RF SAFE® Radio Frequency Safe

Are We Conducting an Uncontrolled Experiment on Ourselves with 5G Technology?

Four senior academic scientists, including the former director of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), are calling for the application of the precautionary principle to public exposures to RF radiation. In a strongly worded appeal published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research, Paul Ben Ishai, Linda Birnbaum, Devra Davis, and Hugh Taylor point to a “plethora of both experimental and epidemiological evidence establishing a causal relationship between EMF and cancer and other adverse health effects.”

Microwave News has Reported:

Why Don’t the Tenets of Toxicology Apply?

The scientists argue that the public discourse on the health risks of RF radiation has been distorted by some “fundamentally flawed, yet widely publicized reports purporting to show no health risk.” They also point out that much of this disinformation comes from industry-affiliated scientists.

The lead author of the paper, Ben Ishai, decried the fact that the fundamental tenets of toxicology, “to predict and prevent harm,” are being dismissed when it comes to RF radiation. He described the rejection of both the Precautionary Principle and the Bradford Hill criteria for RF as “a major problem.” The Hill criteria are used to help establish causation.

Birnbaum, who led the NTP from 2009 to 2019 and is currently a scholar in residence at Duke University, thinks that some people do not want “to believe that non-ionizing radiation can have effects.” The clash between two different views of the world, ascribed by Ben Ishai, is the problem. Toxicology is the province of those with backgrounds in biology and medicine who appreciate the possibility of long-term, cumulative effects, while those with engineering and physics backgrounds look for immediate causation.

In addition, the authors took issue with the 2021 review by David Robert Grimes published in JAMA Oncology. The text of their new paper, published in Environmental Research, takes issue with Grimes no fewer than a dozen times. They object to Grimes’s assertion that “The NTP study was so flawed that it did not constitute a valid finding.” Soon after the Grimes paper was published, Birnbaum and Davis urged JAMA Oncology to retract it, as did Microwave News. However, the JAMA editors refused.  It should be noted for years now; RF Safe has also been reporting on the Grimmy authorship by David Grimes to wargame the wireless safety health issue.

The authors also “add their voices to those of 400 experts in the field calling for discussion of a moratorium on 5G.” 5G is the latest generation of cell phone technology. Without this, they warn, “We are effectively conducting an uncontrolled experiment on ourselves, our families, and our children.”

In conclusion, the call for the application of the precautionary principle to RF radiation is a significant step towards protecting public health. The clash between different views on the risks of RF radiation shows that more research and regulation are needed. It is essential to have a complete picture of the evidence and not the whitewashed or distorted version currently promoted by industry-affiliated scientists. The support of Microwave News and Louis Slesin, PhD, is vital to ensuring that this issue receives the attention and action it deserves.

As we discussed in the previous article, four senior scientists have called for the application of the precautionary principle to public exposures to radiofrequency (RF) radiation. They argue that the public discourse on the health risks of RF radiation has been distorted by some “fundamentally flawed, yet widely publicized reports purporting to show no health risk.” In this article, we will explore some studies that support their claims, particularly the link between cell phone use and cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which include the radiation emitted by cell phones, as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This classification was based on the findings of several studies that showed an increased risk of glioma, a type of brain cancer, among heavy cell phone users. Similarly, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released the results of a study that found an increased risk of malignant schwannomas, a type of nerve tumor, in rats exposed to high levels of radiofrequency radiation. The study also found some evidence of an increased risk of brain tumors.

Other studies also support the link between cell phone radiation and cancer. A case-control study conducted by Hardell et al. found an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, a type of tumor that affects the nerve that controls hearing and balance, among long-term cell phone users. The Coureau et al. study found an increased risk of glioma among those who had used cell phones for more than 896 hours in their lifetime. The Interphone study, a large multinational case-control study, found some evidence of an increased risk of glioma among heavy cell phone users, although the results were not statistically significant. However, a later analysis of the Interphone study data found that the risk of glioma was significantly increased among those who had used cell phones for more than 1,640 hours.

While some studies have not found a link between cell phone use and cancer, it is important to consider the methods and limitations of these studies. Some studies have been criticized for relying on self-reported data or for not accounting for long-term exposure to cell phone radiation. Additionally, some researchers may have conflicts of interest, such as financial ties to the telecommunications industry, which could influence their findings. However, the facts are the facts! A lot of research, and I do mean a lot, says Cell Phones Do Cause Cancer! 

Studies that provide the strongest evidence for the increased risk of brain tumors with long-term cell phone use include:

  1. Hardell and Carlberg (2013)
  2. Cardis et al. (2011)
  3. Coureau et al. (2014)
  4. Lahkola et al. (2011)
  5. Hardell et al. (2014)
  6. Hardell et al. (2013)
  7. Aydin et al. (2011)
  8. Kim et al. (2017)
  9. Markovà and Malmgren (2017)

Other studies that support this association include:

  1. Kundi et al. (2009)
  2. Khurana et al. (2009)
  3. Söderqvist et al. (2008)
  4. Benson et al. (2013)
  5. Morgan et al. (2015)
  6. Carlberg et al. (2013)
  7. Interphone Study Group (2010)
  8. Hardell et al. (2007)
  9. Interphone Study Group (2011)
  10. Hardell and Carlberg (2013)

Studies that demonstrate increased DNA damage or oxidative stress in cells exposed to cell phone radiation include:

  1. Prasad et al. (2017)
  2. Vijayalaxmi et al. (2015)
  3. Desai et al. (2009)

Other studies that suggest potential health effects associated with long-term cell phone use include:

  1. Lerchl et al. (2015)
  2. Wu et al. (2019)
  3. Gandhi et al. (2019)
  4. Miah et al. (2017)
  5. Falcioni et al. (2018)
  6. Yakymenko and Sidorik (2010)
  7. Kesari et al. (2014)
  8. Lerchl et al. (2015)
  9. Miller et al. (2019)
  10. Morgan (2019)
  11. Johansen et al. (2001)
  12. IARC Working Group (2013)

Given the potential risks associated with prolonged and frequent cell phone use, it is important to take steps to protect ourselves and our loved ones. One way to do so is to limit our exposure to cell phone radiation by using hands-free devices or speakerphone, keeping cell phones away from the body, and limiting the amount of time spent on them. It is also crucial to continue advocating for awareness and precautionary measures to ensure a safer future.

In conclusion, while not all studies have reached the same conclusions about the link between cell phone use and cancer, the cumulative evidence from multiple studies suggests that there may be a link between long-term cell phone use and increased risk of certain types of cancer. As such, it is crucial to take precautionary measures to reduce exposure to cell phone radiation and continue to advocate for awareness and research in this area.

 

Senior Scientists Call for Precautionary Principle to be Applied to RF Radiation

Targeting Bias in JAMA Oncology: The Truth About RF Radiation and Cancer Risks

The Clash of Views on RF Radiation: Why Don’t the Tenets of Toxicology Apply?

Join the 5G Appeal: Experts Call for Moratorium on Latest Generation of Cell Phone Technology

 

RF Safe

Be RF Safe