FDA Removes “Lack of Health Risk” Statement from Cell Phone Pages

The pages now focus on the FDA’s regulatory role with the FCC and its public scientific guidance. https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/cell-phones

There is no public announcement yet that provides a research protocol, detailed aims, timelines, or responsible investigators.

At this stage, no detailed official documents or research plans have been made public. There is currently no information describing how the study will be conducted, including whether it will involve human observational research, laboratory experiments, animal models, or a combination of approaches. Specific health outcomes to be examined—such as cancer, neurological effects, or fertility—have not been identified, nor have any details been released about exposure levels, measurement methods, or control groups.

There has also been no announcement outlining a timeline for the study. Authorities have not indicated when data collection might begin, how long the research is expected to run, or when findings could be released.

In addition, aside from its general connection to recommendations from the MAHA Commission, there has been no public disclosure of funding levels, oversight mechanisms, scientific review boards, or collaborating institutions.

Such details are typically released later through official channels, including press statements from the Department of Health and Human Services, announcements from agencies such as the NIH or FDA, grant notices, publication of study protocols, or registration in research databases like ClinicalTrials.gov. As of now, none of these disclosures have occurred.

How WHO and IARC Review the Evidence.

WHO and IARC review scientific evidence in a thorough, step-by-step process, using systematic reviews and expert evaluations. They usually don’t wait for a single new study—like the upcoming U.S. health department study—before updating their conclusions or the official classification of cellphone radiation. Instead, they consider all available, peer-reviewed research up to a set cut-off date and make their assessments on schedule.

Further reading: Autism, Circadian Disruption and Pregnancy https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/autism-circadian-disruption-and-pregnancy/

References

US health department to launch study on cellphone radiation https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-health-department-launch-study-cellphone-radiation-2026-01-15/

RFK Jr. tells USA TODAY 5G towers for cellphone use ‘a major health concern’ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/16/robert-kennedy-5g-electromagnetic-radiation/88220793007/

Is Cellphone Radiation the Next Big Health Question? Inside the U.S. Health Department’s New Inquiry https://earthtimes.org/is-cellphone-radiation-the-next-big-health-question-inside-the-u-s-health-departments-new-inquiry/

Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2025–2029 https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AGP_Report_2025-2029.pdf

*Photo by Victor Larracuente on Unsplash

The post Cellphone Radiation and Health Effects — New U.S. Study appeared first on EMFSA.

Posted on March 15th, 2021

Dariusz Leszczynski:

I have written, on several occasions, about the differences between ICNIRP opinions and opinions of ICNIRP members when placed in non-ICNIRP scientific committees. There is something wrong with ICNIRP, that operates in detachment from science in general and thrives thanks to the support from the German government and telecom industry umbrella organizations as MWF and GSMA. Here are few examples of ICNIRP-bubble…

• Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently validated
• BERENIS disagrees with ICNIRP
• Leszczynski: Statement on the need for validation of ICNIRP’s review of science
• Leszczynski: There is something utterly wrong with the ICNIRP membership
• Significant discrepancy of opinions on 5G and health between ICNIRP and the Health Council of the Netherlands

…and a news message from Joel Moskowitz…

Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), recently completed an expert report on brain tumor risk from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation used in cellphone technology.

Read more at: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/this-is-big-news-from-usa-yet-another-expert-considers-rf-as-probably-carcinogenic/

The post This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic appeared first on EMFSA.

https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html

Monday, March 15, 2021

Expert Report by Former U.S. Government Official Concludes High Probability Radio Frequency Radiation Causes Brain Tumors

Christopher J. Portier, Ph.D., former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), recently completed an expert report on brain tumor risk from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation used in cellphone technology.

After completing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, Dr. Portier concluded:
“In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”

In 2011, Dr. Portier was selected to represent the CDC on an expert working group convened by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to review the carcinogenicity of RF radiation.

Based upon recommendations of the expert panel, the IARC declared RF radiation “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) and the following year issued a monograph summarizing the evidence. Because the preponderance of the peer-reviewed research published since 2011 supports the need to upgrade this classification, the IARC has prioritized a new review to be conducted by 2024.

Dr. Portier’s 176-page expert report including 443 references was prepared for the plaintiffs in a major product liability lawsuit, Murray et al. v Motorola, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against the telecommunications industry. The report appears as Exhibit 3 in a recent filing with the Court.

Christopher J. Portier. Expert Report. Exhibit C. Murray et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al. Superior Court for the District of Columbia. March 1, 2021. pp. 1-176. 

The report can be downloaded from: 

Read the Summary Statements from the Expert Report at https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html

Dr. Portier’s conclusion is consistent with the results of our recently published meta-analysis of the case-control research on cellular phone use and tumor risk.

For a summary of our paper see: https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html. 

Yoon-Jung Choi+, Joel M. Moskowitz+, Seung-Kwon Myung*, Yi-Ryoung Lee, Yun-Chul Hong*. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020, 17(21), 8079; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.

Abstract

We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies. Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.

+Contributed equally to this study as the first author.    *Correspondence.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8079

The post Expert Report by Former U.S. Government Official Concludes High Probability Radio Frequency Radiation Causes Brain Tumors appeared first on EMFSA.