<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ramazzini Archives - EMFSA</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/tag/ramazzini/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.emfsa.co.za/tag/ramazzini/</link>
	<description>Electromagnetic fields South Africa</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:02:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Environmental radiofrequency radiation at the Järntorget Square in Stockholm Old Town, Sweden in May, 2018 compared with results on brain and heart tumour risks in rats exposed to 1.8 GHz base station environmental emissions</title>
		<link>https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/environmental-radiofrequency-radiation-at-the-jarntorget-square-in-stockholm-old-town-sweden-in-may-2018-compared-with-results-on-brain-and-heart-tumour-risks-in-rats-exposed-to-1-8-ghz-base-station/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Editor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research and Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[5G]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carcinogen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glial tumours]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IARC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramazzini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RFR-EMF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schwannoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stockholm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sweden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WHO]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfsa.co.za/?p=6765</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>&#160; Abstract: Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz to 300 GHz was evaluated in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO to be a &#8216;possible human carcinogen&#8217; Group 2B. The conclusion was based on human epidemiological studies on an increasedrisk of glioma and acoustic neuroma. In previous [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/environmental-radiofrequency-radiation-at-the-jarntorget-square-in-stockholm-old-town-sweden-in-may-2018-compared-with-results-on-brain-and-heart-tumour-risks-in-rats-exposed-to-1-8-ghz-base-station/">Environmental radiofrequency radiation at the Järntorget Square in Stockholm Old Town, Sweden in May, 2018 compared with results on brain and heart tumour risks in rats exposed to 1.8 GHz base station environmental emissions</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;">Abstract:<br />
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz to 300 GHz was evaluated in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO to be a &#8216;possible human carcinogen&#8217; Group 2B. The conclusion was based on human epidemiological studies on an increasedrisk of glioma and acoustic neuroma.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;">In previous measurement studies, we found high environmental RF radiation levels at certain public places and also in an apartment in Stockholm, Sweden. One such place was the Järntorget square in the Stockholm Old Town. The EME Spy exposimeter was used for these studies. We have now conducted a field spatial distribution measurement with a<br />
radiofrequency broadband analyser. The maximum E-field topped at 11.6 V/m at the centre of the square, where the antenna was focused.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;">Järntorget&#8217;s mean value was 5.2 V/m, median 5.0 V/m, range 1.2-11.6V/m. Of interest is that this level can be compared to a lifespan carcinogenicity study on rats exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM environmental radiation performed at the Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy. A<br />
statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in male rats at the highest dose, 50V/m. In treated female rats at the highest dose, the incidence of malignant glial tumours was increased, although this was not<br />
statistically significant. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;">On the whole, the findings of this study showed that RF radiation levels at one square, Järntorget, in Sweden, were only one order of magnitude lower than those showing an increased incidence of tumours in the RI animal study. An increased cancer risk cannot be excluded for those working in the proximity of Järntorget for longer time periods.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Excerpt from the Introduction</p>
<p><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-6771 size-full" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-6.png" alt="" width="430" height="320" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-6.png 430w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-6-300x223.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 430px) 100vw, 430px" /></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
.<img decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-6767 size-full" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-2.png" alt="" width="628" height="353" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-2.png 628w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-2-300x169.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 628px) 100vw, 628px" /></span></p>
<p><img decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-6768 size-full" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-3.png" alt="" width="557" height="18" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-3.png 557w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-3-300x10.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 557px) 100vw, 557px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-6769 size-full" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-4.png" alt="" width="648" height="428" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-4.png 648w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-4-300x198.png 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 648px) 100vw, 648px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-6770 size-full" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-5.png" alt="" width="853" height="35" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-5.png 853w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-5-300x12.png 300w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mikko-5-768x32.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 853px) 100vw, 853px" /></p>
<p><a href="http://worldacademyofsciences.com/journal/WASJ-104_HARDELL.pdf">http://worldacademyofsciences.com/journal/WASJ-104_HARDELL.pdf</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/environmental-radiofrequency-radiation-at-the-jarntorget-square-in-stockholm-old-town-sweden-in-may-2018-compared-with-results-on-brain-and-heart-tumour-risks-in-rats-exposed-to-1-8-ghz-base-station/">Environmental radiofrequency radiation at the Järntorget Square in Stockholm Old Town, Sweden in May, 2018 compared with results on brain and heart tumour risks in rats exposed to 1.8 GHz base station environmental emissions</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scientists criticize ICNIRP &#8211; NTP and Ramazzini RF cancer studies</title>
		<link>https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/scientists-criticize-icnirp-ntp-and-ramazzini-rf-cancer-studies/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Editor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carcinogenesis Testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cell Phone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IARC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICNIRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Melnick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NTP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramazzini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RF]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfsa.co.za/?p=5946</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Ron Melnick  (who designed the NTP cell phone study): 15 &#8220;extensive and misleading statements&#8221; made by ICNIRP on the NTP and Ramazzini RF &#8211; cancer studies: See the rest at the link below. We wish to point out number 7: Criticism by ICNIRP concerning the consistency between the NTP studies (NTP 2018a) and the Ramazzini [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/scientists-criticize-icnirp-ntp-and-ramazzini-rf-cancer-studies/">Scientists criticize ICNIRP &#8211; NTP and Ramazzini RF cancer studies</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-5957 aligncenter" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ICNIRP-4-1.png" alt="" width="159" height="82" /></p>
<p><strong>Ron Melnick  (who designed the NTP cell phone study):</strong></p>
<p>15 &#8220;extensive and misleading statements&#8221; made by ICNIRP on the NTP and Ramazzini RF &#8211; cancer studies:</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-5947 size-full" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Melnick.jpg" alt="" width="982" height="1200" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Melnick.jpg 982w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Melnick-246x300.jpg 246w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Melnick-768x938.jpg 768w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Melnick-838x1024.jpg 838w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 982px) 100vw, 982px" /></p>
<p>See the rest at the link below. We wish to point out number 7:</p>
<p>Criticism by ICNIRP concerning the consistency between the NTP studies (NTP 2018a) and the Ramazzini study (Falcioni et al., 2018) is disingenuous. The fact that both studies carried out in independent laboratories in Italy and the U.S. found increased incidences of heart schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in Sprague-Dawley rats under different exposure environments and different RF intensity levels is  remarkable. Without knowledge or analysis of the true dose-response relationship between RFR exposure and the induction of schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias of the heart, it is unreasonable to expect a linear dose-response by combining data from these two separate studies.  Link below:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="KPWGg9Vufq"><p><a href="https://ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/">US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP&#8217;s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer in Experimental Animals</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  src="https://ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/embed/#?secret=KPWGg9Vufq" data-secret="KPWGg9Vufq" width="600" height="338" title="&#8220;US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP&#8217;s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer in Experimental Animals&#8221; &#8212; Environmental Health Trust" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<p><strong> Fiorella Belpoggi of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy</strong> responds to the ICNIRP:</p>
<p>Studies of the Ramazzinini Institute and the U.S. NTP will &#8220;certainly contribute&#8221; to the evidence that IARC and other agencies can use to re- evaluate RF cancer risks:</p>
<p>Comments on the ICNIRP evaluation on the NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies:</p>
<ol>
<li>For sure both NTP and RI studies were well performed, no bias affecting the results. ICNIRP confirms that.</li>
<li>Shwannomas are tumors arising from the Schwann cells, they are peripheral glial cells which cover and protect the surface of all nerves diffused throughout the body; so vestibular (acoustic nerve) and heart schwannomas have the same tissue of origin: ICNIRP seems to ignore that;</li>
<li>In rats, increases in malignant heart schwannomas, malignant glial tumors of the brain and Schwann Cells Hyperplasia (a pre-malignant lesion) are rare yet these lesions were observed in exposed animals of both laboratories, at thousands of kilometers distance, in a wide range of RFR exposures studied. These findings could not be interpreted as occurring “by chance”.</li>
<li>We are scientists, our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment. Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vynil chloride. This position of ICNIRP represents its own responsibility toward citizens and public health.</li>
<li>ICNIRP is not a public health agency that routinely evaluates carcinogens. On the other hand, an independent agency that has evaluated over 1000 agents, IARC, as early as 2013 classified RFR as a possible carcinogen on the basis of limited evidence in humans and limited evidence in animals. The studies of the RI and NTP will certainly contribute to the burden of evidence that IARC and other public health agencies can draw upon as a solid base for the re-evaluation of RFR carcinogenicity.<br />
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="YScwX2v18s"><p><a href="https://www.ramazzini.org/comunicato/onde-elettromagnetiche-listituto-ramazzini-risponde-allicnirp/">Onde elettromagnetiche, l&#8217;Istituto Ramazzini risponde all&#8217;ICNIRP</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  src="https://www.ramazzini.org/comunicato/onde-elettromagnetiche-listituto-ramazzini-risponde-allicnirp/embed/#?secret=YScwX2v18s" data-secret="YScwX2v18s" width="600" height="338" title="&#8220;Onde elettromagnetiche, l&#8217;Istituto Ramazzini risponde all&#8217;ICNIRP&#8221; &#8212; Istituto Ramazzini" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></li>
</ol>
<p>In a new paper, “Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk” published in the journal <em>IEEE Microwave Magazine</em>, Dr. James C. Lin states that the results of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) cell phone radiation study suggest that current radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines are inadequate to protect human health (1). Furthermore, the paper recommends that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) re-assess the research and consider upgrading the classification of RF radiation from “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) to probably carcinogenic (i.e., Group 2A).</p>
<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="DdrjR9Km7G"><p><a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/clear-evidence-of-cell-phone-rf-radiation-cancer-risk/">Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk</a></p></blockquote>
<p><iframe loading="lazy" class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted"  src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/clear-evidence-of-cell-phone-rf-radiation-cancer-risk/embed/#?secret=DdrjR9Km7G" data-secret="DdrjR9Km7G" width="600" height="338" title="&#8220;Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk&#8221; &#8212; EMFSA" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
<p>Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC&#8217;s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1). <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118303475">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118303475</a></p>
<p>Revision of current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation is needed. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on<br />
Association or Causation <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/c64ddeec4cc9613516a37c8a3ddeeb83f4e7.pdf">c64ddeec4cc9613516a37c8a3ddeeb83f4e7</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/scientists-criticize-icnirp-ntp-and-ramazzini-rf-cancer-studies/">Scientists criticize ICNIRP &#8211; NTP and Ramazzini RF cancer studies</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ICNIRP: NTP and Ramazzini RF Animal Studies</title>
		<link>https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/icnirp-on-ntp-and-ramazzini-rf-animal-studies/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Editor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 19:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cell Phone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exposure Guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feychting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICNIRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NTP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramazzini]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.emfsa.co.za/?p=5870</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>“Further Research Is Required” Louis Slesin from Microwave News reports: ICNIRP Finds NTP &#38; Ramazzini RF–Animal Studies Unconvincing https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/icnirp-ntp-ri September 4, 2018 The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has determined that the two recent animal studies pointing to a cancer risk from cell phone radiation are not convincing and should not be used [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/icnirp-on-ntp-and-ramazzini-rf-animal-studies/">ICNIRP: NTP and Ramazzini RF Animal Studies</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="subtitle">“Further Research Is Required”</h6>
<p>Louis Slesin from Microwave News reports:</p>
<h5 class="news-title">ICNIRP Finds NTP &amp; Ramazzini RF–Animal Studies Unconvincing <a href="https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/icnirp-ntp-ri">https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/icnirp-ntp-ri</a></h5>
<div class="field field-name-field-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">September 4, 2018</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<p>The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (<a href="https://www.icnirp.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ICNIRP</a>) has determined that the two recent animal studies pointing to a cancer risk from cell phone radiation are not convincing and should not be used to revise current exposure standards.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“note”</a> published today, the 12-member group states that the studies by the National Toxicology Program (<a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NTP</a>) and the <a href="https://www.ramazzini.org/en/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ramazzini Institute</a> “do not provide a consistent, reliable and generalizable body of evidence.” “Both studies have inconsistencies and limitations that affect the usefulness of their results for setting exposure guidelines,” according to ICNIRP.</p>
<p>In contrast, a peer review panel of toxicologists and pathologists recently found that the NTP study showed <a href="https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-peer-review-sees-tumor-risk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“clear evidence”</a> of RF carcinogenicity.</p>
<p>The current <a href="https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ICNIRP limits</a> were set 20 years ago and are based only on acute effects. Two months ago, ICNIRP issued revised <a href="https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/public-consultation/consultation-1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">draft guidelines</a> for public comment which are largely unchanged and also discount cancer risks.</p>
<p>Late last year, <a href="https://ki.se/en/people/marfey" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Maria Feychting</a>, the vice chair of ICNIRP, was reported to be attempting to discredit the NTP study. See our <a href="https://microwavenews.com/news-center/anatomy-rumor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“The Anatomy of a Rumor.” </a></p>
<p>On the other hand, <a href="https://www.ece.uic.edu/bin/view/ECE/ProfileLin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jim Lin</a>, the editor-in-chief of <em>Bioelectromagnetics </em>and a 12-year former member of ICNIRP, recently <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8425056/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> that, “Perhaps the time has come to judiciously reassess, revise and update [the ICNIRP] guidelines” so that they protect against long-term RF exposures.</p>
<p>Here are the conclusions of ICNIRP’s eight-page note, which was released today:</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-5871 size-full" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ICNIRP-2.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="593" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ICNIRP-2.jpg 1200w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ICNIRP-2-300x148.jpg 300w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ICNIRP-2-768x380.jpg 768w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ICNIRP-2-1024x506.jpg 1024w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
</div>
<p>(L. Falcioni is the first author of the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ramazzini study</a>.)</p>
<p>For more on the NTP study: go <a href="https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.<br />
And for more on the Ramazzini study, go <a href="https://microwavenews.com/news-center/more-coincidence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> and <a href="https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ramazzinis-belpoggi-interview" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-5873 aligncenter" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/icnirp.png" alt="" width="159" height="82" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-5874 aligncenter" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/feychting_maria_stor_0.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="200" /></p>
<p>Image: Maria Feychting Vice Chair of ICNIRP</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/icnirp-on-ntp-and-ramazzini-rf-animal-studies/">ICNIRP: NTP and Ramazzini RF Animal Studies</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
