Friday, November 22, 2024

International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) Position on Radiofrequency Radiation

Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2025–2029 

Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields including wireless mobile radiation (pp. 171-173)

Current IARC/WHO classification

Radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) radiation (including from wireless mobile telephones) has been previously classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) in IARC Monographs Volume 102 in 2011 (IARC, 2013a), based on limited evidence in humans for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF-EMF was given a priority rating of high by the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024 (IARC, 2019a), on the basis of new cancer bioassay evidence in two independent studies (described below).

WHO is undertaking a health risk assessment of RF-EMF for a variety of outcomes, including cancer. This will be published as a monograph in the Environmental Health Criteria series and is based on several, currently ongoing, systematic reviews commissioned by WHO (Lagorio et al., 2021; Mevissen et al., 2022).

Exposure characterization

In IARC Monographs Volume 102, RF-EMF radiation was defined as radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz to 300 GHz (IARC, 2013a). Exposure occurs in the general population and in occupational settings, with sources including mobile phones, wireless network, television, radio, 5G technologies, Bluetooth, microwaves, cooking hobs, industrial heating of materials, radar, anti-theft devices, and MRI (IARC, 2013a). Exposure to mobile phones is ubiquitous, considering that nearly 95% of the population in high-income countries and 49% in low-income countries own a mobile phone (International Telecommunications Union, 2022). Source-exposure matrices for the general population and workers are available (Vila et al., 2016; van Wel et al., 2021).

Cancer in humans


The 2019 Advisory Group report (IARC, 2019a) indicated that results from epidemiological studies published after IARC Monographs Volume 102 were mixed (Benson et al., 2013; Hardell et al., 2013; Coureau et al., 2014; IARC, 2019a; Röösli et al., 2019). Since the 2019 Advisory Group report (IARC, 2019a), results from the MOBI-Kids study, an international study of brain cancer and the use of EMF technology by children and adolescents (Castaño-Vinyals et al., 2022), the update of the UK Million Women Study (Schüz et al., 2022), and the European Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS) (Feychting et al., 2024) were published. No increased risk of neuroepithelial brain tumour was found in the MOBI-Kids study (Castaño-Vinyals et al., 2022). In the Million Women Study update, the increased risk for acoustic neuroma reported previously (10+ years use versus never, RR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.07–5.64) (Benson et al., 2013) was attenuated (10+ years use versus never, RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.89–1.96), and no increased risk was found for other cancer subtypes (glioma, glioblastoma, pituitary, eye tumour); however, the exposure assessment was crude. The previous analysis (Benson et al., 2013) reported Ptrend = 0.03 for acoustic neuroma by duration of use, but such an analysis was not reported in the updated publication (Schüz et al., 2022). COSMOS followed 264 574 participants for a median of 7.12 years (recruitment, 2007–2012, in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK). For 100 regression-calibrated cumulative hours of calls (country-specific regression-calibrated estimates based on data collected from operators were applied to the self-reported measurements), HRs were 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 (Feychting et al., 2024).

Mobile phone use was associated with increases in overall cancer and NMSC, urinary cancer (in men only), prostate cancer, and vulva cancer, but not brain cancer, in the UK Biobank cohort (Zhang et al., 2024). There was also a significant trend by length of use for NMSC and prostate cancer (Zhang et al., 2024) Concern exists over exposure misclassification, as mobile phone use was captured only at baseline. These findings are not consistent with those of a Danish nationwide cohort study (Schüz et al., 2006).

In IARC Monographs Volume 102 (IARC, 2013a), selection bias and recall bias from case–control studies were noted as being of major concern. Bias analysis available at the time of that evaluation showed that the J-shaped response curve observed in the Interphone study, the largest case–control study on mobile phone use contributing to the evidence published in IARC Monographs Volume 102 (IARC, 2013a), could have been explained by selection bias, leading to underrepresentation of unexposed controls (Vrijheid et al., 2009a). A recent bias analysis using Monte Carlo simulations showed that the J-shaped relation observed in the Interphone study was compatible with a scenario of greater systematic (> 10%) and random error in cases compared with controls, in the absence of any effect (Bouaoun et al., 2024). Validation studies within the Interphone study showed that there was little differential exposure misclassification between cases and controls; however, in heavy users, overestimation was greater in cases than in controls (Vrijheid et al., 2009b).

Cancer in experimental animals

The 2019 Advisory Group report (IARC, 2019a) noted the availability of new data from the large US NTP study that show clear evidence of an increased incidence of malignant schwannoma in the heart (and possibly some evidence of malignant glioma in the brain) in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation at frequencies used by mobile phones; however, no clear increased risk was seen in female rats. Some equivocal evidence was observed of increased evidence of malignant glioma in the brain, malignant schwannoma in the heart, and pheochromocytoma in the adrenal medulla (NTP, 2018a, b). An increased risk of schwannoma of the heart observed in male rats exposed to the highest dose was found in an experimental study conducted at the Ramazzini Institute (Falcioni et al., 2018). International studies, aimed to verify the NTP studies, are ongoing in Japan and the Republic of Korea and are expected in 2024 (Ahn et al., 2022). Currently, a systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF on cancer laboratory animals is ongoing as part of a WHO risk assessment project (Mevissen et al., 2022).

Mechanistic evidence

As noted in the 2019 Advisory Group report (IARC, 2019a): “The previous IARC evaluation concluded that there was weak evidence that radiofrequency radiation was genotoxic but that there was no evidence for mutagenicity (IARC, 2013a).” Since then, there have been many new publications on the genotoxicity of RF-EMF radiation, including studies in exposed humans. The formation of micronuclei on buccal mucosal cells was shown in several studies on mobile phone-emitted radiation (Rashmi et al., 2020; Revanth et al., 2020). Other studies found no evidence of micronucleus formation (de Oliveira et al., 2017) or no conclusive evidence for induction of DNA damage or for alterations of the DNA repair capacity in human cells exposed to several frequencies of RF-EMF radiation (Schuermann et al., 2020). In other studies, no effects of RF-EMF exposure on oxidant or antioxidant capacity, apoptosis, or mutations in the TP53 gene were revealed, regardless of the frequency (Khalil et al., 2014; Gulati et al., 2020). The authors of a meta-analysis to investigate whether RF-EMF emitted by mobile phones have genotoxic or cytotoxic effects on the oral epithelium concluded that the evidence for genotoxic effects was weak (Dos Santos et al., 2020). In experimental systems, there is a large body of literature on investigations of the genotoxicity of RF-EMF (Meltz, 2003). A study showed that rat gliomas appear to share some genetic alterations with IDH1 wildtype human gliomas, and rat cardiac schwannomas also harbour mutations in some of the queried cancer genes (Brooks et al., 2024). An independent systematic review of the genotoxicity of RF-EMF in in vitro mammalian models is ongoing (Romeo et al., 2021).

In addition, evidence associated with other KCs is available. For example, chronic exposure to RF-EMF emitted from mobile phones may induce oxidative stress and an inflammatory response in rats (Singh et al., 2020). Currently, a systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF on biomarkers of oxidative stress in vivo and in vitro is ongoing as part of the WHO risk assessment project (Henschenmacher et al., 2022). Several studies have investigated the immunotoxicity of RF-EMF (Yadav et al., 2022). Mobile phone radiofrequency radiation was found to be associated with thyroid gland insufficiency and alterations in serum thyroid hormone levels in exposed humans and in rodents, with a possible disruption in the hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid axis (Alkayyali et al., 2021).

Summary

Since the last evaluation, there have been several new high-quality studies. Overall, the human cancer evidence is mixed. There is new evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Since the previous evaluation, there is new mechanistic evidence related to the KCs, especially genotoxicity in experimental systems and in exposed humans. However, several of the genotoxicity studies in exposed humans provided inconsistent results. Thus, the mechanistic available evidence currently available may be inconclusive.

Overall, the new evidence regarding cancer in humans and in experimental animals could support a re-evaluation, although a change in the current classification of the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF is uncertain. The Advisory Group therefore considered an IARC Monographs evaluation of RF-EMF to be warranted but suggests an evaluation in the latter half of the next 5 years, to await the results of ongoing cancer bioassays, which may provide additional mechanistic evidence.

Recommendation: High priority (and ready for evaluation within 5 years)

Open access report:

--o--


In March, 2019, the Advisory Group for the IARC recommended that the IARC review the research on RFR to determine if it is a carcinogenic hazard (i.e. Group 2A or Group 1). The advisory group recommended that this review be conducted within the next five years and called it a "high priority."

Following are excerpts from the IARC report:

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024. IARC, World Health Organization, 2019. https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IARCMonographs-AGReport-Priorities_2020-2024.pdf.


Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024

Introduction (pp. 1-2)

"An IARC Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024 met in Lyon, France, on 25–27 March 2019. IARC periodically convenes such Advisory Groups to ensure that the Monographs evaluations reflect the current state of scientific evidence relevant to carcinogenicity.

Before the meeting, IARC solicited nominations of agents via the website of the IARC Monographs programme and the IARC RSS news feed, and through direct contact with the IARC Governing Council and members of the IARC Scientific Council, WHO headquarters and regional offices, and previous participants in the Monographs programme. Nominations were also developed by IARC personnel, including the recommended priorities remaining from a similar Advisory Group meeting convened in 2014 (Straif et al., 2014), and the priorities nominated by the Advisory Group.

The list of Advisory Group members and all other meeting participants is provided in Annex 1 (see https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/AGP-ListofParticipants.pdf ) ...."

"Priority was assigned on the basis of (i) evidence of human exposure and (ii) the extent of the available evidence for evaluating carcinogenicity (i.e. the availability of relevant evidence on cancer in humans, cancer in experimental animals, and mechanisms of carcinogenesis to support a new or updated evaluation according to the Preamble to the IARC Monographs). Any of the three evidence streams could alone support prioritization of agents with no previous evaluation. For previously evaluated agents, the Advisory Group considered the basis of the previous classification as well as the potential impact of the newly available evidence during integration across streams (see Table 4 in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs). Agents without evidence of human exposure or evidence for evaluating carcinogenicity were not recommended for further consideration."

....

"Non-ionizing radiation (radiofrequency) and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (pp. 148-149)

Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) were evaluated by the IARC Monographs as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (IARC, 2013e), on the basis of limited evidence of an increased risk of glioma. Extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) were evaluated as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (IARC, 2002), on the basis of limited evidence of an increased risk of childhood leukaemia.

Exposure Data

Human exposures to RF-EMF can occur from use of personal devices (e.g. cell phones, cordless phones, and Bluetooth) and from environmental sources such as cell phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and medical applications. More than 5 billion people now have access to cell phone devices, and the technology is constantly evolving. Use has also expanded rapidly in low- and middle-income countries, where more than 75% of adults now report owning a cell phone; in high-income countries, the proportion is 96% (Pew Research Center, 2018).

Cancer in Humans

Since the previous IARC Monographs evaluation, several new epidemiological studies have been published on the association between RF-EMF and cancer, although the evidence remains mixed. In the Million Women Study cohort, there was no evidence of increased risk of glioma or meningioma, even among long-term users. There was an increased risk of acoustic neuromas with long-term use and a significant dose–response relationship (Benson et al., 2013). Updated follow-up in the Danish nationwide subscribers study did not find increased risks of glioma, meningioma, or vestibular schwannoma, even among those with subscriptions of 10 years or longer (Frei et al., 2011; Schüz et al., 2011). New reports from case–control studies that assessed long-term use also found mixed results; for example, increased risks of glioma and acoustic neuroma were reported by Hardell & Carlberg (2015) and Hardell et al. (2013), but no evidence of increased risks for these tumours were reported by Yoon et al. (2015) and Pettersson et al. (2014). Röösli et al. (2019) recently reviewed these new data. Several large-scale studies are still in progress and should report results within the next few years. Mobi-Kids is a multicentre case–control study of brain tumours in those aged 10–24 years. Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS) is a new European cohort of adult cell phone users. There will also be updated results from the Million Women Study.

Cancer in Experimental Animals

New data in experimental animals for exposure to RF-EMF have been published since the previous IARC Monographs evaluation. The large study by the United States National Toxicology Program found an increased risk of malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats with high exposure to radiofrequency radiation at frequencies used by cell phones, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumours in the brain and adrenal glands, but no increased risks in mice or female rats (NTP, 2018a, b). Another study in experimental animals also found an increase in schwannomas of the heart in highly exposed male rats and a possible increase in gliomas in female rats (Falcioni et al., 2018).

 Mechanistic Evidence

The previous IARC evaluation concluded that there was weak evidence that radiofrequency radiation was genotoxic but that there was no evidence for mutagenicity (IARC, 2013e). Although there have been many new publications from a wide variety of experiments, uncertainty remains about the mechanisms, and there are few systematic reviews of the new data (Kocaman et al., 2018).

Although a future evaluation could be broadened to consider exposure to all non-ionizing radiation (including ELF-MF), ELF-MF were evaluated by IARC as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), and the Advisory Group did not recommend an update, because of a lack of new informative epidemiological findings, no toxicological evidence, and little supporting mechanistic evidence.

References

The following key references were also identified: Coureau et al. (2014); Carlberg & Hardell (2015); Pedersen et al. (2017).

Recommendation for non-ionizing radiation (radiofrequency): High priority (and ready for evaluation within 5 years)

Recommendation for extremely low-frequency magnetic fields: No evaluation "

References cited in this section of the report:

Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Green J; Million Women Study Collaborators (2013). Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study. Int J Epidemiol. 42(3):792–802. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt072 PMID:23657200

Carlberg M, Hardell L (2015). Pooled analysis of Swedish case-control studies during 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 on meningioma risk associated with the use of mobile and cordless phones. Oncol Rep. 33(6):3093–8. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2015.3930 PMID:25963528

Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, et al. (2014). Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 71(7):514–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101754 PMID:24816517

Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, De Angelis L, Gnudi F, et al. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental

Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Olsen JH, Steding-JessenM, Schüz J (2011). Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. BMJ. 343:d6387. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6387 PMID:22016439

Hardell L, Carlberg M (2015). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma - analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Pathophysiology. 22(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001 PMID:25466607

IARC (2013e). Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 102:1–460. Available from: http://publications.iarc.fr/126 PMID:24772662

Kocaman A, Altun G, Kaplan AA, Deniz ÖG, Yurt KK, Kaplan S (2018). Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Environ Res. 163:71–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.034 PMID:29427953

NTP (2018a). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 596. Research Triangle Park (NC), USA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr596_508.pdf.

NTP (2018b). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at a frequency (900MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cellphones. Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 595. Research Triangle Park (NC), USA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available from: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp-temp/tr595_508.pdf.

Pedersen C, Poulsen AH, Rod NH, Frei P, Hansen J, Grell K, et al. (2017). Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and risk for central nervous system disease: an update of a Danish cohort study among utility workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 90(7):619–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1224-0 PMID:28429106

Pettersson D, Mathiesen T, Prochazka M, Bergenheim T, Florentzson R, Harder H, et al. (2014). Long-term mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma risk. Epidemiology. 25(2):233–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000058 PMID:24434752

Pew Research Center (2018). Social media use continues to rise in developing countries, but plateaus across developed ones. Available from: https://www.pewglobal.org/2018/06/19/social-media-use-continues-to-rise-in-developing-countries-but-plateaus-across-developed-ones/

Schüz J, Steding-JessenM, Hansen S, Stangerup SE, Cayé-Thomasen P, Poulsen AH, et al. (2011). Long-term mobile phone use and the risk of vestibular schwannoma: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 174(4):416–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr112 PMID:21712479

Straif K, Loomis D, Guyton K, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. (2014). Future priorities for the IARC Monographs. Lancet Oncol. 15(7):683–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70168-8

Yoon S, Choi J-W, Lee E, An H, Choi HD, KimN (2015). Mobile phone use and risk of glioma: a case-control study in Korea for 2002-2007. Environ Health Toxicol. 30:e2015015. https://doi.org/10.5620/eht.e2015015 PMID:26726040

--o--


In May, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) as "possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use." "The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

A working group of 31 scientists from 14 nations made this determination after reviewing hundreds of studies that examined the potential carcinogenic hazard of long-term exposure to RFR. They examined exposure data, studies of cancer in humans, studies of cancer in experimental animals, and mechanistic and other relevant data. 

" 'Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,' said IARC Director Christopher Wild, 'it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.' "


IARC (2011). "IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans." Press Release No. 208. IARC, WHO. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

IARC (2013e). Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 102:1–460. Available from: http://publications.iarc.fr/126 PMID:24772662

For a summary of this 2013 monograph see:

Friday, November 1, 2024

Wireless Radiation Health Effects: Green Street Radio interview

November 1, 2024  (Updated 11/02/2024)

This week on Green Street, Patti and Doug Wood talk with Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley, about the growing body of science regarding the biological impacts of wireless radiation and its effect on human health.

The program aired on WBAI-FM in New York City, KPFA-FM in Berkeley and KPFK in Los Angeles during the first week of November 2024.

The 21-minute radio interview can be streamed or downloaded from Google Drive at https://bit.ly/Wireless_radiation-jmm-241101.

Links from the Interview

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields: https://icbe-emf.org/

Dr. Moskowitz's Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website: https://www.saferemr.com/

Dr. Moskowitz's page at UC Berkeley: https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/people/joel-moskowitz


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."