I published an important new op-ed that I want to make sure you saw. While colorectal cancer rates are dramatically dropping in persons over age 60 in many industrial countries, increases in the rates of rectal cancer in young adults under age 24 have skyrocketed in the past decade in several countries. Increased screening is believed to explain much of the welcome decline in the elderly but why is this very rare cancer becoming more prevalent in young adults? I discuss our recently published scientific article proposing that the four-fold increase in rectal cancer over the last decade in American adults in their 20s (the first generation to have grown up with cell phones, laptops, videogames, and other devices clutched close to the body) could be from chronic exposure to cell phone radiation. Excerpts from my Op-Ed: “Colorectal cancer cells are exquisitely sensitive to RF and research has found that the effect of exposure to non-ionizing mobile phone radiation can lead to impacts on treated colon tissues of rats similar to effects from ionizing 3Gy gamma radiation.” “A number of scientific studies in animals and humans (show) that microwave radiation damages both male and female reproduction.” “Imaging studies … clearly show that both the male and female reproductive systems and the rectum can receive quite high levels of microwave radiation whenever a cell phone is on and in the pocket or if a laptop is placed directly on the lap. Even when not being used for calls, smartphone antennas send an electronic ‘handshake’ to the tower up to 900 times a minute, asking, ‘Where are you? Here I am.’ Cell phones are transmitting all the time, whether you are talking on them or not.” “Those handshakes keep us all connected, but they also send pulsed microwave radiation into the scrotum, ovaries, and rectum — precisely the parts of the body in which these growing health problems are occurring.” “Major policy changes are needed. As we document in our lawsuit against the FCC, the current 1996 safety limits for cell phones, Wi-Fi, and cell tower networks are non-protective and must be updated to reflect the latest science showing that even seemingly ‘low levels’ can cause serious harm. Radiation test systems must reflect the way we use cell phones and wireless devices today, touching the body.” The use of cell phone and wireless devices has changed in scope and intensity over the past 25 years, and the research clearly indicates that people are being harmed today by unfettered wireless deployment. Yet the FCC refuses to revise its wireless radiation safety standards, claiming that regulations from 1996 — when we were still in 1G and 2G and barely anyone had a cell phone — are adequate to protect people and the environment. FCC limits are not protective. Cell phone radiation causes cancer in humans and our youth now unknowingly expose their bodies to this day and night. I urge you to read more in my latest op-ed about this new health issue facing young adults.
Help Us Raise Awareness We are on Telegram now! Like us on Facebook. Subscribe to EHT on Youtube. Friend Us on Instagram. Follow us on Twitter. We prefer to use our devices with cords and adaptors to access social media without making wireless radiation footprints and exposures — you can too!
Agents accused of creating confusion over smart meters
Letting agents have been accused of creating confusion amongst renters when it comes to smart meters.
A company promoting smart meters claims that just under half of letting agents questioned in a survey said they had added a change of meter clause to their tenancy agreement,
This was “despite installation being the billpayer’s right” according to a claim by SmartEnergyGB.
Some 19 per cent of tenants think their landlord would say no if they asked for permission to make changes to their home, and 11 per cent are worried they will lose their security deposit if they do so without permission; the company also claims 33 per cent of tenants fear possible eviction.
In a statement by SmartEnergyGB, property consultant Kate Faulkner says: “It is natural to want to make your home as comfortable as possible, and the good news is that there are some improvements private renters can make to their homes which don’t require permission from the landlord, or which the landlord is happy for you to go ahead with.
“Things like tidying the garden or outdoor space and of course adding your own furniture can make it feel more like home – – all of which can be easily removed prior to leaving.
“Requesting a smart meter from your energy supplier is another way to take control of your home environment, as they give you visibility over your energy use and spend. Many tenants (and landlords) don’t realise if you pay the energy bills it is your right to request a smart meter installation. In most cases, your landlord doesn’t even need to be present for the installation, but it’s wise to let them or their letting agent know, in writing, you have requested one.”
To forward this newsletter via social media, copy and paste this link: https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Update-on-Satellites.pdf UPDATE ON SATELLITES On Wednesday, March 24, 2021, both the number of satellites in low orbit around the earth, and the volume of data they transmit, increased significantly. On Wednesday morning (4:28 a.m. EDT, 8:28 UTC), SpaceX launched another 60 satellites. On Wednesday evening (10:47 p.m. EDT, 14:47 UTC), OneWeb launched another 36 satellites. And people who already have satellite Internet from SpaceX on a trial basis reported a sudden increase in their Internet speed on Wednesday to up to 430 Mbps.
This could explain the reports I am beginning to receive of sudden illness that began on Wednesday. I myself was unable to sleep at all Wednesday night, and my body hurt, and itched, all over. I was very ill all day Thursday, and still do not feel well. I have received similar reports from other people in the United States, Canada, Norway, Australia and South Africa. I would like to find out how widespread this is. Some people are reporting that they have not felt well for a couple of weeks, but that they suddenly got much sicker Wednesday or Wednesday night.
Please reply to this email if you have experienced something similar. Current Players and Their Plans Here is a list of companies that are actively planning to launch and operate large constellations of satellites in low orbit around the earth. The purpose of these satellite networks is to provide Internet and/or cell phone service everywhere on earth, as well as to facilitate the Internet of Things. All will shoot focused beams of radiation at the earth from phased array antennas.
SpaceX SpaceX, based in the United States, already has approval to operate 12,000 satellites and has filed applications for 30,000 more. More than 1,300 have already been launched. At least initially, these satellites are for Internet only and will not communicate directly with cell phones. Subscribers will purchase a small rooftop dish and a WiFi router. Beta testing by an estimated 10,000 subscribers in the U.S., Canada, U.K., Germany and New Zealand is already happening.
OneWeb OneWeb, based in the United Kingdon, has aready launched 148 satellites, and plans to begin providing service after it has 250 satellites in orbit. Initial service will be to northern latitude regions, including the UK, Europe, Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. OneWeb plans to provide cell phone as well as Internet service. Subscribers will purchase a small user terminal that will function as a small cell, able to connect to any mobile device in its vicinity. OneWeb has scaled back its planned number of satellites from 49,000 to 7,088. It does not plan to compete directly with SpaceX. Instead it will market its service to airlines, businesses and governments.
Telesat Telesat, based in Canada, has increased its planned number of satellites from 117 to 1,671. It, too, is marketing its service to businesses. Its customers will include cruise ships, airlines, and governments. Telesat intends for its satellites to replace terrestrial fiber networks for long-distance communication. “We’re basically deploying a big space-based mesh IP network,” said its CEO Dan Goldberg.
AST & Science This company, based in the U.S., is designing its satellites to communicate directly with cell phones. But instead of selling its service directly to cell phone users, it will partner with existing cell phone service providers, so that when a cell phone user travels out of range of any cell towers, the cell phone’s signal will automatically be handed off to a satellite. While this company does not plan to have as many satellites as its competitors, the power levels of its communicating beams will be much greater. Its application to the FCC specifies a maximum EIRP (effective radiating power) of up to 79.2 dBW, or more than 83,000,000 watts per beam.
Omnispace This company, partnering with Lockheed Martin and the U.S. military, is also designing its satellites to communicate directly with cell phones. Its brochure boasts that it will “enable the Internet of Things on a massive new scale.” “Omnispace is honored to have been selected to work with the U.S. Navy and Marines to demonstrate 5G capability from space,” said Campbell Marshall, Vice President for Government and International Markets in a March 15, 2021 interview. Omnispace has an experimental license from the FCC and has not revealed how many satellites it plans to operate.
Amazon Amazon’s application to operate 3,236 satellites was approved by the FCC last July. Like SpaceX, it plans to sell small user terminals to its customers for mounting on rooftops and vehicles.
Lynk Like Omnispace and AST & Science, Lynk is designing its satellites to communicate directly with cell phones. Like AST & Science, Lynk has an experimental license from the FCC and has not revealed how many satellites it plans to operate.
Facebook Facebook is planning to launch a constellation of small, 150-pound satellites, called cubesats. It too has an experimental license from the FCC and has not revealed how many satellites it plans to operate.
The Case for More Regulation | Cell Phones and Health | Drs. John Frank and Anthony Miller
Mar 23, 2021
Environmental Health Trust Protecting public and environmental health even with a lack of evidence of damage from new products and processes is the foundation for the Precautionary Principle. So what happens when the scientific evidence on the dangers of wireless radiation is proven, but public health and safety agencies ignore it? For scientists, researchers, and public health advocates, you issue a clarion call. Epidemiological rock stars Dr. John William Frank and Dr. Anthony B. Miller are answering that call, joining the international appeal of hundreds of scientists for a moratorium on the rollout of 5G networks. In their first interview ever together, they joined EHT President and Founder Dr. Devra Davis to discuss the science of radiofrequency radiation (RF-EMF), the epidemiological evidence for effects, and the precise technology that should be included in studies on the impacts of 5G. Frank, chairman of Public Health Research and Policy at the Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics at University of Edinburgh, is one of the world’s leading scientists studying the social and nonscientific determinants influencing public health policies. In his recent publication, “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?”, published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, Frank notes that despite the claims of scientific advisory committees that there’s no proof of harm, the science is most certainly leaning toward taking a cautious approach. “Until we know more about what we are getting into, from a health and ecological point of view, those putative gains (from 5G) need to wait,” Frank writes. Subscribe to EHT’s YouTube to get more news and information on 5G and wireless. Sign Up for EHT’s newsletter at https://ehtrust.org/publications/news… Like EHT on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EHTrust Follow EHT on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ehtrust/ Learn and Support EHT on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/ehtrust
(Albany, NY) Members of the New York State (NYS) legislature have introduced a bill to establish a special commission charged with investigating the growing evidence linking exposure to radiofrequency (RF) microwave radiation (“wireless radiation”) emitted by 5G and other wireless antennas, with serious human health and environmental impacts. The commission, proposed by NYS Senator Anna Kaplan and NYS Assemblyman Tom Abinanti, will include public health experts, environmental scientists, and independent electromagnetic radiation researchers. The commission is slated to report its findings to the legislature by June of 2022. “It’s critical for the people of New York State to understand the full range of risks inherent in the deployment of 5G antennas in neighborhoods across the state,” says Doug Wood, Director of nonprofit
Director of nonprofit Americans for Responsible Technology. “This kind of involuntary exposure to a scientifically-proven health hazard deserves the scrutiny this commission will provide. I applaud Senator Kaplan and Assemblyman Abinanti for taking this action to protect public health and the environment.” New York is not the first state to establish such a commission. In 2019, New Hampshire introduced and passed HB522 to study the health and environmental effects of evolving 5G technology. In November of 2020, the commission released its watershed report containing 15 recommendations largely intended to reduce public exposure to wireless radiation, raise public awareness of potential health risks, and improve monitoring of wireless radiation emissions from existing and future wireless systems. To date, no studies have confirmed claims by the telecom industry that exposure to wireless radiation emitted by 5G wireless devices, as well as earlier generations of wireless technologies, is safe. As a result, Lloyd’s of London, and other leading insurance companies, have declined to insure the telecoms against personal injury claims and class-action lawsuits related to exposure to electromagnetic fields, including wireless radiation.
Senate bill S5926 Assembly bill A6448 About Americans For Responsible Technology (ART) Americans For Responsible Technology is a non-profit national coalition of more than 160 grassroots organizations in 43 states advocating for the safe and responsible use of technology.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – There’s a high probability that radio-frequency radiation from cellphones causes certain rare but often malignant brain tumors in humans, according to a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Christopher Portier submitted his findings as part of a lawsuit by patients and families against multiple cellphone manufacturers and carriers.
Ellie Marks’ husband, Alan, just had a second surgery to remove tumors caused, according to experts they consulted, by cell-phone use. She joined the lawsuit and founded the nonprofit California Brain Tumor Association to get the word out.
“The industry is working with the FCC to hide the truth, and we’re tired of it, and people need to be aware of the truth,” said Ellie Marks, executive director of the association. “There is enough science now to say that cellphones are indeed causing lethal brain tumors.”
The cellphone manufacturers maintain their products are safe and comply with all regulations.
Monique Solomon, another plaintiff, said her late husband, Andy, fought cancer for five years, passing at age 42. He suffered from a tumor she said she believes was caused by the phone he used while driving around, selling commercial real estate.
“And he had the Motorola big battery pack to his ear probably 8 to 10 hours a day, for years,” she said. “His scar went above his ear and was like a horseshoe, down right around the back of his ear exactly where he held his cell phone.”
RF radiation expert Dr. Devra Davis, author of the book “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation” and president of the Environmental Health Trust, noted that tests the government uses to evaluate cellphone safety are 25 years old.
“We test our phones with a dummy with a spacer against its head. So, we don’t even put the phone next to the head, we don’t put the phone next to the body when it’s tested,” she said. “And as a consequence, the tests are rigged. They don’t reflect real exposure.”
“Brain cancer is now the leading cancer in children. It has increased dramatically in young adults,” she said. “Older people have not been using phones as long. And brain cancer has a latency of 40 years.”
Davis said she advises people to avoid putting a cellphone up to their head or carrying it on their body, and to turn it off or put it on “airplane mode” at night.Disclosure: California Brain Tumor Association contributes to our fund for reporting on Consumer Issues, Health Issues, Toxics. If you would like to help support news in the public interest, click here.
Drama of exposure to cell phones, which affects us all! Everyone is ostrich!
I must tell you that this cause has alerted me for more than ten years, even before the arrival of so-called “smart” phones (all equipped with internet, and all capable of transmitting extraordinarily powerful information flows. ).
Indeed, if you watch videos from your phone – and it happens now even from online messengers such as WhatsApp – it’s whole movies, gigabytes scrolling through the air.
It went without saying that the electromagnetic power of these devices, the heat which they emitted made suspect a danger for the body, in particular for the fluids, easily disturbed.
So, I NEVER put my phone device in my pants pocket. I have always kept it away from children, and especially infants.
I have always favored the loudspeaker. The “hands-free kit”, which I personally find difficult to use, must have existed for about twenty years. It has become widely used since the ban on driving with a cell phone in your hand.
So it’s not that we didn’t know. We have always known.
We have moved from prevention to legitimate fear, as devices have now become very powerful, despite their small size. And the arrival of 5G worries even more.
Marc Arazi, a heroic doctor denounces
There is today, as the doctor Marc Arazi defends, a PhoneGate (1), that is to say a scandal around the manufacture and use of the mobile phone, which could change the face of the world. .
On the one hand, the cell phone has become an object that everyone uses without stopping, several times, with each passing hour.
It takes up a lot of our attention, and many of us are addicted to it, especially teenagers and young adults.
On the other side there is an industry which has become extremely powerful.
It is capable of manipulating the media by advertising it alone, and politicians by the astronomical price of buying bandwidth, which runs into the billions.
Thus, at auction for the sale of 5G wave bands, the French state received no less than 2.8 billion euros from operators (2).
Also, reminding cell phone manufacturers of basic health standards, which form the basis of this very lucrative industry, has been a real obstacle course.
Doctor Marc Arazi tells us about this epic journey in his book Phonegate (3).
This book is fascinating because it shows very meticulously how dangerous our cell phones are, simply from the point of view of electromagnetic exposure. Of course, the younger the users, the more they are in danger …
Faced with this health crisis which is worsening from year to year, which today affects 4 billion people, the telecommunications industry is doing everything to deny the seriousness of the danger.
However, this is certainly a scandal more serious than that of tobacco and asbestos combined.
Mobile waves: an indisputable danger
Cell phone manufacturers are doing everything in their power to ensure that the dangerousness of their devices is ignored. Unfortunately, in their efforts, they have the support of the public authorities.
ANFR, the official body that tests phones in France has refused to make public its findings on devices that exceed the authorized electromagnetic wave rate (the “DAS”).
Tests on the body are done at a great distance, while a cell phone in a pocket or against the cheek is in contact with the body. This means that we are subjected to exposures 10 times higher than those indicated, well above what is reasonable for health.
Phones are often tested using devices donated by companies, and not from devices purchased in stores
There is software that aims to reduce the wave rate during the test phases. It is therefore very far from reaching the maximum level of which the device is capable, in the event of poor reception of the network signal.
The telecommunications industry controls the media, either directly – for example Xavier Niel, the boss of Free, is one of the world’s major shareholders – or indirectly, by financing advertising.
This is all the more serious as it is today difficult to have a social life without resorting to these devices, and impossible to have a professional life.
However, smartphones cause real damage to health. The cases of the most aggressive brain cancers – glioblastomas – have more than quadrupled in France in 30 years (4).
There would probably be an incidence of cell phones in the fact that the most frequent cancers in 20/49 year olds are colorectal cancers, which are constantly increasing in all young Western populations (5).
This is because young adults systematically place their cell phones in their pockets, either in the stomach or in their pants.
Should we end wireless?
I use here the words of the Finnish Dariusz Leszczynski, professor of electronic engineering, reproduced in the book:
“In summary, it is known that the radiation emitted by 1G to 4G affects the development of human brain cancer and the development of cancer in animals by thermal and non-thermal mechanisms, triggered by the activation of the cellular stress response. […]
“In conclusion, the information gathered to date on the biological and health effects of 1G to 5G mobile communication devices suggests that there are sufficient reasons to apply the precautionary principle as specified by the European Union.
“As the deployment of new technologies must continue, it is necessary to determine whether everything and everywhere should be wireless.
“In particular, the use of fiber optic technology should be seen as a reliable replacement for wireless technology whenever possible or feasible. “(6)
This question arises with renewed acuity with the implementation of 5G technology.
5 very simple tips to protect yourself from the waves
Insulate: current modems, or “boxes” can now fit in insulating boxes. There are also patches to reduce excessive emission from smartphones without lowering their reception capacity.
Switch off your phone on the go, whether in the car, on the train, in the subway. Not only does it emit very intensely to pick up a weak signal, but these emissions are further amplified by the internal reverberation of the place.
Protect yourself at night: turn off your box at night, do not sleep with the smartphone in the same room as you and preferably opt for a mechanical alarm clock.
Cover Up: There are scarves available today that can protect the thyroid from waves. The anti-wave boxer shorts are original, but too expensive for the moment for everyday use. As for shungite stones, for me it is paranormal: nothing prevents you from believing in it, but expect nothing more than a placebo.
Finally, only place your cell phone against your face if you have no other choice! Also avoid wireless headsets at all costs, which are also carcinogenic. Prefer an ordinary hands-free kit or just the loudspeaker. They are very efficient today!
1. The term PhoneGate comes from the contraction between the English “Phone”, telephone, and “Gate”, shortened to speak of a scandal, on the model of “Watergate”, this scandal of illegal telephone tapping, which has won Richard Nixon his impeachment process and his resignation. So the DieselGate erupted in 2015, this scandal of harmful emissions concealed by Volkswagen on its vehicles.
1Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
2Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Prevent Cancer Now, Ottawa, ON, Canada
3Environmental Health Trust, Teton Village, WY, United States
4The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro, Sweden
5School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
6School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
7Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Radiation exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to radio-frequency radiation1 (RFR) technologies has grown substantially over time. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized RFR as a “possible” (Group 2B) human carcinogen. A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with RFR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, three large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of RFR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage. Of particular concern are the effects of RFR exposure on the developing brain in children. Compared with an adult male, a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull’s bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose. Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage. Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR, and that WHO complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage. In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.
We live in a generation that relies heavily on technology. Whether for personal use or work, wireless devices, such as cell phones, are commonly used around the world, and exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is widespread, including in public spaces (1, 2).
In this review, we address the current scientific evidence on health risks from exposure to RFR, which is in the non-ionizing frequency range. We focus here on human health effects, but also note evidence that RFR can cause physiological and/or morphological effects on bees, plants and trees (3–5).
We recognize a diversity of opinions on the potential adverse effects of RFR exposure from cell or mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices (WTDs) including cordless phones and Wi-Fi. The paradigmatic approach in cancer epidemiology, which considers the body of epidemiological, toxicological, and mechanistic/cellular evidence when assessing causality, is applied.
Since 1998, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has maintained that no evidence of adverse biological effects of RFR exist, other than tissue heating at exposures above prescribed thresholds (6).
In contrast, in 2011, an expert working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized RFR emitted by cell phones and other WTDs as a Group 2B (“possible”) human carcinogen (7).
Since the IARC categorization, analyses of the large international Interphone study, a series of studies by the Hardell group in Sweden, and the French CERENAT case-control studies, signal increased risks of brain tumors, particularly with ipsilateral use (8). The largest case-control studies on cell phone exposure and glioma and acoustic neuroma demonstrated significantly elevated risks that tended to increase with increasing latency, increasing cumulative duration of use, ipsilateral phone use, and earlier age at first exposure (8).
Pooled analyses by the Hardell group that examined risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma stratified by age at first exposure to cell phones found the highest odds ratios among those first exposed before age 20 years (9–11). For glioma, first use of cell phones before age 20 years resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–2.8). For ipsilateral use, the OR was 2.3 (CI 1.3-4.2); contralateral use was 1.9 (CI 0.9-3.7). Use of cordless phone before age 20 yielded OR 2.3 (CI 1.4–3.9), ipsilateral OR 3.1 (CI 1.6–6.3) and contralateral use OR 1.5 (CI 0.6–3.8) (9).
Although Karipidis et al. (12) and Nilsson et al. (13) found no evidence of an increased incidence of gliomas in recent years in Australia and Sweden, respectively, Karipidis et al. (12) only reported on brain tumor data for ages 20–59 and Nilsson et al. (13) failed to include data for high grade glioma. In contrast, others have reported evidence that increases in specific types of brain tumors seen in laboratory studies are occurring in Britain and the US:
• The incidence of neuro-epithelial brain cancers has significantly increased in all children, adolescent, and young adult age groupings from birth to 24 years in the United States (14, 15).
• A sustained and statistically significant rise in glioblastoma multiforme across all ages has been described in the UK (16).
The incidence of several brain tumors are increasing at statistically significant rates, according to the 2010–2017 Central Brain Tumor Registry of the U.S. (CBTRUS) dataset (17).
• There was a significant increase in incidence of radiographically diagnosed tumors of the pituitary from 2006 to 2012 (APC = 7.3% [95% CI: 4.1%, 10.5%]), with no significant change in incidence from 2012 to 2015 (18).
• Meningioma rates have increased in all age groups from 15 through 85+ years.
• Nerve sheath tumor (Schwannoma) rates have increased in all age groups from age 20 through 84 years.
• Vestibular Schwannoma rates, as a percentage of nerve sheath tumors, have also increased from 58% in 2004 to 95% in 2010-2014.
Epidemiological evidence was subsequently reviewed and incorporated in a meta-analysis by Röösli et al. (19). They concluded that overall, epidemiological evidence does not suggest increased brain or salivary gland tumor risk with mobile phone (MP) use, although the authors admitted that some uncertainty remains regarding long latency periods (>15 years), rare brain tumor subtypes, and MP usage during childhood. Of concern is that these analyses included cohort studies with poor exposure classification (20).
In epidemiological studies, recall bias can play a substantial role in the attenuation of odds ratios toward the null hypothesis. An analysis of data from one large multicenter case-control study of RFR exposure, did not find that recall bias was an issue (21). In another multi-country study it was found that young people can recall phone use moderately well, with recall depending on the amount of phone use and participants’ characteristics (22). With less rigorous querying of exposure, prospective cohort studies are unfortunately vulnerable to exposure misclassification and imprecision in identifying risk from rare events, to the point that negative results from such studies are misleading (8, 23).
Another example of disparate results from studies of different design focuses on prognosis for patients with gliomas, depending upon cell phone use. A Swedish study on glioma found lower survival in patients with glioblastoma associated with long term use of wireless phones (24). Ollson et al. (25), however, reported no indication of reduced survival among glioblastoma patients in Denmark, Finland and Sweden with a history of mobile phone use (ever regular use, time since start of regular use, cumulative call time overall or in the last 12 months) relative to no or non-regular use. Notably, Olsson et al. (25) differed from Carlberg and Hardell (24) in that the study did not include use of cordless phones, used shorter latency time and excluded patients older than 69 years. Furthermore, a major shortcoming was that patients with the worst prognosis were excluded, as in Finland inoperable cases were excluded, all of which would bias the risk estimate toward unity.
In the interim, three large-scale toxicological (animal carcinogenicity) studies support the human evidence, as do modeling, cellular and DNA studies identifying vulnerable sub-groups of the population.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) (National Toxicology Program (26, 27) has reported significantly increased incidence of glioma and malignant Schwannoma (mostly on the nerves on the heart, but also additional organs) in large animal carcinogenicity studies with exposure to levels of RFR that did not significantly heat tissue. Multiple organs (e.g., brain, heart) also had evidence of DNA damage. Although these findings have been dismissed by the ICNIRP (28), one of the key originators of the NTP study has refuted the criticisms (29).
A study by Italy’s Ramazzini Institute has evaluated lifespan environmental exposure of rodents to RFR, as generated by 1.8 GHz GSM antennae of cell phone radio base stations. Although the exposures were 60 to 6,000 times lower than those in the NTP study, statistically significant increases in Schwannomas of the heart in male rodents exposed to the highest dose, and Schwann-cell hyperplasia in the heart in male and female rodents were observed (30). A non-statistically significant increase in malignant glial tumors in female rodents also was detected. These findings with far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure. Both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats, which are tumors of the same histological type as those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users.
Further, in a 2015 animal carcinogenicity study, tumor promotion by exposure of mice to RFR at levels below exposure limits for humans was demonstrated (31). Co-carcinogenicity of RFR was also demonstrated by Soffritti and Giuliani (32) who examined both power-line frequency magnetic fields as well as 1.8 GHz modulated RFR. They found that exposure to Sinusoidal-50 Hz Magnetic Field (S-50 Hz MF) combined with acute exposure to gamma radiation or to chronic administration of formaldehyde in drinking water induced a significantly increased incidence of malignant tumors in male and female Sprague Dawley rats. In the same report, preliminary results indicate higher incidence of malignant Schwannoma of the heart after exposure to RFR in male rats. Given the ubiquity of many of these co-carcinogens, this provides further evidence to support the recommendation to reduce the public’s exposure to RFR to as low as is reasonably achievable.
Finally, a case series highlights potential cancer risk from cell phones carried close to the body. West et al. (33) reported four “extraordinary” multifocal breast cancers that arose directly under the antennae of the cell phones habitually carried within the bra, on the sternal side of the breast (the opposite of the norm). We note that case reports can point to major unrecognized hazards and avenues for further investigation, although they do not usually provide direct causal evidence.
In a study of four groups of men, of which one group did not use mobile phones, it was found that DNA damage indicators in hair follicle cells in the ear canal were higher in the RFR exposure groups than in the control subjects. In addition, DNA damage increased with the daily duration of exposure (34).
Many profess that RFR cannot be carcinogenic as it has insufficient energy to cause direct DNA damage. In a review, Vijayalaxmi and Prihoda (35) found some studies suggested significantly increased damage in cells exposed to RF energy compared to unexposed and/or sham-exposed control cells, others did not. Unfortunately, however, in grading the evidence, these authors failed to consider baseline DNA status or the fact that genotoxicity has been poorly predicted using tissue culture studies (36). As well funding, a strong source of bias in this field of enquiry, was not considered (37).
Children and Reproduction
As a result of rapid growth rates and the greater vulnerability of developing nervous systems, the long-term risks to children from RFR exposure from cell phones and other WTDs are expected to be greater than those to adults (38). By analogy with other carcinogens, longer opportunities for exposure due to earlier use of cell phones and other WTDs could be associated with greater cancer risks in later life.
Modeling of energy absorption can be an indicator of potential exposure to RFR. A study modeling the exposure of children 3–14 years of age to RFR has indicated that a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to roughly double the radiation doses (including fluctuating electrical and magnetic fields) per unit volume than in adults, and also that the marrow in the young, thin skull absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose than in the skull of an adult male (39). Thus, pediatric populations are among the most vulnerable to RFR exposure.
The increasing use of cell phones in children, which can be regarded as a form of addictive behavior (40), has been shown to be associated with emotional and behavioral disorders. Divan et al. (41) studied 13,000 mothers and children and found that prenatal exposure to cell phones was associated with behavioral problems and hyperactivity in children. A subsequent Danish study of 24,499 children found a 23% increased odds of emotional and behavioral difficulties at age 11 years among children whose mothers reported any cell phone use at age 7 years, compared to children whose mothers reported no use at age 7 years (42). A cross-sectional study of 4,524 US children aged 8–11 years from 20 study sites indicated that shorter screen time and longer sleep periods independently improved child cognition, with maximum benefits achieved with low screen time and age-appropriate sleep times (43). Similarly, a cohort study of Swiss adolescents suggested a potential adverse effect of RFR on cognitive functions that involve brain regions mostly exposed during mobile phone use (44). Sage and Burgio et al. (45) posit that epigenetic drivers and DNA damage underlie adverse effects of wireless devices on childhood development.
RFR exposure occurs in the context of other exposures, both beneficial (e.g., nutrition) and adverse (e.g., toxicants or stress). Two studies identified that RFR potentiated adverse effects of lead on neurodevelopment, with higher maternal use of mobile phones during pregnancy [1,198 mother-child pairs, (46)] and Attention Deficit Hyper-activity Disorder (ADHD) with higher cell phone use and higher blood lead levels, in 2,422 elementary school children (47).
A study of Mobile Phone Base Station Tower settings adjacent to school buildings has found that high exposure of male students to RFR from these towers was associated with delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in adolescent students, compared with students who were exposed to low RFR (48). A recent prospective cohort study showed a potential adverse effect of RFR brain dose on adolescents’ cognitive functions including spatial memory that involve brain regions exposed during cell phone use (44).
In a review, Pall (49) concluded that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects. Both animal research (50–52) and human studies of brain imaging research (53–56) indicate potential roles of RFR in these outcomes.
Male fertility has been addressed in cross-sectional studies in men. Associations between keeping cell phones in trouser pockets and lower sperm quantity and quality have been reported (57). Both in vivo and in vitro studies with human sperm confirm adverse effects of RFR on the testicular proteome and other indicators of male reproductive health (57, 58), including infertility (59). Rago et al. (60) found significantly altered sperm DNA fragmentation in subjects who use mobile phones for more than 4 h/day and in particular those who place the device in the trousers pocket. In a cohort study, Zhang et al. (61) found that cell phone use may negatively affect sperm quality in men by decreasing the semen volume, sperm concentration, or sperm count, thus impairing male fertility. Gautam et al. (62) studied the effect of 3G (1.8–2.5 GHz) mobile phone radiation on the reproductive system of male Wistar rats. They found that exposure to mobile phone radiation induces oxidative stress in the rats which may lead to alteration in sperm parameters affecting their fertility.
Related Observations, Implications and Strengths of Current Evidence
An extensive review of numerous published studies confirms non-thermally induced biological effects or damage (e.g., oxidative stress, damaged DNA, gene and protein expression, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier) from exposure to RFR (63), as well as adverse (chronic) health effects from long-term exposure (64). Biological effects of typical population exposures to RFR are largely attributed to fluctuating electrical and magnetic fields (65–67).
Indeed, an increasing number of people have developed constellations of symptoms attributed to exposure to RFR (e.g., headaches, fatigue, appetite loss, insomnia), a syndrome termed Microwave Sickness or Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS) (68–70).
Causal inference is supported by consistency between epidemiological studies of the effects of RFR on induction of human cancer, especially glioma and vestibular Schwannomas, and evidence from animal studies (8). The combined weight of the evidence linking RFR to public health risks includes a broad array of findings: experimental biological evidence of non-thermal effects of RFR; concordance of evidence regarding carcinogenicity of RFR; human evidence of male reproductive damage; human and animal evidence of developmental harms; and limited human and animal evidence of potentiation of effects from chemical toxicants. Thus, diverse, independent evidence of a potentially troubling and escalating problem warrants policy intervention.
Challenges to Research, From Rapid Technological Advances
Advances in RFR-related technologies have been and continue to be rapid. Changes in carrier frequencies and the growing complexity of modulation technologies can quickly render “yesterdays” technologies obsolete. This rapid obsolescence restricts the amount of data on human RFR exposure to particular frequencies, modulations and related health outcomes that can be collected during the lifespan of the technology in question.
Epidemiological studies with adequate statistical power must be based upon large numbers of participants with sufficient latency and intensity of exposure to specific technologies. Therefore, a lack of epidemiological evidence does not necessarily indicate an absence of effect, but rather an inability to study an exposure for the length of time necessary, with an adequate sample size and unexposed comparators, to draw clear conclusions. For example, no case-control study has been published on fourth generation (4G; 2–8 GHz) Long-term Evolution (LTE) modulation, even though the modulation was introduced in 2010 and achieved a 39% market share worldwide by 2018 (71).
With this absence of human evidence, governments must require large-scale animal studies (or other appropriate studies of indicators of carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects) to determine whether the newest modulation technologies incur risks, prior to release into the marketplace. Governments should also investigate short-term impacts such as insomnia, memory, reaction time, hearing and vision, especially those that can occur in children and adolescents, whose use of wireless devices has grown exponentially within the past few years.
The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).
Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (73, 74). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.
Gaps in Applying Current Evidence
Current exposure limits are based on an assumption that the only adverse health effect from RFR is heating from short-term (acute), time-averaged exposures (75). Unfortunately, in some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed (76). Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.
Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard” (77)2.
Conversely, some authorities have taken specific actions to reduce exposure to their citizens (78), including testing and recalling phones that exceed current exposure limits.
While we do not know how risks to individuals from using cell phones may be offset by the benefits to public health of being able to summon timely health, fire and police emergency services, the findings reported above underscore the importance of evaluating potential adverse health effects from RFR exposure, and taking pragmatic, practical actions to minimize exposure.
We propose the following considerations to address gaps in the current body of evidence:
• As many claim that we should by now be seeing an increase in the incidence of brain tumors if RFR causes them, ignoring the increases in brain tumors summarized above, a detailed evaluation of age-specific, location-specific trends in the incidence of gliomas in many countries is warranted.
• Studies should be designed to yield the strongest evidence, most efficiently:
➢ Population-based case-control designs can be more statistically powerful to determine relationships with rare outcomes such as glioma, than cohort studies. Such studies should explore the relationship between energy absorption (SAR3), duration of exposure, and adverse outcomes, especially brain cancer, cardiomyopathies and abnormal cardiac rythms, hematologic malignancies, thyroid cancer.
➢ Cohort studies are inefficient in the study of rare outcomes with long latencies, such as glioma, because of cost-considerations relating to the follow-up required of very large cohorts needed for the study of rare outcomes. In addition, without continual resource-consuming follow-up at frequent intervals, it is not possible to ascertain ongoing information about changing technologies, uses (e.g., phoning vs. texting or accessing the Internet) and/or exposures.
➢ Cross-sectional studies comparing high-, medium-, and low-exposure persons may yield hypothesis-generating information about a range of outcomes relating to memory, vision, hearing, reaction-time, pain, fertility, and sleep patterns.
• Exposure assessment is poor in this field, with very little fine-grained detail as to frequencies and modulations, doses and dose rates, and peak exposures, particularly over the long-term. Solutions such as wearable meters and phone apps have not yet been incorporated in large-scale research.
• Systematic reviews on the topic could use existing databases of research reports, such as the one created by Oceania Radiofrequency Science Advisory Association (79) or EMF Portal (80), to facilitate literature searches.
• Studies should be conducted to determine appropriate locations for installation of antennae and other broadcasting systems; these studies should include examination of biomarkers of inflammation, genotoxicity, and other health indicators in persons who live at different radiuses around these installations. This is difficult to study in the general population because many people’s greatest exposure arises from their personal devices.
• Further work should be undertaken to determine the distance that wireless technology antennae should be kept away from humans to ensure acceptable levels of safety, distinguishing among a broad range of sources (e.g., from commercial transmitters to Bluetooth devices), recognizing that exposures fall with the inverse of the square of the distance (The inverse-square law specifies that intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of radiation). The effective radiated power from cell towers needs to be regularly measured and monitored.
Policy Recommendations Based on the Evidence to Date
At the time of writing, a total of 32 countries or governmental bodies within these countries4 have issued policies and health recommendations concerning exposure to RFR (78). Three U.S. states have issued advisories to limit exposure to RFR (81–83) and the Worcester Massachusetts Public Schools (84) voted to post precautionary guidelines on Wi-Fi radiation on its website. In France, Wi-Fi has been removed from pre-schools and ordered to be shut off in elementary schools when not in use, and children aged 16 years or under are banned from bringing cell phones to school (85). Because the national test agency found 9 out of 10 phones exceeded permissible radiation limits, France is also recalling several million phones.
We therefore recommend the following:
1. Governmental and institutional support of data collection and analysis to monitor potential links between RFR associated with wireless technology and cancers, sperm, the heart, the nervous system, sleep, vision and hearing, and effects on children.
2. Further dissemination of information regarding potential health risk information that is in wireless devices and manuals is necessary to respect users’ Right To Know. Cautionary statements and protective measures should be posted on packaging and at points of sale. Governments should follow the practice of France, Israel and Belgium and mandate labeling, as for tobacco and alcohol.
3. Regulations should require that any WTD that could be used or carried directly against the skin (e.g., a cell phone) or in close proximity (e.g., a device being used on the lap of a small child) be tested appropriately as used, and that this information be prominently displayed at point of sale, on packaging, and both on the exterior and within the device.
4. IARC should convene a new working group to update the categorization of RFR, including current scientific findings that highlight, in particular, risks to youngsters of subsequent cancers. We note that an IARC Advisory Group has recently recommended that RFR should be re-evaluated by the IARC Monographs program with high priority.
5. The World Health Organization (WHO) should complete its long-standing RFR systematic review project, using strong modern scientific methods. National and regional public health authorities similarly need to update their understanding and to provide adequate precautionary guidance for the public to minimize potential health risks.
6. Emerging human evidence is confirming animal evidence of developmental problems with RFR exposure during pregnancy. RFR sources should be avoided and distanced from expectant mothers, as recommended by physicians and scientists (babysafeproject.org).
7. Other countries should follow France, limiting RFR exposure in children under 16 years of age.
8. Cell towers should be distanced from homes, daycare centers, schools, and places frequented by pregnant women, men who wish to father healthy children, and the young.
Specific examples of how the health policy recommendations above, invoking the Precautionary Principle, might be practically applied to protect public health, are provided in the Annex.
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that this manuscript was drafted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest, although subsequent to its preparation, DD became a consultant to legal counsel representing persons with glioma attributed to radiation from cell phones.
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Ali Siddiqui in drafting the Policy Recommendations, and those from members of the Board of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) into previous iterations of this manuscript. We are grateful to external reviewers for their thoughtful critiques that have served to improve both accuracy and presentation.This manuscript was initially developed by the authors as a draft of a Position Statement of INEP. The opportunity was then provided to INEP’s 23 member organizations to endorse what the INEP Board had recommended, but 12 of those member organizations elected not to vote. Of the 11 that did vote, three endorsed the statement, two voted against it, and six abstained. Ultimately, the Board voted to abandon its involvement with what it determined to be a divisive topic. The authors then decided that, in the public interest, the document should be published independent of INEP.
1. ^Per IEEE C95.1-1991, the radio-frequency radiation frequency range is from 3 kHz to 300 GHz and is non-ionizing.
2. ^The FCC adopted the IEEE C95.1 1991 standard in 1996.
3. ^When necessary, SAR values should be adjusted for age of child in W/kg.
4. ^Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, European Environmental Agency, European Parliament, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Italy, India, Ireland, Israel, Namibia, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
1. Carlberg M, Hedendahl L, Koppel T, Hardell L. High ambient radiofrequency radiation in Stockholm city, Sweden. Oncol Lett. (2019) 17:1777–83. doi: 10.3892/ol.2018.9789
2. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hedendahl LK. Radiofrequency radiation from nearby base stations gives high levels in an apartment in Stockholm, Sweden: a case report. Oncol Lett. (2018) 15:7871–83. doi: 10.3892/ol.2018.8285
4. Odemer R, Odemer F. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) on honey bee queen development and mating success. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 661:553–62. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.154
5. Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Plante A, Breunig H, Balmori A. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci Total Environ. (2016) 572:554–69. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045
6. ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection. Health Phys. (1998) 74:494–522.
7. IARC. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (2013). p. 102.
8. Miller AB, Morgan LL, Udasin I, Davis DL. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environ Res. (2018) 167:673–83. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043
9. Hardell L, Carlberg M. 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. (2015) 22:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001
10. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Kjell HM. Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncol. (2013) 43:1036–44. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2013.2025
12. Karipidis K, Elwood M, Benke G, Sanagou M, Tjong L, Croft RJ. Mobile phone use and incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical location: a population-based ecological study. BMJ Open. (2018) 8:e024489. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024489
13. Nilsson J, Järås J, Henriksson R, Holgersson G, Bergström S, Estenberg J. No evidence for increased brain tumour incidence in the Swedish national cancer register between years 1980-2012. Anticancer Res. (2019) 39:791–6. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.13176
14. Gittleman HR, Ostrom QT, Rouse CD, Dowling JA, de Blank PM, Kruchko CA, et al. Trends in central nervous system tumor incidence relative to other common cancers in adults, adolescents, and children in the United States, 2000 to 2010. Cancer. (2015) 121:102–12. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29015
15. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, de Blank PM, Finlay JL, Gurney JG, McKean-Cowdin R, et al. Adolescent and young adult primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012. Neuro-Oncology. (2016) 18 (suppl. 1):1–50. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nov297
16. Philips A, Henshaw DL, Lamburn G, O’Carroll MJ. Brain tumours: rise in glioblastoma multiforme incidence in England 1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Public Health Environ. (2018) 2018:7910754. doi: 10.1155/2018/2170208
18. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Truitt G, Boscia A, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2011–2015. Neuro-Oncology. (2018) 20:1–86. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noy131
19. Röösli M, Lagorio S, Schoemaker MJ, Schüz J, Feychting M. Brain and salivary gland tumors and mobile phone use: evaluating the evidence from various epidemiological study designs. Annu Rev Public Health. (2019) 40:221–38. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044037
20. Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Review of four publications on the Danish cohort study on mobile phone subscribers and risk of brain tumours. Rev Environ Health. (2012) 27:51–8. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2012-0004
21. Vrijheid M, Deltour I, Krewski D, Sanchez M, Cardis E. The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. (2006) 16:371–84. doi: 10.1038/sj.jes.7500509
22. Goedhart G, van Wel L, Langer CE, de Llobet Viladoms P, Wiart J, Hours M, et al. Recall of mobile phone usage and laterality in young people: the multinational Mobi-Expo study. Environ Res. (2018) 165:150–7. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.04.018
23. Brzozek C, Benke KK, Zeleke BM, Abramson MJ, Benke G. Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and memory performance: sources of uncertainty in epidemiological cohort studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:E592. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040592
24. Carlberg M, Hardell L. Decreased survival of glioma patients with astrocytoma grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme) associated with long-term use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2014) 11:10790–805. doi: 10.3390/ijerph111010790
25. Olsson A, Bouaoun L, Auvinen A, Feychting M, Johansen C, Mathiesen T, et al. Survival of glioma patients in relation to mobile phone use in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. J Neurooncol. (2019) 141:139–49. doi: 10.1007/s11060-018-03019-5
26. National Toxicology Program. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague-Dawley SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. NTP TR 595. (2018). Available online at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf (accessed August 25, 2018).
27. National Toxicology Program. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in B6C3F1/N Mice Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (1800 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. NTP TR 596. (2018). Available online at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr596peerdraft.pdf (accessed August 25, 2018).
29. Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ Res. (2019) 168:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010
30. Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, De Angelis L, Gnudi F, et al. 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 emission. Environ Res. (2018) 165:496–503. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037
31. Lerchl A, Klose M, Grote K, Wilhelm AF, Spathmann O, Fiedler T, et al. Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2015) 459:585–90. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.151
32. Soffritti M, Giuliani L. The carcinogenic potential of non-ionizing radiations: the cases of S-50 Hz MF, and 1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. (2019). doi: 10.1111/bcpt.13215
33. West JG, Kapoor NS, Liao SY, Chen JW, Bailey L, Nagourney RA. Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. Case Rep Med. (2013) 2013:354682. doi: 10.1155/2013/354682
34. Akdag M, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Akdag MZ. Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells. Electromagn Biol Med. (2018) 37:66–75. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2018.1463246
35. Vijayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ. Comprehensive review of quality of publications and meta-analysis of genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields. Radiat Res. (2019) 191:20–30. doi: 10.1667/RR15117.1
37. Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Müntener K, Röösli M. Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspect. (2007) 115:1–4. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9149
39. Fernández C, de Salles AA, Sears ME, Morris RD, Davis DL. Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environ Res. (2018) 167:694–9. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013
42. Sudan M, Olsen J, Arah OA, Obel C, Kheifets L. Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and emotional and behavioural difficulties in children. J Epidemiol Community Health. (2016) 70:1207–13. doi: 10.1136/jech-2016-207419
43. Walsh JJ, Barnes JD, Cameron JD, Goldfield GS, Chaput JP, Gunnell KE, et al. Associations between 24 hour movement behaviours and global cognition in US children: a cross-sectional observational study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. (2018) 2:783–91. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(18)30278-5
44. Foerster M, Thielens A, Joseph W, Eeftens M, Röösli M. A prospective cohort study of adolescents’ memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication. Environ Health Perspect. (2018) 126:077007. doi: 10.1289/EHP2427
46. Choi KH, Ha M, Ha EH, Park H, Kim Y, Hong YC, et al. Neurodevelopment for the first three years following prenatal mobile phone use, radio frequency radiation and lead exposure. Environ Res. (2017) 156:810–17. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.04.029
47. Byun YH, Ha M, Kwon HJ, Hong YC, Leem JH, Sakong J, et al. Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: a longitudinal study. PLoS ONE. (2013) 8:e59742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059742
48. Meo SA, Almahmoud M, Alsultan Q, Alotaibi N, Alnajashi I, Hajjar WM. Mobile phone base station tower settings adjacent to school buildings: impact on students’ cognitive health. Am J Mens Health. (2018) 13:1557988318816914. doi: 10.1177/1557988318816914
50. Deniz OG, Suleyman K, Mustafa BS, Terzi M, Altun G, Yurt KK, et al. Effects of short and long term electromagnetic fields exposure on the human hippocampus. J Microsc Ultrastruct. (2017) 5:191–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmau.2017.07.001
51. Eghlidospour M, Amir G, Seyyed MJM, Hassan A. Effects of radiofrequency exposure emitted from a GSM mobile phone on proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of neural stem cells. Anatomy Cell Biol. (2017) 50:115–23. doi: 10.5115/acb.2017.50.2.115
53. Huber R, Treyer V, Borbély AA, Schuderer J, Gottselig JM, Landolt HP, et al. Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG. J Sleep Res. (2002) 11:289–95. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2869.2002.00314.x
56. Kostoff RN, Lau CGY. Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents in the published literature. Technol Forecast Soc Change. (2013) 80:1331–49. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.006
57. Adams JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews F. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm 421 quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int. (2014) 70:106–12. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015
61. Zhang G, Yan H, Chen Q, Liu K, Ling X, Sun L, et al. Effects of cell phone use on semen parameters: results from the MARHCS cohort study in Chongqing, China. Environ Int. (2016) 91:116–21. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.028
63. BioInitiative Working Group. A Rationale for Biologically-Based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation. BioInitiative. (2012) Available online at: https://www.bioinitiative.org/ (accessed August 25, 2018).
64. Belyaev I. Dependence of non–thermal biological effects of microwaves on physical and biological variables: implications for reproducibility and safety standards. In: Giuliani L, Soffritti M, Editors. Non–Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter, Vol. 5. Bologna: Ramazzini Institute (2010). p. 187–218.
65. Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. In: IEEE Power Electronics Magazine 3, (March) (2016). p. 60–8.
66. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PLoS ONE. (2013) 8:e62663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663
68. Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, et al. EUROPAEM EMF guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. (2016) 31:363–97. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011
69. Heuser G, Heuser SA. Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health. (2017) 32:291–9. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2017-0014
70. Belpomme D, Hardell L, Belyaev I, Burgio E, Carpenter DO. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: an international perspective. Environ Pollut. (2018) 242:643–58. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019
76. Alster N. Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates. Cambridge, MA: Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Harvard University (2015).
77. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. (IEEE)IEEE c95.1 IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHZ to 300 GHz. (1991) Available online at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1626482/(accessed August 25, 2018).
79. Leach V, Weller S, Redmayne M. Database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation. A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation. Rev Environ Health. (2018) 33:273–80. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2018-0017
Annex: Examples of Actions for Reducing RFR Exposure
1. Focus actions for reducing exposure to RFR on pregnant women, infants, children and adolescents, as well as males who might wish to become fathers.
2. Reduce, as much as possible, the extent to which infants and young children are exposed to RFR from Wi-Fi-enabled devices such as baby monitors, wearable devices, cell phones, tablets, etc.
3. Avoid placing cell towers and small cell antennae close to schools and homes pending further research and revision of the existing exposure limits. In schools, homes and the workplace, cable or optical fiber connections to the Internet are preferred. Wi-Fi routers in schools and daycares/kindergartens should be strongly discouraged and programs instituted to provide Internet access via cable or fiber.
4. Ensure that WTDs minimize radiation by transmitting only when necessary, and as infrequently as is feasible. Examples include transmitting only in response to a signal (e.g., accessing a router or querying a device, a cordless phone handset being turned on, or voice or motion activation). Prominent, visible power switches are needed to ensure that WTDs can be easily turned on only when needed, and off when not required (e.g., Wi-Fi when sleeping).
5. Lower permitted power densities in close proximity to fixed-site antennae, from “occupational” limits to exposure limits for the general public.
6. Update current exposure limits to be protective against the non-thermal effects of RFR. Such action should be taken by all heath ministries and public health agencies, as well as industry regulatory bodies. Exposure limits should be based on measurements of RFR levels related to biological effects (2).
7. Ensure that advisories relating to cell phone use are placed in such a way that purchasers can find them easily, similar to the Berkeley Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance (86).
8. Advise the public that texting and speaker mode are preferable to holding cell phones to the ear. Alternatively, use hands-free accessories for cell phones, including air tube headsets that interrupt the transmission of RFR.
9. When possible, keep cell phones away from the body (e.g., on a nearby desk, in a purse or bag, or on a mounted hands-free accessory in motor vehicles).
10. Delay the widespread implementation of 5G (and any other new technology) until studies can be conducted to assess safety. This includes a wide range of household and community-wide infrastructure WTDs and self-driving vehicles, as well as the building of 5G minicells.
11. Fiber-optic connections for the Internet should be made available to every home, office, school, warehouse and factory, when and where possible.
Citation: Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell L, Oremus M and Soskolne CL (2019) Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Front. Public Health 7:223. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223
Received: 10 April 2019; Accepted: 25 July 2019; Published: 13 August 2019.
Emily Madill Herbal treatment is 100% guarantee for Herpes, PENIS ENLARGEMENT, Erectile Dysfunction, the reason why most people are finding it difficult to get a bigger and Erect Penis is because they believe on medical report, drugs and medical treatment which is not helpful to Enlargement or erectile dysfunction . Natural roots/herbs are the best remedy which can easily Enlarge Penis and Last Longer on Bed. My Husband is a living Testimony to this process Robinson buckler helped my Husband with his Herbal Product which started to manifest within 3 weeks of use so i am writing his Contact for anyone who needs his Help in Enlarging of Penis and cure to erectile dysfunction, Contact Dr via Email: [robinsonbucler@gmail]. com
7:30 PM, 11 May 2020
Emmanuella Daniel Robinson buckler cure all kind of diseases including Herpes Disease, at first i doubted if it was real but decided to give it a try…then i contact Robinson buckler and he replied me and explain how the process work so after ordering for the medicine I got it within 3/4 working days through UPS Delivery Service and I took it according to the way Robinson buckler instructed, I was so happy after 14days I took the medicine there was a very big changes in my health when I was done with the process I go for test, I found out I am negative…Herpes patients should also get in touch with this herbalist Robinson buckler to get ride of these Herpes Virus forever contact him via email on Robinson.buckler @yahoo. com……..https://robinbuckler.com/…………………this is Fabulous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…………………
6:17 AM, 06 November 2020
Tedd C Hello all, just want to share this to make more people aware how many of us suffer: I have EMF intolerance syndrome and because all my neighbors refuse to use wired internet instead of Wi-Fi I had to paint the whole house with a shielding paint what provides very high shielding level against Wi-Fi and cell phone signals including 5G range. And that is not cheap. That really helped me a lot, I recovered after a long time, most of it I had to sit at my shielded home, and now can be in highly EMF contaminated places for short periods while before I feel sick immediately and could collapse. It is a shame that most of people just don’t want to understand such problems, For those who just discovered that they can feel the effects of EMF I would recommend to have a look on this website: https://emfclothing.com/<br/>I’ve got the paint EMF-Turtal from them and a lot of shielded clothes, for clothing and caps look for the brand Leblok, they have distributors in different countries and they are actually the first company started to make EMF protective garments and accessories.<br/>Let’s respect each other. Take care.
PITTSFIELD — The city’s director of public health said her department is ill-equipped to fulfill the City Council’s request to investigate reports from neighbors who believe that cellular radiation emitted from the tower off South Street is causing health problems.
Director Gina Armstrong responded to the council’s investigation request in a brief letter for its Tuesday meeting, writing that the city’s Board of Health might consider making a referral to the state Department of Public Health, since the Pittsfield Health Department isn’t qualified to weigh in.
“The Health Department is not qualified and does not have the expertise to accurately assess the residents’ health concerns, nor is the Health Department qualified to assess the causes of the residents’ health concerns,” Armstrong said.
Experts told CNET that more research on the wavelengths used by 5G, or fifth-generation, cellular technology would be helpful, but that nothing to date suggests that people should be concerned. The World Health Organization says “no adverse health effect has been causally linked” to 5G or any other cellular frequency, but it supports additional research “into the possible long-term health impacts of all aspects of mobile-telecommunications.”
PITTSFIELD — The tower stands. For now. An effort by Pittsfield neighbors to subject a new cell tower to a fresh municipal review came up short in Berkshire Superior Court. But, plaintiffs …
Some neighbors of the tower, located at the back of 877 South St., have voiced concerns about the 115-foot Verizon Wireless cell tower at multiple council meetings and in the courts. One of them is Courtney Gilardi of Alma Street, who says her daughter started experiencing headaches, dizziness and nausea in August, and later learned that her symptoms started the day that the tower went into service. According to Gilardi, her daughter wasn’t the only neighbor who reported “having a sudden onset of symptoms since the activation of the cell tower.”
Armstrong’s letter was “disappointing,” given neighbors’ hopes “that we could work together with the city to be able to get some answers, and get some relief,” Gilardi said. She said she is considering running to succeed Ward 4 Councilor Chris Connell, who is not seeking reelection. She said the city largely has been unresponsive to neighbors’ concerns about the tower, an experience that, she said, “has everything to do with” her interest in running for the council.
In January, the City Council voted unanimously to request that the Health Department investigate “health concerns that have been reported by some of the residents that live near the cell tower … since its activation and report back” findings and remedies. Armstrong, whose letter comes in response to the petition, didn’t respond to requests for comment Monday.
Connell filed the petition with Ward 5 Councilor Patrick Kavey, and said the Health Department should document the residents’ reports, at bottom, and hire an expert to guide a review if needed. Connell said the “city’s just trying to wash their hands of the whole situation, and I think it’s deplorable.”
Kavey noted that Pittsfield and other communities generally have limited authority over decisions about telecommunications, as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. He said it’s unclear to him whether cellular radiation from the tower could be related to the neighbors’ reported health issues, and a Health Department review would have helped clarify the issue.
“If our Health Department is unable to look into the health concerns of our residents, then who is?” he said. “The bottom line is, we have been hearing about these health concerns for the last seven, eight months, and no one has looked into them.”