Abstract

Whether the use of mobile phones (MP) represents a health hazard is still under debate. As part of the attempts to resolve this uncertainty, there has been an extensive characterization of the electromagnetic fields MP emit and receive. While the radiofrequencies (RF) have been studied exhaustively, the static magnetic fields (SMF) have received much less attention, regardless of the fact there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating their biological effects. We performed 2D maps of the SMF at several distances from the screen of 5 MP (models between 2013 and 2018) using a tri-axis magnetometer. We built a mathematical model to fit our measurements, extrapolated them down to the phones’ screen, and calculated the SMF on the skin of a 3D head model, showing that exposure is in the µT to mT range. Our literature survey prompts the need of further research not only on the biological effects of SMF and their gradients, but also on their combination with extremely low frequency (ELF) and RF fields. The study of combined fields (SMF, ELF, and RF) as similar as possible to the ones that occur in reality should provide a more sensible assessment of potential risks.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98083-9

The post Mapping of static magnetic fields near the surface of mobile phones appeared first on EMFSA.

Author James C. Lin

Abstract

Most media accounts of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) final report have understandably focused on the statistically significant finding of “clear evidence” that both GSM and code-division multiple access (CDMA)-modulated 900-MHz wireless RF radiation led to the development of malignant schwannoma, a rare form of tumor, in the hearts of male rats. In addition to this, unusual patterns of cardiomyopathy, i.e., damage to heart tissue, were observed in both RF-exposed male and female Sprague-Dawley rats compared with concurrent control animals, although the findings for female rats were deemed as providing only uncertain or “equivocal” evidence for schwannomas and malignant gliomas, compared to concurrent controls.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8866792

Excerpts

“A Closer Look at the NTP Findings

“In all fairness, the primary cancer or overall cancer rates detected in any organ or tissue inside the animal body do not appear to have been purposefully overlooked or unnoticed. Indeed, the results for total primary cancer or tumor occurrences in NTP animal studies can be found in the appendices of its final reports [1]. However, although the data may not have been purposefully disregarded or ignored, the NTP excluded them from its publicized report summaries. An independent analysis of the data showed that rats exposed to GSM and CDMA RF radiation had significantly higher overall or total primary tumor rates than did the concurrent control rats [4].

In particular, the highest overall cancer (or malignant tumors) rates were found in male rats exposed to whole-body SARs of 3 W/kg from 900-MHz cell phone RF radiation (42 and 46% for GSM and CDMA, respectively), and the lowest rate was found in the concurrent control group (27%). Thus, the RF-exposed groups had significantly higher overall or total primary cancer rates than did the concurrent control rats. Moreover, the highest overall tumor rates (either a benign or malignant tumor in any organ or tissue) were observed in male rats exposed to SARs of 3-W/kg (87 and 84% for GSM and CDMA, respectively) cell phone RF radiation. As stated previously, the lowest rate was seen in the concurrent control group (63%). The RF-exposed groups had significantly higher overall tumor rates than did the concurrent control rats. Male rats in the lowest RF-exposed groups (whole-body SARs of 1.5 W/kg) had significantly higher rates of benign primary tumors (76 and 73% for GSM and CDMA, respectively) than did concurrent or sham control groups (54%).”

[4] J. Moskowitz, “National toxicology program publishes final cell phone radiation study reports,” Electromagn. Radiation Safety, Nov. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/11/NTP-final-reports31.html

“IARC Assessment

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessed the then available scientific literature and concluded that the epidemiological studies on humans that had reported increased risks for malignant gliomas and acoustic neuromas among heavy or long-term users of cell phones were sufficiently strong to support a classification of 2B, i.e., possibly carcinogenic to humans [9]. With its classification of RF radiation as a 2B carcinogen, the IARC suggested that it also believed the available scientific evidence was incomplete and limited, especially with regard to results from animal experiments.

“The time is right for the IARC to upgrade its previous epidemiology-based classification of RF exposure to higher levels in terms of the carcinogenicity of RF radiation for humans. Recently, two relatively well-conducted RF and microwave exposure studies employing the Sprague–Dawley strain of rats—without, however, using any cancer-promoting agents (or cocarcinogens)—showed consistent results in significantly increased total primary cancer or overall tumor rates in animals exposed to RF radiation.”

It is important to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini animal RF exposure studies presented similar findings in heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. The increased schwannomas and abnormal heart tissue development/damage to heart tissue are significant findings in RF-exposed animal research studies. In addition to this, the incidence of benign pheochromocytomas of the adrenal medulla was found to be higher in the exposed group than in the sham controls for the 2,450-MHz circular waveguide experiment [6]. Interestingly, in the recent NTP study, there was “some evidence” of carcinogenicity in the adrenal gland. The number of pheochromocytomas was significantly higher (p <0.05) in male rats at 1.5 and 3 W/kg, compared with the concurrent controls. Moreover, the increase in malignant tumor-like hyperplasia in the adrenal gland of female rats was significantly higher at 6 W/kg, relative to the concurrent controls (p <0.05).”

“Postscripts

… It is important to note that the recent NTP and Ramazzini animal RF exposure studies presented similar findings in heart schwannomas and brain gliomas. The increased schwannomas and abnormal heart tissue development/damage to heart tissue are significant findings in RF-exposed animal research studies….

A particular perspective to keep in mind is that, with the induction of cancer by a carcinogen, an agent is typically considered carcinogenic if it induces a significant response in a specific tissue.”

Note by EMFSA:

This publication was peer reviewed.

The post The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation appeared first on EMFSA.

9th October 2019:

Sources:

WHO Call for Expressions of Interest for Systematic Reviews of RF and Health (2019)

and

http://www.emf-net.ru/index.php?id=1570607869

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Radiation Programme has an ongoing project to assess potential health effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the general and working population. To prioritize potential adverse health outcomes, WHO conducted a broad international survey in 2018. Ten major topics were identified for which WHO will now commission systematic reviews to analyze and synthesize the available evidence.

Teams intending to respond to this Call for Expression of Interest are invited to visit http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/rf_ehc_page/en/index.html

The closing date for this Call of Expression of Interest is 4 November 2019.

The post WHO Call for Expression of Interest for systematic reviews on RF and specific health outcomes appeared first on EMFSA.

Link to the presentation: https://cdn.website-editor.net/2479f24c54de4c7598d60987e3d81157/files/uploaded/S._Starkey_Presentation_5th_November_2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3-ivAJKiUe-hcXXlBVfhr2umq6fHjbj3S1oYsA9-KSO6eKsv9NrDhUkGM

Selected slides and information from the presentation:

More on the topic:

Dr Sarah Starkey: Technology and Education: How safe are our children?

Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment  (PHIRE) – click on “Home’ below:

http://phiremedical.org/

The post PRESENTATION: Official advice on the safety of RF radiation, risk assessment and adverse effects, by Dr Sarah Starkey, 5th November 2018 appeared first on EMFSA.

Excerpts: “Regarding the above mentioned circumstances it will be necessary to measure the radiation exposure of base stations in the future on a regular basis in order to ensure the legal limits and to reduce possible health hazards. It also will be necessary to develop new measurement strategies and/or technologies regarding the large frequency spectrum 5G will use up to 100 GHz. …When measuring directly on a mobile phone (simulating the use of an end device directly on the human head), it was found that the calculated SAR of 3.834 W/kg exceeds the legal limit of 2 W/ kg. This shows clearly that the legal limit values can be exceeded significantly in areas with very poor reception values …Increasing the distance between a mobile end device and the head, e.g. by using a hands-free set or a headset can significantly reduce the human exposure to electromagnetic radiation when such a device is used in badly supplied areas and transmits with maximum power.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326352762_Selected_Health_and_Law_Issues_Regarding_Mobile_Communications_with_Respect_to_5G

The post Selected Health and Law Issues Regarding Mobile Communications with Respect to 5G. Presented at 2018 International Conference on Broadband Communications for Next Generation Networks and Multimedia Applications (CoBCom) appeared first on EMFSA.

Ron Melnick  (who designed the NTP cell phone study):

15 “extensive and misleading statements” made by ICNIRP on the NTP and Ramazzini RF – 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 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:

US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP’s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer in Experimental Animals

Fiorella Belpoggi of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy responds to the ICNIRP:

Studies of the Ramazzinini Institute and the U.S. NTP will “certainly contribute” to the evidence that IARC and other agencies can use to re- evaluate RF cancer risks:

Comments on the ICNIRP evaluation on the NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies:

1. For sure both NTP and RI studies were well performed, no bias affecting the results. ICNIRP confirms that.
2. 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;
3. 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”.
4. 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.
5. 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.
   

   Onde elettromagnetiche, l’Istituto Ramazzini risponde all’ICNIRP

In a new paper, “Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk” published in the journal IEEE Microwave Magazine, 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).

Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk

Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118303475

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
Association or Causation c64ddeec4cc9613516a37c8a3ddeeb83f4e7

The post Scientists criticize ICNIRP – NTP and Ramazzini RF cancer studies appeared first on EMFSA.

In a new paper, “Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk” published in the journal IEEE Microwave Magazine, 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).

Although Dr. Lin raises some criticisms of the NTP study in this and an earlier paper (1, 2), he recognizes the importance of this research to the field and the implications of the study findings for public health (2).

He praised the FDA and the NTP for the initiation and conduct of the study and emphasized the need for the “U.S. government to step in and conduct such research programs and not leave the matter entirely to the cell-phone industry” due to his concern that “The wireless industry has had nearly free reign to develop and distribute cellular mobile phones and related RF devices as they see fit.”

Dr. Lin was one of fourteen experts convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to review the National Toxicology Program’s cell phone radiation study in March of this year. He is a professor of electrical engineering, bioengineering, physiology, and biophysics at the University of Illinois, Chicago. His publications include ten books, hundreds of papers and book chapters, and he has made hundreds of presentations at professional conferences. He has served on the editorial board of fifteen professional journals and has received numerous awards and honors throughout his distinguished career.

Following are key passages from Dr. Lin’s paper (1):

“On 28 March 2018, following a thorough review of the draft NTP reports, pathologists and toxicologists on the peer-review panel concluded that, among other observations, there was statistically significant and “clear evidence” that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RF radiation had led to the development of malignant schwannoma (a rare form of tumor) in the heart of male rats (of the Harlan-Sprague-Dawley strain). Further, there was “equivocal evidence” for the same schwannoma risk among female rats. The panel also noted that there were unusual patterns of cardiomyopathy, or damage to heart tissue, in both RF-exposed male and female rats when compared with concurrent control animals. In addition, based on statistical significance, the panel concluded that the pathology findings showed indications of “some evidence” for RF-dependent carcinogenic activity in the brain of male rats, specifically glioma. However, the findings for female rats were deemed as providing only “equivocal evidence” for malignant gliomas when compared with concurrent controls.” (pp. 16-17)
“The NTP cell-phone RF exposure study is, by far, the largest study of its kind [5]. It was expensive and time consuming, and there may even have been better ways to perform the study. Nevertheless, it highlights that prolonged exposure to RF radiation at, or a little above, currently existing RF exposure regulation levels could lead to tumor development. The current RF exposure guidelines of 1.6 or 2.0 W/kg are promulgated with a reduction factor of 50 as a safety margin for the general public and to provide protection against presumed hazardous biological effects in humans [5], [6]. The finding that RF exposure could lead to dose-dependent cancer development at levels that are the same or three times above current exposure guidelines is significant.  This implies that the safety margin may be no more than a factor of three. In fact, one recommendation (IEEE C95.1-2005) has a set of guidelines under controlled environments that allows local SARs of the brain and heart to be as much as 10 W/kg [7]. An SAR of 10 W/kg is considerably higher than the 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 W/kg used in the NTP study.” “Because all tissue and organs were similarly exposed and had comparable SARs, it is important for the NTP team to perform a statistical comparison of total primary malignancies in all tissue and organs observed in RF-exposed and concurrent control rats before issuing its final report. Given that hyperplasia (the enlargement of tissue or organs caused by an increased rate of cell growth in the initial stage of cancer development) often leads to neoplasm, the statistical analysis should also include findings of hyperplasia.”  (p. 18)“The FDA should be applauded for initiating and the NIEHS/NTP praised for having sponsored the research and conducted the cell-phone RF radiation studies. It’s important for the U.S. government to step in and conduct such research programs and not leave the matter entirely to the cell-phone industry. The wireless industry has had nearly free reign to develop and distribute cellular mobile phones and related RF devices as they see fit. The completion of this NTP study should not signify the end of the U.S. government’s role in supporting RF biological effects research because we continue to be exposed to more RF radiation every day [8], [9].” (p. 20)“Malignant schwannoma in rat hearts were the most salient findings from the NTP RF bioassay. Acoustic schwannomas in human brains and malignant schwannomas in rat hearts were independently observed from two different body tissues in humans and rats. There could actually be a link between Schwann cells that wrap around both nerve tissues in the heart and along the auditory nervous system.” (p. 22)
“Because all tissue and organs were similarly exposed and had comparable SARs, it is important for the NTP team to perform a statistical comparison of total primary malignancies in all tissue and organs observed in RF-exposed and concurrent control rats before issuing its final report. Given that hyperplasia (the enlargement of tissue or organs caused by an increased rate of cell growth in the initial stage of cancer development) often leads to neoplasm, the statistical analysis should also include findings of hyperplasia.” (p. 22) [Note: I provided similar suggestions for analysis of the data in my . (3)] “Now that the NTP review panel has concluded there is clear evidence of carcinogenicity from long-term RF exposure in rats, is it conceivable that the IARC would upgrade its epidemiology-based classification of RF exposure to the next level of carcinogenicity to humans?
As noted earlier, the existing RF exposure guidelines of 1.6 or 2.0 W/kg are promulgated with a reduction factor of 50, as a safety margin for the general public. The finding that long-term RF exposure could lead to cancer development in rats at levels that are the same as or no greater than a factor of three above these exposure guidelines is significant. While complacencies abound for short-term exposure guidelines in terms of providing safety protection, an outstanding question persists concerning the adequacy of these guidelines for safe, long-term exposure to RF radiation at or below 1.6 or 2.0 W/kg. Perhaps the time has come to judiciously reassess, revise, and update these guidelines.” (pp. 22-23)

References

(1) Lin JC. Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk. IEEE Microwave Magazine.  19(6):16-24. Sep/Oct 2018. DOI: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2844058. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8425056/

(2) Lin JC. The NTP cell phone RF radiation health effects project. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 18(1): 15-17. Jan/Feb 2017. DOI: 10.1109/MMM.2016.2616239. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7779288/

(3) Moskowitz JM. Comments about the NTP cell phone radiation studies. School of Public Health, UC Berkeley. Submitted to the National Toxicology Program, Mar 12, 2018.

The post Clear evidence of cell-phone RF radiation cancer risk appeared first on EMFSA.

• “Our public health guidance has not been keeping pace with our newest evolutions of telecommunication technologies.   And yet the health science regarding cellular technologies suggests the need for caution.  A very first step would be to apply the California State Health Department Cell Phone Guidelines, particularly in settings where there may be children or workers whose exposures last their whole work day.”  – Barbara Sattler, Professor, RN, DrPH, FAAN, University of San Francisco, School of Nursing and Health Professions, Nurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE)
• “Thanks to the United Educators of San Francisco and the Department of Public Health for providing this valuable information to reduce wireless radiation, so children and teachers can be better protected in the classroom and at home.” – Sandi Maurer, Director, EMF Safety Network
• “Around the world today, school districts are on the front lines wrestling with increasingly distracted youngsters who find it difficult to learn how to learn. EHT applauds California teachers efforts to regain control of the classroom by limiting the use of cell phones and other wireless devices and ensuring that they and their students understand why and how to practice safe technology.” – Devra Davis PhD, MPH, founder, and president of Environmental Health Trust
• “The United Educators of San Francisco’s leadership will go far to educate and protect students and staff. The California Department of Health’s advice on how to reduce exposure is the first step in addressing this critical public health issue. Children and teenagers have no idea that the phone they love so much exposes them to radiation. Raising awareness in schools is logical, practical and will be life-saving.  The Unions resolution adds momentum to the many educational unions nationwide who are developing safer policies on cell phones and wireless. Around the world, over twenty governments have issued advice to reduce exposure to cell phones. Several hi-tech countries have banned cell phones and Wi-Fi in schools.”– Theodora Scarato  Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust 
• “The professionals in California’s health department should be lauded for overcoming political pressures by putting public health above corporate profits. The Department’s evidence-based, cell phone safety guidance enacts an important recommendation of the 240 EMF scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, namely “the public (should) be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm reduction strategies.”– Joel Moskowitz, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley School of Public Health
• “The California Brain Tumor Association thanks Sarah Aminoff and the United Educators of San Francisco for their collaborative work in regard to dissemination of information regarding best practices for reducing wireless exposure for students, teachers and staff. The California Department of Health, based on scientific evidence, published a guideline sheet in regard to this issue in 2017. It contains excellent information as to simple precautions one can take to use wireless technology as safely as possible. It is critical that teachers, parents and students learn of these precautions. Wireless radiation is not only causing brain tumors but other cancers (wherever the phone is kept on the body), damage to fetuses, damage and death of sperm, and electro-sensitivity. The recent $25 million United States National Toxicology Program study states there is now clear evidence that wireless radiation is causing cancer. Children, teens and young adults are at greater risk as they will have a lifetime of exposure and their bodies absorb more of the radiation emitted“. – Ellie Marks, California Brain Tumor Association. The California Brain Tumor Association focuses on the prevention of primary brain tumors and applauds the efforts of UESF.

The post San Francisco Educators Pass Resolution Calling for Safer Technology Standards for all San Francisco Schools appeared first on EMFSA.

Added note by EMFSA: see https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html

Editorial comments by Joel Moskowitz:

To date, 242 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health have signed the EMF Scientist Appeal. Collectively, these scientists from 41 nations have published more than 2,000 papers on EMF. The Appeal calls on the WHO and the United Nations including its member states to adopt more protective exposure guidelines for EMF including RF radiation in the face of increasing evidence of health risks since these exposures are a rapidly growing form of worldwide environmental pollution.

In a recently published, peer-reviewed paper, “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective,” Belpomme and his colleagues (2018) criticize the WHO due to its reliance upon ICNIRP and its members for expert advice. The paper claims that ICNIRP and its advisors have “close associations with industry,” and “conflicts of interest.” According to the authors, ICNIRP and its advisors have been engaged in decades of “denial of serious non-thermal effects of RF-EMFs in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.”

Moreover, Belpomme and his colleagues criticize ICNIRP’s safety limits:

“The specific absorption rate (SAR)-based ICNIRP safety limits were established on the basis of simulation of EMF energy absorption using standardized adult male phantoms, and designed to protect people only from the thermal effects of EMFs. These assumptions are not valid for two reasons. Not only do they fail to consider the specific morphological and bioclinical vulnerabilities of children, but also they ignore the effects known to occur at non-thermal intensities….”

Finally, Belpomme and his colleagues (2018) provide a summary of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that arrives at very different conclusions than ICNIRP’s health risk assessment:

“It is urgent that national and international bodies, particularly the WHO, take this significant public health hazard seriously and make appropriate recommendations for protective measures to reduce exposures. This is especially urgently needed for children and adolescents. It is also important that all parts of society, especially the medical community, educators, and the general public, become informed about the hazards associated with exposure to EMFs and of the steps that can be easily taken to reduce exposure and risk of associated disease.”

The rules that ICNIRP applies for a study to be included in its health risk assessment seem overly stringent. If other official bodies (e.g., the International Agency for Research on Cancer or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) were to adopt such rules, I suspect that very few chemicals would be classified as toxins or carcinogens. By its own admission, ICNIRP is not concerned about protecting animal or plant life from the adverse effects of EMF exposure, and it is arguable that they are truly concerned about protecting humans.

If the claims of some EMF scientists and scientific organizations (e.g., the European Cancer and Environment Research Institute and the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) are true that ICNIRP’s members and scientific advisors are selected because they are biased toward industry, then it is fruitless to engage in ICNIRP’s public consultation process (see my posts from May 1 through June 27, 2017.)

Since the credibility of ICNIRP depends heavily upon its association with the WHO, a more fruitful activity for the EMF scientific community might be to convince the WHO and governments not to rely on ICNIRP for EMF guidelines and no longer consult ICNIRP’s advisors.

The post Draft of the ICNIRP Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz) ready for public consultation. appeared first on EMFSA.

Slides from Dr Soffritti’s presentation: (slides used here with permission).

Soffritti: The two new studies “should put an end to the nonsense” that there are no animal studies demonstrating the carcinogenicity of RF radiation.

Soffritti calls for caution on:

-The build out of 5G

-Use of mobile phones by children.

-Soffritti seeks a reevaluation of RF cancer risk by IARC/WHO.

Soffritti and David Rall, former director of the NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

More about the Ramazzini studies from Microwave News:

The post Dr Morando Soffritti (comments and slides) recent Ramazzini and NTP cell phone animal studies appeared first on EMFSA.