist at all," according to the statement by the Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). As outlined by its Chair, Richard A. Tell, COMAR is an organization composed of physicians, biologists, epidemiologists, engineers and physical scientists who are experts on health and safety issues related to electromagnetic fields who work voluntarily and collaboratively on a consensus basis.

5G Networks Unlikely to Cause Exposure Above Current Safety Limits

The consensus statement seeks to counter the rise in alarming messages regarding mysterious health effects of 5G technology. "This misinformation together with activist websites expressing even more ominous consequences of 5G - ranging from cancer induction to being responsible for the current coronavirus pandemic - has created substantial and unnecessary public anxiety," comments Jerrold T. Bushberg of the University of California Davis School of Medicine and Vice-Chair of COMAR.

Fifth-generation wireless systems are expanding worldwide to meet the rapidly increasing demand for wireless connectivity. The new technology can transmit much greater amounts of data at much higher speeds, compared to previous 2G to 4G systems. That's in part because 5G uses the greater bandwidth available at higher frequencies, including the so-called millimeter-wave (MMW) band. Expansion of 5G "will produce a more ubiquitous presence of MMW in the environment," according to the report.

Because MMW do not penetrate foliage and building materials as well as lower-frequency signals, many lower-power "small cell" transmitters will be needed to provide effective indoor coverage. Some 5G systems will have "beamforming" antennas that transmit signals to individual users as they move around, which means that nonusers will have less exposure.

Tissue heating is the main potential harmful effect of exposure to RF fields. Most countries, including the United States, have adopted exposure limits similar to those recommended by the recent standards (2019) published by IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) or the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines seek to avoid harmful effects by setting exposure limits far below the threshold at which any adverse human health effects would be expected to occur. These standards only allow for low levels of public RF exposures for which the energy is deposited in the form of thermal heating.

The COMAR statement provides perspectives to address concerns about possible health effects of 5G exposure:
  • In contrast to lower-frequency fields, MMW do not penetrate beyond the outer layer of the skin - and thus does not produce heating of deeper tissues.
  • The introduction of 5G is unlikely to change overall levels of RF exposure. As is currently the case, most exposure will be mainly due to "uplink" from one's own cell phone or other devices - not from transmission from base stations.
  • In nearly all publicly accessible locations, RF exposures from cellular base stations, including 5G stations will remain small - a fraction of current IEEE or ICNIRP exposure limits.
"[S]o long as exposures remain below established guidelines, the research results to date do not support a determination that adverse health effects are associated with RF exposures, including those from 5G systems," concludes the COMAR statement. The Committee acknowledges limitations of the current evidence on possible health and safety effects of 5G exposure and identifies key areas for further research, including high-quality studies of the biological effects of MMW.
###
"IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation--Comar Technical Information Statement: Health and Safety Issues Concerning Exposure of the General Public to Electromagnetic Energy from 5G Wireless Communications Networks." DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001301

----------

IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation—Comar Technical Information Statement: Health and Safety Issues Concerning Exposure of the General Public to Electromagnetic Energy from 5G Wireless Communications Networks

Bushberg JT, Chou CK, Foster KR, Kavet R, Maxson DP, Tell RA, Ziskin MC.  IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation—Comar Technical Information Statement: Health and Safety Issues Concerning Exposure of the General Public to Electromagnetic Energy from 5G Wireless Communications Networks. Health Physics: June 22, 2020. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001301.

Abstract

This COMAR Technical Information Statement (TIS) addresses health and safety issues concerning exposure of the general public to radiofrequency (RF) fields from 5G wireless communications networks, the expansion of which started on a large scale in 2018 to 2019. 5G technology can transmit much greater amounts of data at much higher speeds for a vastly expanded array of applications compared with preceding 2-4G systems; this is due, in part, to using the greater bandwidth available at much higher frequencies than those used by most existing networks. Although the 5G engineering standard may be deployed for operating networks currently using frequencies extending from 100s to 1,000s of MHz, it can also operate in the 10s of GHz where the wavelengths are 10 mm or less, the so-called millimeter wave (MMW) band. Until now, such fields were found in a limited number of applications (e.g., airport scanners, automotive collision avoidance systems, perimeter surveillance radar), but the rapid expansion of 5G will produce a more ubiquitous presence of MMW in the environment. While some 5G signals will originate from small antennas placed on existing base stations, most will be deployed with some key differences relative to typical transmissions from 2-4G base stations. Because MMW do not penetrate foliage and building materials as well as signals at lower frequencies, the networks will require “densification,” the installation of many lower power transmitters (often called “small cells” located mainly on buildings and utility poles) to provide for effective indoor coverage. Also, “beamforming” antennas on some 5G systems will transmit one or more signals directed to individual users as they move about, thus limiting exposures to non-users. In this paper, COMAR notes the following perspectives to address concerns expressed about possible health effects of RF field exposure from 5G technology. First, unlike lower frequency fields, MMW do not penetrate beyond the outer skin layers and thus do not expose inner tissues to MMW. Second, current research indicates that overall levels of exposure to RF are unlikely to be significantly altered by 5G, and exposure will continue to originate mostly from the “uplink” signals from one’s own device (as they do now). Third, exposure levels in publicly accessible spaces will remain well below exposure limits established by international guideline and standard setting organizations, including ICNIRP and IEEE. Finally, so long as exposures remain below established guidelines, the research results to date do not support a determination that adverse health effects are associated with RF exposures, including those from 5G systems. While it is acknowledged that the scientific literature on MMW biological effect research is more limited than that for lower frequencies, we also note that it is of mixed quality and stress that future research should use appropriate precautions to enhance validity. The authorship of this paper includes a physician/biologist, epidemiologist, engineers, and physical scientists working voluntarily and collaboratively on a consensus basis.

Conclusion

The emergence of 5G cellular networks into widespread usage has attracted public attention. This development is due in part to the necessary reliance of 5G sources of MMW on many small cells installed near subscribers (densification), as well as to the introduction into the environment of RF fields from a part of the spectrum to which the public has not previously been exposed to any significant extent. Though research efforts have begun, the effect of 5G networks on population exposures to RF signals has not been as thoroughly researched as have RF exposures at lower frequencies. However, we anticipate that in all cases, exposure levels will remain well below major international exposure limits and that network operators will be aware of their obligation to maintain their systems within compliant operating parameters. When exposure levels are maintained below current exposure limits, neither health agencies nor guideline/standards setting organizations have identified hazards from exposure to millimeter waves or RF signals in lower frequency bands used in previous generation technologies. Given the limited bioeffects literature on millimeter wave exposure, however, COMAR recommends more high-quality research on MMW, together with ongoing surveillance by health agencies of relevant scientific developments. This effort should result in systematic reviews of the literature done under established protocols, with appropriate selection and evaluation criteria for research papers. Such efforts will serve the public interest and assist our society's adaptation to 5G with minimal, if any, disruption. Finally, COMAR is comprised of career professionals who deal with environmental and health issues associated with electromagnetic exposures from across the non-ionizing spectrum, including power delivery, RF broadcast, and wireless technologies. The advent of 5G technologies has been accompanied by a steady stream of media pieces expressing various opinions on 5G ranging from the ominous to the exculpatory. Given the background and commitment of its members, we feel a unique responsibility to provide an objective assessment of where 5G technologies stand with respect to health and safety issues. COMAR concludes that while we acknowledge gaps in the scientific literature, particularly for exposures at millimeter wave frequencies, the likelihood of yet unknown health hazards at exposure levels within current exposure limits is considered to be very low, if they exist at all.

Acknowledgments—This statement was prepared by the IEEE EMBS Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) with significant contributions from the following: Jerrold T. Bushberg, C-K Chou, Kenneth R. Foster, Robert Kavet, David P. Maxson, Richard A. Tell, and Marvin C. Ziskin. It was revised and approved by COMAR, the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society's Committee on Man and Radiation. It represents a consensus of COMAR, a committee that is composed of experts on health and safety issues related to electromagnetic fields, from power line through microwave frequency ranges. The mission of COMAR is to disseminate authoritative information to the public relating to the safety of nonionizing electromagnetic fields and to correct misinformation that relates to public health on this topic.

COMAR

(Committee on Man and Radiation)

IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society

The Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) is a group of experts on health and safety issues related to electromagnetic fields, from powerline through microwave frequency ranges.

COMAR is a Technical Committee of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). It reports to the EMBS President and Administrative Committee.

COMAR's primary area of interest is biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. It examines and interprets the biological effects and presents its findings in an authoritative manner, usually in Technical Information Statements (TIS's) or Position Papers.  
These papers are subject to an extensive review process within the Committee and represent the consensus of the Committee.

COMAR does not establish safety standards, but it has an interest in the standards activity within its scope.


Monday, June 8, 2020

Cellphone use may be harmful for people with dental braces

Electric Field and SAR Distribution in the Vicinity of Orthodontic Brace Exposed to the Cell Phone Radiation

Jovanovic DB, Krasic DD, Stankovic VB, Cvetkovic, NN, Vuckovic DD. Electric Field and SAR Distribution in the Vicinity of Orthodontic Brace Exposed to the Cell Phone Radiation. Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Journal 34(12):1904-1914. Dec 2019.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of orthodontic brace on the electric field distribution and amount of the absorbed energy from the cell phone within the teeth. A comparative analysis of the models (child and adult) with and without brace has been carried out due to different morphological and tissue characteristics of child's and adult's head. The 3D realistic models of the child's and adult's head, with the jaw having the orthodontic brace, have been designed. The shapes and features of the child and adult head model, as well as the distance between the electromagnetic source and the exposed object, have an important role in the evaluation of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The applied procedure is based on the numerical solution of the electromagnetic waves propagation equations. The numerical analysis has been performed at the frequency of 3G (0.9GHz). The obtained results are represented within the teeth positioned on the side of the electromagnetic radiation source. Based on the obtained results, one can conclude that the presence of orthodontic brace affects the increase of electric field and SAR within the teeth.

Excerpts

"According to previous studies, one can find that the metal objects can significantly increase the amount of absorbed energy. The authors in [1] have found that the SAR values can be several times greater in the presence of metal object. The effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone on nickel release from orthodontic brackets has been taken into consideration in study [2]. It is found that the concentration of nickel in the artificial saliva in the exposure group was significantly higher than that of the control group. The level of the nickel released in this investigation was far below the toxic level but maybe enough that can lead to allergic reaction in humans. One of the previously studies [3] reported the involuntary movements of the subjects, which had gold (metal) alloy dental inlay, caused by electromagnetic waves."

"It is evident that the value of the electric field is significantly greater in the presence of an orthodontic brace for both models. Based on the results shown in Figs. 6-8, as well as the results given in Table 3, the overall conclusion is that the presence of an orthodontic brace increases the electric field strength within the teeth.

Also it is noticeable that the electric field strength in the case of a child is higher comparing to the adult case."

"Since the referent value for the electric field, prescribed by adequate standards at 0.9 GHz, is 41 V/m, comparing the results obtained by numerical calculation with values prescribed by safety standards, it is evident that obtained results exceed the referent levels inside all teeth in both models (with and without the orthodontic brace). However, it should be kept in mind that in the case of model with orthodontic brace the values are many times greater than the allowable values."

"Regarding the obtained results for SAR within the teeth, in the presence of an orthodontic brace, a significant increase in the amount of absorbed energy can be observed. The maximum of SAR1g occurs in the tooth No. 6 in the case of a child (2.46 W/kg). This value is about 65% higher comparing to the adult with orthodontic brace and 45% higher comparing to the results obtained for a child without orthodontic brace. In this tooth and tooth No. 5, the SAR1g overcomes the safety values but only in the case of child in the presence of the orthodontic brace. The amount of absorbed energy inside the other teeth satisfies basic restriction. However, the increase in the amount of absorbed energy in the presence of an orthodontic brace is not negligible."

"Based on the obtained results, one can conclude that the presence of orthodontic brace causes increase of electric field and SAR within the teeth. In some cases, those values overcome referent limits for electric field strength, i.e., safety limits for SAR values."

"Because of the mentioned before and the fact that each standard contains specific safety limits of exposure to electromagnetic fields but they have been developed based on the research for adults, it should be established if they are sufficiently valid also in case of children.

The future researches should be focused on the impact of orthodontic brace on the electric field strength and amount of absorbed energy at the frequency of LTE-4G, and the latest generation of mobile networks – 5G."



Note: The FCC radio frequency radiation exposure limit (i.e., SAR1g) for cell phones is 1.6 W/kg.

--

August 3, 2015

A new peer-reviewed study found that cell phone use significantly increased nickel concentration in the saliva of 50 adult patients who wore dental braces (i.e., fixed orthodontic appliances) as compared to when they did not use their cell phones for a week. Moreover, patients who spoke more on their cell phone had a greater increase in salivary nickel concentration. 

The “adverse effect of radiation on the release of nickel was more prominent in women” because they spoke more on their cell phones. The females averaged 53 minutes during the week they used their cell phones whereas the males averaged 23 minutes.

Nickel is a known toxic and carcinogenic metal. It is also a common cause of metal-induced contact allergic dermatitis. Nickel-containing alloys are often used in orthodontics for metallic brackets, arch wires, and bands.

Previous research either found no increase in salivary nickel concentration after a fixed orthodontic appliance was inserted or a significant increase that tapered off within three weeks after insertion.  The patients in the current study had orthodontic appliances for 2-4 months before they participated to control for this potential confounding effect of time.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires all cell phone models be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head and the body. SAR is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR testing procedure, adopted in 1996, was criticized by the Government Accountability Office in 2012 because it does not simulate today’s typical user or the way cell phones are typically used. The artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, dental braces, metallic earrings or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond that measured in the laboratory. The artificial body test makes the unrealistic assumption that  consumers will carry their cell phones in manufacturer-approved holders that keeps the phones a minimum distance away from their bodies. 

Today many children are cell phone users.  The young child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. The SAR testing procedure does not take this into account.  

Although the current study was conducted on young adults who had fixed orthodontic appliances, the results should have relevance for children who are more likely to be fitted for dental braces than adults.

The paper did not describe the specific types of fixed orthodontic appliances the patients had.

The abstract for the study and excerpts from the paper appear below.

--

Saghiri MA, Orangi J, Asatourian A, Mehriar P, Sheibani N. Effect of mobile phone use on metal ion release from fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Jun;147(6):719-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.023.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:  The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones on the level of nickel in saliva.

METHODS:  Fifty healthy patients with fixed orthodontic appliances were asked not to use their cell phones for a week, and their saliva samples were taken at the end of the week (control group). The patients recorded their time of mobile phone usage during the next week and returned for a second saliva collection (experimental group). Samples at both times were taken between 8:00 and 10:00 pm, and the nickel levels were measured. Two-tailed paired-samples t test, linear regression, independent t test, and 1-way analysis of variance were used for data analysis.

RESULTS:  The 2-tailed paired-samples t test showed significant differences between the levels of nickel in the control and experimental groups (t [49] = 9.967; P <0.001). The linear regression test showed a significant relationship between mobile phone usage time and the nickel release (F [1, 48] = 60.263; P <0.001; R(2) = 0.577).

CONCLUSIONS:  Mobile phone usage has a time-dependent influence on the concentration of nickel in the saliva of patients with orthodontic appliances.


Highlights

•  Radiofrequencies from mobile phones and nickel concentrations in saliva were examined.
•  Mobile phone radiation is positively correlated with nickel concentration in saliva.
•  Nickel concentrations in saliva were different in men and women.

Excerpts

An integral part of modern telecommunication is the mobile phone, which may have negative effects on different organs and cells. These negative impacts culminate from radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RFER) emitted from mobile phones. From 1990 to 2011, worldwide mobile phone subscriptions grew from 12.4 million to over 5.6 billion, and the global pandemic usage of mobile phones was about 70% as of 2011.  Insufficient understanding of the potential adverse health effects of mobile phones have raised concerns among health care professionals.

According to the proximity of mobile phones to the oral cavity during the conversation period and the metallic orthodontic appliances in the mouth, there might be a serious risk in exposure of these appliances to the mobile phone radiation. Archwires, headgear, bands, and brackets used in orthodontics mainly consist of nickel. The harmful effects of nickel have been systematically investigated at the levels of the cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.  According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, nickel compounds are classified as carcinogenic to humans, but it is still unclear which forms of nickel pose the greatest risk. Nickel complexes in the form of arsenides and sulphides are carcinogenic, allergenic, and mutating substances even at nontoxic concentrations. Nickel might induce DNA alterations mainly through basic damage and DNA-strand scission in G12 cultured cells. Empirically, a biologic limit of 30 μg per gram has been proposed for nickel in the urine of workers exposed to soluble nickel compounds at the end of their shifts.

Nickel is a common metal that can cause allergic contact dermatitis more than all other metals. Previous studies have indicated that approximately 10% of the population is sensitive to nickel, and this sensitivity is more commonly seen in female patients.

The anatomic location of the parotid gland (at the anterior border of the external ear and between the mandibular ramus and the sternocleidomastoid muscle, 4- to 10-mm deep under the skin surface) makes it a conceivable candidate to be influenced by exposure to RFER on the side of the head where the mobile phone is held. Some researchers, in both human and animal studies, have confirmed that mobile phones cause significant increases in salivary oxidative stress, salivary flow, total proteins, and albumin, whereas amylase activity was decreased. In a nationwide case-control study, Sadetzki et al examined the correlation between parotid gland tumors and mobile phone usage and indicated a positive dose-dependent response trend. Thus, the RFER emitted from mobile phones may influence the amount of nickel released from the fixed orthodontic appliances.

… the aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that exposure to RFER emitted by mobile phones can affect the level of nickel in saliva. In addition, the effect of different times of exposure to the RFER was evaluated on the concentration of nickel in saliva.

Fifty healthy patients (25 men, 25 women; average age, 25.2 years; range, 23-26 years) who had fixed orthodontic appliances were selected for the study. Candidates needed placement of full orthodontic appliances for at least 2 months and no more than 4 months to satisfy the inclusion criterion.

During the regular checkups, the patients were asked not to use their cell phones for 1 week, and saliva samples were taken from them at the end of the week (this was considered the control group). For the next visit, a chronometer was given to the patients to calculate how many minutes they used their cell phone during the second week of the experiment. At the end of the second week, saliva samples were again collected, and the sexes, ages, and cell phone usage times were also recorded; this was considered the experimental group. The saliva samples were sent to the laboratory for further analysis.

The main outcome of the study was a significantly higher concentration of nickel ions in patients' saliva after using their mobile phones compared with the control group. The mobile phones used in this study had emissions of radiation in the normal range of 800 to 2200 MHz, as mentioned above.

The concentrations of salivary calcium, magnesium, and phosphate were lower in the mobile user group.  Our results showed that the concentrations of nickel ions after using a cell phone for 1 week were significantly higher than the concentrations in the control group. This might be attributed to the greater flow rate and the lower concentration of the components in saliva, which in turn result in more nickel released from fixed orthodontic appliances into the saliva.

The linear regression test showed a positive significant increase in nickel concentration with mobile phone usage time. In other words, the longer the exposure to the RFEF emitted by a mobile phone, the greater the concentration of nickel in saliva.

According to results of our study, mobile phone radiation might cause DNA damage indirectly by influencing the release of nickel from fixed orthodontic appliances. Thus, the necessity of studying the effects of this radiation on metal ions released from fixed orthodontic appliances in adjacent tissues seems to be undeniable.

Conclusions
According to the outcomes of this study, it can be concluded that mobile phone radiation, regardless of the type of phone, can influence the concentration of nickel in saliva in a time-dependent manner. In addition, this adverse effect of radiation on the release of nickel was more prominent in women because of longer usage times. Future large-scale studies, which should include more parameters such as the effects on the parotid glands or the saliva flow rate, are needed.

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Symptoms Experienced by Persons with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Submissions to FCC Docket #13-84

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requested public input regarding radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits and policies in the United States via Docket #13-84 in 2013. The earliest submission for this docket was dated June 24, 2012. As of January 21, 2020, the FCC had received 1,302 submissions for this docket.

In November 2013, the cities of Boston and Philadelphia filed a submission to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (Dockets #13-84 and #03-137) that accused the FCC and federal health agencies of negligence for failing to investigate whether electrosensitive persons are harmed by wireless radiation:
"The FCC admits its own lack of expertise in the field. But the overlap of federal agency responsibilities for RF radiation protection and the merely advisory status of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group often leaves leadership unclear and encourages a pass-the-buck attitude ..."
"The 1999-2000 judicial challenge to the FCC’s 1996 rules never reached the issue of “electrosensitivity” as a cognizable disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (“ADA”) Here again, an agency responsible for ADA implementation acknowledges that the impairment may be disabling but has promised merely further inquiry. After more than a decade, that investigation remains unopened. The dockets here have been updated with massive additional evidence of the crippling effects of RF radiation on an admitted minority – but a suffering minority – of U.S. citizens. The FCC and its sister regulatory agencies share responsibility for adherence to the ADA and should replace promises with serious attention to a serious medical problem. This is one area where the FCC could lead in advice to electrosensitive persons about prudent avoidance."
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the nation's first comprehensive civil rights law that addresses the needs of people with disabilities, prohibiting discrimination in employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications. The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a history of having such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.

Many of the submissions to Docket #13-84 called on the FCC to strengthen existing RFR exposure limits. I created an index with links to representative submissions for this docket on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site located at http://bit.ly/FCCNOI. The index is organized using the following categories: (1) resolutions from scientists calling for stronger regulations; (2) expert comments that support stronger regulations; (3) expert comments that support weaker regulations; (4) advice from consumer, environmental and health organizations; (5) advice from government agencies; (6) advice from wireless industry corporations and associations; and (7) miscellaneous other. I also created links to important scientific papers submitted for this docket.

The following results are based on submissions to FCC Docket #13-84 from persons who self-identified as experiencing electromagnetic sensitivity or hypersensitivity (EHS).



Persons Reporting Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) in Submissions
to FCC Docket #13-84 (N = 184)
  
TABLE 1: Common Symptoms Attributed to Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure
(N = 1641)
52% Headaches or migraines
48% Other neuro-cognitive problems (memory/concentration/confusion/dizziness)
31% Insomnia or sleep disorders
29% Cardiovascular problems (mostly heart palpitations)
23% Tinnitus (ringing in ears)
18% Digestive problems (mostly nausea)
17% Fatigue
16% Nervous system disorders
13% Eyes/vision problems
 8% Muscular problems (weakness, pain)
32% Other symptoms


1 Of the 184 individuals who reported experiencing EHS in their submissions to FCC Docket #13-84, many reported multiple symptoms and/or sources of exposure. Twenty individuals did not report symptoms, and 27 did not report sources of exposure.


The report can be downloaded from: https://bit.ly/EHSFCC13-84.

Related Posts:

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)