Tuesday, October 1, 2024

"Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?" Webinar

 Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?

A webinar by Dr. Joel Moskowitz sponsored by 

The Collaborative for Health & Environment 

September 25, 2024


In this webinar, Dr. Joel Moskowitz provides a brief overview of selected recent studies on health hazards of wireless technologies. He discussed a meta-analysis of case-control studies of cell phone use and tumor risk, as well as the state of the evidence on tumor risk and other health hazards. He also addressed the World Health Organization's recent efforts to assure the public that wireless radiation exposure is safe by commissioning flawed reviews of the research.

Wireless technologies, including cell phones, wireless internet, and Bluetooth devices, have become ubiquitous in our lives. Most adults in the US own a cell phone, and cell phone use is widespread among children and adolescents. New cell antenna sites are being deployed widely. Wireless technologies and equipment designs also change rapidly.

The preponderance of scientific evidence shows adverse biological and health effects from the radiofrequency (RF) radiation, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs), used and generated by these devices. A number of studies have considered the mechanisms of biological harm from RF radiation, and federal studies have documented increased incidence of certain tumors in laboratory animals associated with RF exposure. Epidemiological studies have found increased risk of certain tumors associated with long-term use of wireless phones. 

Dr. Moskowitz has conducted research on disease prevention programs and policies for more than 40 years, most recently focusing on adverse health effects of cell phone and wireless radiation. In 2009 he served as the senior author on a hallmark paper reviewing research on mobile phone use and increased brain tumor risk that was updated in 2020. He has disseminated research related to wireless technology, public health, and policy since 2009. He is a member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) and an advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal signed by more than 250 scientists who published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website is a valuable resource for scientists, journalists, and the public.

https://www.healthandenvironment.org/che-webinars/96771


Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV9Yk99iJdg

Slides: https://bit.ly/RFhazardsslidesCHE09-25-24

Monday, July 1, 2024

The Cohort Study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS)

The authors of COSMOS mobile phone-brain tumor study (Feychting et al., 2024a) failed to address numerous issues in their response (Feychting et al., 2024b) to the ICBE-EMF letter (Moskowitz et al., 2024) critiquing their study. ICBE-EMF stands by its call for a retraction of the study's conclusions and demands that the data set be made available to independent investigators who have no industry ties.

Mads Rohde (MR), a senior advisor at the Cancer Registry of Norway, input the text from the ICBE-EMF letter into ChatGPT followed by the response to the letter. Then MR submitted the following queries to ChatGPT:

MR: so u see the first was a critique and the next was a reply?

ChatGPT: "Yes, I see that the first document was a critique of the COSMOS study on mobile phone use and brain tumor risk, pointing out several methodological flaws and issues with exposure and outcome assessment, latency periods, statistical power, and potential funding bias. The second document was a reply from the authors of the COSMOS study, addressing the criticisms, defending their methodology, explaining their exposure assessment and outcome ascertainment, and emphasizing the independence and rigor of their research process."

MR: ok, tell me what the response did not adequately address (which limitations that still apply even if we take their reply for being true).

ChatGPT: "Here are the limitations that the response from the COSMOS study authors did not adequately address, even if we take their reply at face value:
  1. Exposure Assessment Limitations:

    • Lack of Updated Exposure Information: The reply acknowledges that the study did not update exposure information during the follow-up period (median 7.12 years), which is crucial as mobile phone technology and usage patterns evolved significantly during this time.
    • Variability in RF-EMF Exposure: The reply did not adequately address the substantial variability in RF-EMF exposure due to different cellular technologies and signal strengths. While they mention that newer technologies emit lower levels of RF-EMF, the exposure from earlier technologies was not comprehensively accounted for.
  2. Confounding Factors and Other RF-EMF Sources:

    • Other RF-EMF Sources: The response did not fully address the critique that the study did not control for other sources of RF-EMF exposure such as cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, and cell towers.
    • Unexposed Group: The lack of a completely unexposed group remains a limitation. The authors argue that non-users would be an unsuitable comparison group due to confounding factors, but this does not mitigate the critique that without an unexposed group, the ability to detect risk differences is compromised.
  3. Outcome Assessment Issues:

    • Under-Reporting of Brain Tumors: While the authors refuted the claim of under-reporting based on administrative changes, the potential under-reporting in cancer registries remains a concern, especially for benign tumors like meningioma. The response did not convincingly dismiss the possibility of under-reporting affecting the study's results.
  4. Statistical Power:

    • Insufficient Number of Cases: The response acknowledges limited statistical power, especially for acoustic neuroma and meningioma. Despite their defense, the critique that the study had fewer cases than expected and thus limited power to detect significant associations stands valid.
  5. Latency Periods:

    • Insufficient Long-Term Data: The response did not adequately address the critique about insufficient long-term follow-up data. For cancers with long latency periods, the study's follow-up duration may not be sufficient to detect potential risks associated with long-term mobile phone use.
  6. Funding and Potential Bias:

    • Industry Funding Influence: The reply defends the independence of the study despite industry funding. However, the critique about potential funding bias due to partial industry funding and its influence on research outcomes remains a point of concern that was not fully mitigated by the authors' response.

In summary, while the COSMOS study authors addressed many points raised in the critique, significant limitations regarding exposure assessment, confounding factors, outcome assessment, statistical power, latency periods, and potential funding bias still apply and were not completely resolved by their reply."

References

Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Poulsen AH, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, Huss A, Johansen C, Tettamanti G, Elliott P. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environment International, Volume 185, 2024a, 108552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024001387).

Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Poulsen AH, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, Huss A, Johansen C, Tettamanti G, Elliott P. Response to the letter to the editor regarding “Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk − COSMOS, a prospective cohort study”. Environment International, Volume 189, 2024b, 108808, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108808. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003945).

Moskowitz JM, Frank JW, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Héroux P, Kelley E, Lai H, Maisch D, Mallery-Blythe E, Philips A. COSMOS. A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use. Environment International, Volume 190, 2024, 108807, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108807. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933).

--

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.


Excerpts from the ICBE-EMF letter:

Moskowitz JM, Frank JW, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Héroux P, Kelley E, Lai H, Maisch D, Mallery-Blythe E, Philips A. COSMOS: A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use. Environ Int. 2024;190;108807, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108807. Open access paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933

We write to point out serious methodological problems with the Cohort Study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS) brain tumor risk paper (Feychting et al., 2024). Because of these flaws, the study does not provide reliable estimates of the risks of tumors associated with exposure to mobile phone radio frequency radiation (RFR). This paper which summarizes interim results from this 25-plus year cohort study (Schüz et al., 2011) demonstrates many of the overall study’s shortcomings....

1. Problems with exposure assessment

... Misclassification of RFR exposure was substantial because the amount of exposure from a mobile phone varies by up to four orders of magnitude depending on the cellular network technology and the strength of the signal from the cell tower (Wall et al., 2019). COSMOS did not account for this variability. The study also did not control for other sources of RFR exposure, including cordless phones, personal wireless devices, Wi-Fi routers, and cell towers....

Since almost everyone in this cohort study regularly used mobile phones at baseline (including two-thirds who used mobile phones for 10 or more years) and many were exposed to others sources of RFR (e.g., cordless DECT phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi), there was no unexposed group. That the authors chose to use the bottom 50 % of the mobile phone use distribution as the reference group instead of a more extreme percentile cutoff (e.g., the bottom decile of mobile phone use) does not seem defensible....

2. Problems with outcome assessment

The incidence of brain tumors may be under-reported in the five national cancer registries that this study relied upon to assess outcomes....

3. Latency, type and location of tumors

Most human cancers have long latencies, requiring many years to decades after exposure to carcinogens before clinical presentation and diagnosis (Armenian, 1987, Nadler and Zurbenko, 2022). Accordingly, it is critical in cohort studies like COSMOS to stratify on the total length of time between initiation of any given level of exposure – in this case to RFR – and the date of cancer diagnosis, especially since so many members of the COSMOS cohort already had many years of substantial RFR exposure when recruited....

This interim study by Feychting et al. (2024) does not have a sufficient number of subjects followed for more than a decade after RFR exposure began to rule out elevated risks of these two tumors after the most relevant latent periods for carcinogenesis....

4. Statistical issues

Although the authors acknowledged that “Statistical power was limited for meningioma and acoustic neuroma,” we contend that glioma with only 149 incident cases in this study of 1.836 million person years also had limited statistical power. The confidence intervals for the hazard ratios were large. Moreover, the power analysis in the COSMOS design paper (Table 2, Schüz et al., 2011) assumed an annual incidence rate of 15 per 100,000 for brain tumors, whereas the glioma annual incidence rate in the current study was 8.11 per 100,000. Thus, no analysis of tumor risk in this paper had adequate statistical power.

We question whether the study adequately addressed the heterogeneity among countries....

The Data Availability section of the paper states, “The data that has been used is confidential.” If the authors are using this as the reason not to share their data, then the results cannot be confirmed by independent investigators. Since these data have potentially important policy implications, the data set must be accessible to other researchers....

5. Industry research funding

Funding bias is well-recognized in biomedical research (Bekelman et al., 2003). Industry-funded studies were less likely to report statistically significant health-related effects associated with mobile phone use than non-industry funded studies (Huss et al., 2007, Moskowitz et al., 2020). For example, a review of experimental studies concluded, “industry-sponsored studies were least likely to report results suggesting effects… The source of funding and conflicts of interest are important to consider in this area of research (van Nierop et al., 2010).

COSMOS was partially funded by the telecommunications industry in three countries, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Feychting et al., 2024)....

6. Conclusions

Given the serious methodologic problems with this interim COSMOS paper discussed above, we recommend that the authors retract their conclusion: “Our findings to date, together with other available scientific evidence, suggest that mobile phone use is not associated with increased risk of developing these tumours.”.

To support this assertion the authors relied on evidence from three cohort studies (Feychting et al., 2024, Schüz et al., 2006, Schüz, 2022) with weak methodology (Ahlbom et al., 2007, Birnbaum et al., 2022, Moskowitz, 2022, Söderqvist et al., 2012). For example, IARC concluded, “reliance on subscription to a mobile phone provider, as a surrogate for mobile phone use, could have resulted in considerable misclassification in exposure assessment” (Baan et al., 2011). Schüz et al. (2022) did not provide data on cumulative phone use. To support their “no association” conclusion, the COSMOS authors also cited time-trend studies; yet, these studies reported significant increases in brain tumor incidence in age-specific subgroups (e.g., de Vocht, 2021, Deltour et al., 2022, Elwood et al., 2022: Ostrom et al., 2022). Finally, the COSMOS authors cited a review of case-control studies that dismissed the results of the cumulative call time analysis by relegating it to the appendix (i.e., Supplemental Figure 2, Röösli et al., 2019).

In contrast to Röösli et al., 2019, Choi et al., 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies”found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime,” and called for high quality, prospective cohort studies to confirm the results of the case-control research.


The COSMOS paper on brain tumor risk:

Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Poulsen AH, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, Huss A, Johansen C, Tettamanti G, Elliott P. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environ Int. 2024;185; 108552, doi: org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552. Open access paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024001387

Abstract

Background  Each new generation of mobile phone technology has triggered discussions about potential carcinogenicity from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Available evidence has been insufficient to conclude about long-term and heavy mobile phone use, limited by differential recall and selection bias, or crude exposure assessment. The Cohort Study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS) was specifically designed to overcome these shortcomings.

Methods  We recruited participants in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK 2007–2012. The baseline questionnaire assessed lifetime history of mobile phone use. Participants were followed through population-based cancer registers to identify glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma cases during follow-up. Non-differential exposure misclassification was reduced by adjusting estimates of mobile phone call-time through regression calibration methods based on self-reported data and objective operator-recorded information at baseline. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma in relation to lifetime history of mobile phone use were estimated with Cox regression models with attained age as the underlying time-scale, adjusted for country, sex, educational level, and marital status.

Results  264,574 participants accrued 1,836,479 person-years. During a median follow-up of 7.12 years, 149 glioma, 89 meningioma, and 29 incident cases of acoustic neuroma were diagnosed. The adjusted HR per 100 regression-calibrated cumulative hours of mobile phone call-time was 1.00 (95 % CI 0.98–1.02) for glioma, 1.01 (95 % CI 0.96–1.06) for meningioma, and 1.02 (95 % CI 0.99–1.06) for acoustic neuroma. For glioma, the HR for ≥ 1908 regression-calibrated cumulative hours (90th percentile cut-point) was 1.07 (95 % CI 0.62–1.86). Over 15 years of mobile phone use was not associated with an increased tumour risk; for glioma the HR was 0.97 (95 % CI 0.62–1.52).

Conclusions  Our findings suggest that the cumulative amount of mobile phone use is not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma.


References (in chronological order; all papers are open access)

Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Poulsen AH, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, Huss A, Johansen C, Tettamanti G, Elliott P. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environ Int. 2024;185; 108552, doi: org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552. 

Kundi M. Letter to the editor. Environ Int. 2024 May;187:108665. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108665. 

Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Poulsen AH, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, Huss A, Johansen C, Tettamanti G, Elliott P. Response to the Letter to the Editor regarding "Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk - COSMOS, a prospective cohort study". Environ Int. 2024 May;187:108664. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108664.  

Moskowitz JM, Frank JW, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Héroux P, Kelley E, Lai H, Maisch D, Mallery-Blythe E, Philips A. COSMOS: A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use. Environ Int. 2024;190;108807, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108807. 

Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Poulsen AH, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, Huss A, Johansen C, Tettamanti G, Elliott P. Response to the letter to the editor regarding “Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk − COSMOS, a prospective cohort study”. Environ Int. 2024;189;108808, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108808. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003945 

Thursday, May 16, 2024

Webinar: Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?

CHE: Collaborative for Health & Environment

September 25, 2024
2:00 pm US Eastern Time

RSVP for This Webinar

Wireless technologies, including cell phones, wireless internet, and Bluetooth devices, have become ubiquitous in our lives. Most adults in the US own a cell phone, and cell phone use is widespread among children and adolescents. New cell antenna sites are being deployed widely. Wireless technologies and equipment designs also change rapidly.

The preponderance of scientific evidence shows adverse biological and health effects from the radiofrequency (RF) radiation, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs), used and generated by these devices. A number of studies have considered the mechanisms of biological harm from RF radiation, and federal studies have documented increased incidence of certain tumors in laboratory animals associated with RF exposure. Epidemiological studies have found increased risk of certain tumors associated with long-term use of wireless phones. 

In this webinar, Dr. Joel Moskowitz will provide a brief overview of selected recent studies on health hazards of wireless technologies. He will briefly discuss a meta-analysis of case-control studies of cell phone use and tumor risk, as well as the state of the evidence on children’s brain cancers, thyroid cancers, and other health hazards. This webinar is designed to provide a brief introduction to a subset of the recent scientific evidence, with a focus on cancer and on children’s health.

Featured Speaker

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. is the Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, UC Berkeley. Dr. Moskowitz has conducted research on disease prevention programs and policies for more than 40 years, most recently focusing on adverse health effects of cell phone and wireless radiation. In 2009 he served as the senior author on a hallmark paper reviewing research on mobile phone use and increased brain tumor risk published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. He has disseminated research related to wireless technology, public health, and policy since 2009. He is a member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) and an advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal signed by more than 250 scientists who published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website is a valuable resource for scientists, journalists, and the public


Sunday, February 25, 2024

Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure

To learn why it is important to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation see my Welcome to EMR Safety page for an overview of the health risks including presentations, radio interviews, and podcasts. 

This page contains safety tips from various organizations on how to reduce your exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, laptops, tablets, Wi-Fi routers, and other wireless technology. 

To download the following one-page handout click on the link:  https://bit.ly/wirelesstipsheet




---




---

Environmental Working Group, November 2022

EWG’s big picture recommendations for wireless devices

  • Default to airplane mode.
  • Increase distance from devices.
  • Turn off when not in use.
  • Used wired devices if possible.

Children are almost constantly exposed to wireless radiation, starting as early as the first weeks of life. As they get older, that exposure grows every day, thanks to the widespread use of smartphones, laptops and other wireless devices in the classroom and at home.

Wireless devices radiate radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Research has raised concerns about the health risks of exposure to this radiation, including harm to the nervous and reproductive systems, and higher risk of cancer. Cell phone radiation was classified a “possible carcinogen” in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization. The agency said human epidemiological studies showed a link between higher risk of a type of malignant brain cancer and cell phone use.

At home

Parents and caregivers can exert more control over their kids’ wireless radiation exposure at home than at school, and have more latitude to try new ways of using devices.

Getting started

To begin, inventory your home’s electronic devices. Consider smart speakers, cordless phones and mouses, gaming consoles, cell phones, wireless security systems and electric alarm clocks, among other types of technology. Even things you might not think emit electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation, like Fitbits and other wearable fitness devices, are a source of wireless radiation exposure and best for young kids to avoid.

Increase distance

The first, easiest-to-implement option is to increase the distance between your child and wireless devices in the home. The more distance, the less exposure.

Wired headphones or the speaker mode on a cell phone can put distance between the device and kids’ bodies. They should carry the device in a backpack or bag, not a pocket.

When no one is actively using the device, make sure it’s in airplane mode. Otherwise, the device will keep seeking the “signal” – it will continue trying to communicate with nearby cell towers, producing unnecessary radiation.

Another simple but important fix: Locate routers and cordless phone base stations – the worst radiation offenders – away from where your kids sleep, study and play. See if you can lower your Wi-Fi router’s output. It may be set to “High” as a default, which could create more intense wireless radiation output than anyone in your household needs.

Choose wired

To reduce radiation exposures significantly, many experts recommend using wired devices whenever possible. Make replacing wireless headphones with wired your first step then, over time, choose auxiliary devices that plug in or are battery-powered, including keyboards, mouses and microphones. Wireless earbuds also emit radiofrequency radiation, so limit the use of such devices, especially for children and youth.

Here are some other ways to reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation from wireless.

The big picture

  • Aside from the obvious devices (phones, tablets, computers, game consoles), think twice about wireless digital baby monitors and other wireless or virtual devices. If used, such devices and appliances should be kept away from bedrooms and other areas where children sleep.
  • Shut off all wireless devices, including your router, at night and when they’re not in use.
  • Consult this checklist for a low-electromagnetic field, or EMF, set-up published by Environmental Health Trust if you or a family member spend a lot of time at a computer.

At night

  • Strongly encourage your child not to sleep near their wireless gadgets. If this isn’t possible – and let’s face it, with teenagers, you may not succeed at wresting the phone or tablet away – try to convince them to place it away from their head instead of under a pillow.
  • Even better, keep electronics out of bedrooms as much as possible, or at least away from beds. This includes TV screens and audio speakers.
  • Use an old-fashioned electric or battery alarm clock that doesn’t connect to Wi-Fi. And get one for your children if they claim to need their cell phone so they can get up in the morning.
  • Move beds away from utility meters or large appliances, which also emit radiation, even if they’re on the other side of a wall.

Studying, playing and communicating

  • Experts recommend starting a child’s cell phone use as late as practical, considering the family and educational context and needs of each child. The younger kids are, the more vulnerable their bodies are to potentially harmful effects of wireless radiation exposure.
  • Encourage your children to use a device’s speaker function or wired earbuds when they want to use their phone to talk.
  • Download movies and shows instead of streaming them, then watch in airplane mode. Even better, watch on a wired computer or screen.
  • Teach and encourage your children to use their laptop or tablet placed on a table or another hard surface, away from their bodies.
  • Get wired – consider getting cords and cables for your kids’ game console, and turning it off when your children finish playing.

Powering down

  • Put phones in airplane mode as much as possible when they are near children, with both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth turned off. If they (or you) want to put a phone in a pocket or backpack, turn it off first.
  • Also, power devices down when you’re in transit, like on a plane, train, bus or in a car.
  • Get to know when radiation emissions are highest – streaming video, traveling in a car, or when the signal is poor – and do what you can to help your child avoid these scenarios. (To see how strong or weak the signal is, check how many bars it has.)

At school

Parents and caregivers don’t have nearly as much control at school over how much their child is exposed to wireless radiation as they do at home. And with technology ever more prevalent in educational settings, chances are kids are close to a variety of devices all day.

Nearly half of U.S. schools report having a computer for every child, according to a Department of Education study. Another 37 percent have a computer for each child in some age groups. In some cases, kids may take the device home with them for long or short periods. The survey also said 70 percent of teachers use technology in the classroom.

It’s tough to shield your child from wireless radiation exposure entirely. But you can take steps to lower their exposure based on advice published by experts. Start by approaching school administrators with your concerns. Learn your school or district’s cell phone policy. If none exists, request that a committee be formed to develop a policy and plan trainings for teachers about safe technology use.

Here are a few ideas teachers can implement in the classroom or that schools and school districts can use. The gold standard: Whenever possible, use wired connections for laptops, tablets, interactive white boards, printers and other devices.

If a wired school network isn’t feasible:

  • Emphasize keeping devices off and turning them on only when in use – and issue frequent reminders.
  • Students’ personal electronic devices, like cell phones, should be turned off or in airplane mode during school.
  • Make sure the school policy on wireless device use is posted in classrooms.
  • Ask school districts to equip new facilities with wired technology.
  • Many experts recommend setting school Wi-Fi routers to the lowest possible level that still allows educational content access, as well as turning off routers when they’re not in use.

Wireless technology use during the pandemic

From the start of the coronavirus pandemic, wireless technology became the main path for accessing education and participating in virtual classrooms for kids and families in the U.S. and across the globe. In 2020, a survey found nearly half of 2- to 4-year-olds and about two in three kids ages 5 to 8 already owned their own mobile devices, a tablet or smartphone – and that was before the Covid-19-related school closures prompted desperate working parents nationwide to employ wireless devices as babysitters and educators.

That’s many kids with constant access to wireless devices – and also exposed to the health risks of wireless radiation. Parents have taken note of these potential harms. A European citizens group coalition in March called for simple steps to protect kids by swapping wireless for cables in places where children spend time and educating the public about the dangers of exposure.

Earlier this year, EWG together with more than 22,000 people petitioned federal regulators to establish stricter standards for kids’ exposure to wireless devices’ radiofrequency radiation.

For more information

To find additional resources, advocacy guidance, tip sheets and other useful suggestions, consult the websites of one of these organizations:

  • The Environmental Health Trust’s “Wi-Fi in Schools Toolkit” offers a wealth of resources, including fact sheets and tip sheets, background on the science of EMF exposure, and guidance for parents, teachers and schools. It also has more than a dozen downloadable and printable posters on exposure and sleep, children’s development, and the effects of EMF exposure on breast cancer risk and male reproductive health.
  • An Environmental Health in Nursing textbook downloadable chapter on EMF, courtesy of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, contains useful information, like a detailed explanation of the health impacts of EMF exposure, advocate organizations’ tip sheets, and other valuable resources.
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics issued recommendations about EMF exposure.
  • The Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition offers a downloadable backgrounder for students and educators on “Cell Phones, Wireless and Your Health,” which includes suggested activities to use in the classroom and as homework. It includes a list of additional websites you may choose to consult.

---

Safety Recommendations for Children Who Use Digital Technologies to Study at Home

Scientific Research Institute of Hygiene and Children's Health in the Russian Ministry of Health 
and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RusCNIRP)
March 25, 2020 

(The recommendations were translated from Russian using Google's translation tool and then edited for easier reading on the Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.) 

The following recommendations for distance learning at home are intended for children (up to 18 years of age) and their parents and grandparents and anyone who helps children study at home using digital technologies.

1. Children under 18 years of age who study at home should primarily use personal computers and laptops connected to the Internet via a wired network. When using a wireless network, the distance from the Wi-Fi router to the student should be at least 5 meters (16 feet).

2. The keyboard of the computer or laptop must be disinfected with an antiseptic every day before starting work. The monitor also needs to be treated with an antiseptic agent.

3. Before using the keyboard wash the hands of both the child and the adult who helps him or her.

4. To reduce the risk of visual impairment and musculoskeletal system disorders, provide a child working at a computer or laptop with a convenient workplace (the height of the table and chair should correspond to the height of the child), to exclude the illumination of the monitor screen.

5. The main light source at the child's workplace should be located on the side of the screen (not behind the screen and not from the back of the person working with the screen). The brightness of the source should approximately correspond to the brightness of the screen.


6. The use of tablets for distance learning at home is acceptable for adolescents over 15 years old. Before using the tablet, you need to wash your hands and wipe the screen with a disinfectant (wet towel). The location of the Wi-Fi point should be at least 5 meters (16 feet) from the student’s workplace. The tablet is placed on the table on a stand at an angle of 30 degrees, the distance from the screen to the pupil’s eyes is at least 50 centimeters (20 inches). Do not use a laptop or tablet on your lap, in your hands, lying down and the like.
30 degree angle
         
7. For all age groups: completely avoid use of smartphones for educational purposes (reading, searching for information)

8. For all age groups: for reading or completing tasks, mainly use ordinary books and notebooks.

9. Children under 6 years old must not use any computer equipment for educational purposes at home.

10. Children 6 to 12 years of age should minimize the use of computer equipment for educational purposes at home. If it is necessary to use it, the total duration of all types of on-screen activities should not exceed 2 hours per day (including watching TV). The class schedule should be based on a one-to-three schedule for 6 to 8 year olds (for every 10 minutes of work 30 minutes of rest) and one-to-two schedule for ages over 8 and up to 12 years (for every 10 minutes of work - 20 minutes of rest).

11. For children 12 to 18 years of age, the following mode of computer use is recommended: “one to two” for 12 to 15 year olds (for every 30 minutes of work - 60 minutes of rest) and “one to one” for children for 16 to 18 year olds (for every 45 minutes of work - 45 minutes of rest). 


The total duration of all types of screen activities for children 12 to 18 years of age, including watching TV, should not exceed 3.5–4 hours per day.

12. For the prevention of visual fatigue, perform gymnastics for the eyes during the break; for the prevention of general fatigue - a warm-up (tilts, body turns, squats, etc.)

13. If necessary to use headphones limit their continuous use: no more than an hour at a volume of not more than 60%.

14. Ventilate the room where the students study, before the start of classes (at least 15 minutes) and after each hour of work.

15. Do not use tablets and smartphones for educational purposes outdoors (in the park, on the playground and similar places).


The above recommendations are based upon research from multicenter studies on children's health and safety while using digital educational technologies, materials from the Scientific Research Institute of Hygiene and Children's Health “NRCM of Children's Health,” and the Russian National Committee for Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation, as well as recommendations from the World Health Organization and the best safety practices for children's digital educational environments.

--

California Department of Public Health


In December, 2017, the California Department of Public Health captured worldwide attention when it published an official cell phone safety document,"How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones." The three-page document is available at http://bit.ly/CDPHguidance.

In March, 2017, before the judge could finalize her ruling in a lawsuit we filed under the Public Records Act, the California Department of Public Health released an unofficial cell phone safety document, "Cellphones and Health," dated April, 2014. The document was originally written in 2009 but never released to the public. More information is available on my web site.
To download 3-page document: http://bit.ly/CDPHguidance

More Safety Tips

American Academy of Pediatrics. "Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know." http://bit.ly/AAPrecs

Athens Medical Association. "16 Rules to Reduce Wireless Radiation Exposure." http://bit.ly/2pOt2HG

Baby Safe Project. "What You Need to Know about Wireless Radiation and Your Baby."
bit.ly/BabySafeEMR

City of Berkeley. Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance.

Canadians for Safe Technology. "Wireless Safety Tips. http://bit.ly/C4STtips

Connecticut Department of Public Health. "Cell Phones: Questions and Answers about Safety." http://bit.ly/cellphoneFAQsConn

Consumer Reports. "Cell Phone Radiation Warnings." http://bit.ly/CRwarnings

Electrosensitive Society. "How to reduce your exposure: Electromagnetic hygiene in 12 easy steps. http://bit.ly/ESsafetytips

Environmental Health Trust. "10 Tips to Reduce Cell Phone Radiation."  http://bit.ly/EHT10tips

Environmental Working Group. "EWG's Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use." http://bit.ly/EWGcellphone

German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Recommendations from the BfS for making telephone calls on mobile communications. http://bit.ly/BfScalls

German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Smartphones and tablets--tips to reduce radiation exposure. http://bit.ly/GFRPtips

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. "Safety Tips on Reducing Wireless Radiation Exposure." https://bit.ly/ICBE-safety-tips 

New Jersey Education Association. "Minimize Health Risks from Electronic Devices." NJEA Review. Sept 2016. bit.ly/NJEAtips

Physicians for Safe Technology. "Safety Tips for Wireless Devices." bit.ly/MDsafeTechTips

Prevent Cancer Now, "11 Ways to Use Your Cell Phone More Safely."  https://preventcancernow.ca/11-ways-to-use-your-cell-phone-safely/

Vienna Medical Association. "Mobile Phone Information." 




Saturday, February 3, 2024

Featured News Stories


  "In a shocking reversal, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has quietly disclosed that it will stop studying the biological or environmental impacts of cell phone radiofrequency radiation." 

Louis Slesin. Paul Brodeur: The Original Microwave Pioneer. Microwave News, October 9, 2023.

  "Brodeur got the facts right. Electromagnetic radiation can do more than simple heating. This has been known—but denied—for decades. As for links to cancer, they have grown stronger over the years .... he was right about a cover-up. It continues today."

Peter Elkind. What to Know About Cellphone Radiation. ProPublica, January 4, 2023.
 
  ProPublica recently examined how the federal government, based on quarter-century-old standards, denies that cellphones pose any risks. This guide answers some of the most common questions people ask about cellphone radiation.     

Peter Elkind. How the FCC Shields Cellphone Companies From Safety Concerns. ProPublica, November 10, 2022.  

   A major exposé of the FCC's negligence and complicity with the telecom industry .... "The wireless industry is rolling out thousands of new transmitters amid a growing body of research that calls cellphone safety into question. Federal regulators say there’s nothing to worry about — even as they rely on standards established in 1996."

Ahmad El Hajj. Will 5G Kill Me? When Telecom Politics Become a Deadly Sin. Inside Telecom (International Telecoms Business Magazine), May 4, 2022.

  "What is the safe exposure time to these radiations? What is the safe distance between a person and a transmitting antenna? What are safe transmission power levels? Why haven’t safety guidelines been updated for some time? Why are the opinions of some scientists been disregarded? Can telecom tower radiations clearly cause cancer or other devastating effects?"

Lyle Laver. Raise the Roof. The National Business Post, March 29, 2022.

  "It is great to have immediate access in our mobile world, but at what cost? Should we “raise the roof” on this issue and 'put it up to 11?' Certainly, that is what the WIA and the FCC are doing right now; and the longer we wait, the more we will see this infrastructure devalue our neighborhoods, homes and health. These electromagnetic fields will only grow in strength and frequency."

Barbara Koeppel. Federal Court Instructs FCC to Review Electromagnetic Radiation Standards. The Washington Spectator, March 9, 2022.

  "For 25 years ... the Federal Communications Commission has refused to revise the regulations it set in 1996 that address what level of radiation from cell phones should be considered safe."

Anne Brice. Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it. Berkeley News, July 1, 2021.

  " there are strong parallels between what the telecom industry has done and what the tobacco industry has done, in terms of marketing and controlling messaging to the public."


  Oregon's public health agency issued a shoddy, biased report on the potential harm to 600,000 schoolkids from wireless devices in classrooms.

Dariusz Leszczynski. 5G is testing the limits of trust. Medium, April 13, 2021.

  "ICNIRP’s guidelines, in addition to being set to prevent only thermal effects, are also based only on short-term, acute exposures ... there is very little research on long-term chronic exposures... applying ICNIRP guidelines to long-term exposures is based on an assumption of safety and not on the scientific evidence."

Devra Davis. Why I'm challenging the FCC about antiquated safety standards for wireless devices. The Washington Times, February 23, 2021.

  "In 1996, Congress decided the FCC should have the primary responsibility for protecting the public from radiation exposure even though it has no health expertise and typically sides with phone companies rather than citizens. That was a mistake..."

Katie Alvord. Is Wireless Technology an Environmental Health Risk? Society of Environmental Journalists. January 6, 2021.

  "Those concerned say thousands of studies conclude that RFR can hurt us at levels well below those microwave ovens used for cooking."

Barbara Koeppel. Wireless Hazards. The Washington Spectator, December 28, 2020.

   "If you think your cellphone is safe, have you considered why you believe that? Is it a fact or is it based on carefully crafted messages that you’ve read or heard?"

Joel Moskowitz. Regulators Steamroll Health Concerns as the Global Economy Embraces 5G. The Washington Spectator. 46(9):6, September 2020. ISSN 0887-428X.

  "The FCC, however, has been “short on science” for more than two decades...."

Christopher Ketcham. Is 5G Going to Kill Us All? The New Republic, May 8, 2020.

  "A new generation of superfast wireless internet is coming soon. But no one can say for sure if it’s safe."

Louis Slesin. The Lies Must Stop Disband ICNIRP: Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever. Microwave News, April 9, 2020.

  "The public has been fed lies and half-truths about the health effects of RF/microwave radiation for as long as I have been involved, since the 1970s." 

International EMF Alliance. Misconception of 5G. Unpublished letter submitted to Scientific American, November 7, 2019.

  This letter rebuts David Robert Grimes' article that attacks, "We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe." The Grimes article has been removed from the Scientific American website.

Louis Slesin. Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit? Non-Thermal Effects Hang in the Balance. Microwave News, November 4, 2019.

    After 8 years of work, the WHO is reopening its review of RF radiation health effects. This investigative report exposes ties between the WHO EMF Project, the ICNIRP, and the telecom industry.

Joel Moskowitz. We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe. Scientific American, October 17, 2019.

   "we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety."

Simon Hill. Is cell phone radiation actually dangerous? We asked some experts. Digital Trends, September 25, 2019.

  "The ... standards that are in place, which haven’t changed since 1996, were set based on when animal behavior changed ... If we can’t draw conclusions about the NTP study, why is this earlier animal research still the basis of our safety limits?"
  The paper's year-long investigation found some of the most popular cell phones, including Apple iPhones, emit radiation that exceeds government (FCC) safety limits

Sam Roe. Testing cellphones for radiofrequency radiation: How we did it. Chicago Tribune, August 21, 2019. 

Joel Moskowitz. 5G Health Risks. BBC Radio 5, May 30, 2019 (9 minute news segment).

  The deployment of 5G in the United Kingdom today has generated great concern among the public. This is a brief overview of the health risks from exposure to 5G millimeter waves.

Devra Davis. 5G: The Unreported Global Threat. Medium, May 18, 2019.

  Major mainstream newspapers commonly ignore the substantial body of science pinpointing wireless radiation and 5G hazards detailed in journalistic investigations.

Investigate Europe. Mobile phones and health: Is 5G being rolled out too fast? Computer Weekly, April, 2019.

  Countries are deploying 5G at breakneck speed to gain a competitive edge, but scientists have concerns about effects on public health and are calling for a precautionary approach.

Markham Heid. Are AirPods and Other Bluetooth Headphones Safe? Medium, March 7, 2019.

  Numerous scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below international and national guidelines including cancer, neurological disorders, and DNA damage.

Investigate Europe. The 5G mass experiment. January 13, 2019.

   In a series of news stories, a team of investigative journalists examines the risks of 5G deployment.
"
it could also harm your health. Europe's governments ignore the danger." 

Hiawatha Bray. Could your cellphone’s electromagnetic field make you sick? Boston Globe, January 17, 2019.

  The Massachusetts Department of Public Health may be withholding information about possible health risks posed by cellphones and other wireless technologies.


Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. There's a clear cell phone-cancer link, but FDA is downplaying it. The Hill, November 13, 2018.

  Dr. Melnick was the senior toxicologist who led the design of the National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies.

Joyce Nelson. 5G Corporate Grail: Smart cities/dumb people?  Watershed Sentinel, November 5, 2018.

  "There’s a lot of hype about 5G, the fifth-generation wireless technology that is being rolled out in various “5G test beds” in major cities ...But it’s hard to see why we should be excited."

Annelie Fitzgerald. Mobile Phone Cover-up? Gov’t advisory body disbanded – inaccurate and misleading conclusions remain. TruePublica (UK), October 17, 2018.

   UK disbanded advisory group on non-ionizing radiation (AGNIR) after group issued inaccurate assessment of wireless radiation science subject to conflicts of interest. Public Heath England still relies on AGNIR report.

Martin Röösli. Mobile phone radiation may affect memory performance in adolescents. Medical Xpress. July 20, 2018.

  Radio frequency radiation may have adverse effects on memory performance of specific brain regions exposed during mobile phone use.

  Current cellphone safety regulations are based on a premise that is now arguably false: that cellphone radiation can cause harm only by heating tissue.

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones. The Guardian, July 14, 2018.

  We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health – but is that because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt by the industry?

Reynard Loki. Our cellphone addiction is turning wireless tech into an invisible weapon that’s destroying wildlife. Salon, July 14, 2018.

  Electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi and cell towers poses a “credible risk” to birds, mammals, insects and plants

Lynne Peeples. Should cell phone providers warn customers of health risks? Berkeley says yes. McClatchy News Washington Bureau, July 11, 2018.

  Although the scientific community has not reached consensus, the California health department said research indicates long-term, extensive cellphone use may affect health.
  Complete version of the article. News websites published the McClatchy version.

Louis Slesin. "'Clear evidence' of cell phone cancer risk, say leading pathologists." Microwave News, April 9, 2018.

  Why the peer review panel and NTP interpreted the same animal data differently. 

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. "How big wireless made us think that cell phones are safe: A special investigation." The Nation, March 29, 2018.

  The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

Timothy Schoechle. "Reinventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks." National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy. 2018.

   The U.S. should invest in hard-wired telecom infrastructure to support economic growth, bridge the digital divide & diminish risks to security, privacy, public health & the environment.

Nathaniel Rich. "For Whom the Cell Tolls." Harper's Magazine. May 2010.

    "Why your phone may (or may not) be killing you." Based on interviews with Lloyd Morgan, Libby Kelley, and Cindy Sage.

Joel Moskowitz. "Government must inform us of cell phone risk." San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2010. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/government-must-inform-us-of-cell-phone-risk-3190907.php

  It is time to revamp the FCC regulations. Laboratory scientists have found harmful effects from cell phones that emit less radiation than the FCC standard.