Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Wall Street Journal Announces Cell Phone Cancer Link
U.S. Studies using rats, costing $25 million dollars, leaves no room for debate. The most comprehensive study that has ever been conducted. Exposed for 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off intervals for 9 hours per day to mimic what humans are exposed to daily. Tumors in the brain and around the heart were definitely linked to the exposure.
Expert in clip states:
"You can't say these are perfectly safe."
"This calls into question the previous standards that were based on thermal effects only."
Thursday, July 21, 2016
U.S. True "Causitive" Study Links RF and Cancer
GTCO-ATL followers: Ever wonder if you supported the right side in the debate over whether DeKalb County should take money to place cell phone towers next to young children on their own public school campuses, in the middle of their neighborhoods? Well, if so, you can rest assured that you did the right thing by speaking up for the children in our county and now science is on your side, too. The more research being done on this subject, the more science is siding with you. And this time, the study was conducted to the top level of controls, with plenty of funds to cover the expenses and it was done in the U.S. Here is how things worked out....
Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions
Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumor formation in rats
Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25-million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats. The results, which were posted on a prepublication Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, are poised to reignite controversy about how such everyday exposure might affect human health.
Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, led the study. They chronically exposed rodents to carefully calibrated radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives. The animals were placed in specially built chambers that dosed their whole bodies with varying amounts and types of this radiation for approximately nine hours per day throughout their two-year life spans. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans,” says Christopher Portier, a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist. “There will have to be a lot of work after this to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert.”
More than 90 percent of American adults use cell phones. Relatively little is known about their safety, however, because current exposure guidelines are based largely on knowledge about acute injury from thermal effects, not long-term, low-level exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. But data from human studies has been “inconsistent,” the NTP has said on its website. Such studies are also hampered by the realities of testing in humans, such as recall bias—meaning cancer patients have to try to remember their cell phone use from years before, and how they held their handsets. Those data gaps prompted the NTP to engage in planning these new animal studies back in 2009.
The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.
In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”
Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, led the study. They chronically exposed rodents to carefully calibrated radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives. The animals were placed in specially built chambers that dosed their whole bodies with varying amounts and types of this radiation for approximately nine hours per day throughout their two-year life spans. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans,” says Christopher Portier, a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist. “There will have to be a lot of work after this to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert.”
More than 90 percent of American adults use cell phones. Relatively little is known about their safety, however, because current exposure guidelines are based largely on knowledge about acute injury from thermal effects, not long-term, low-level exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. But data from human studies has been “inconsistent,” the NTP has said on its website. Such studies are also hampered by the realities of testing in humans, such as recall bias—meaning cancer patients have to try to remember their cell phone use from years before, and how they held their handsets. Those data gaps prompted the NTP to engage in planning these new animal studies back in 2009.
The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.
In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”
Read the full article here.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
TURNING POINT: U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Links Cellphone Radiation and Cancer
|
|
Media Coverage and Analysis of Recent Cellphone
Study Released on Friday, May 27, 2016
As the Center for Safer
Wireless announced on Friday morning, May 27, the U.S. National Toxicology
Program (NTP) was expected to report to the public on its $25 million completed
study which showed statistically significant increases in cancer among rats that
had been exposed to GSM or CDMA signals for two-years. Thankfully, because of Microwave News' excellent reporting,
portions of the study's findings were announced sooner than were originally
expected. To the wireless industries benefit, it came right before the Memorial
Day weekend when people were focused on the holiday.
Despite the quick
turnaround, the wireless industry had time to strategize and notify the media
with their points and position. As usual, the strategy is to create doubt,
question the study and call for more research. The wireless industry uses the
same playbook as the tobacco industry implemented years ago because it works.
It's quite evident in the following headlines and reporting.
Better coverage and headlines are at:
"There are arguments in the
literature now that we are at the beginning of an epidemic of
cancers," Chris Portier, former associate director of the NTP,
told Mother Jones.
Ron Melnick, a former National Toxicology Program
researcher who worked on early stages of the study before his retirement, told
the Wall Street Journal: 'Where people were saying there's no
risk, I
think this ends that kind of statement.'
Louis Slesin of
Microwave News believes that the cell phone controversy will never be the
same again because the study contradicts conventional wisdom that such
health effects are impossible.
David Carpenter is
director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of
Albany and on the Medical Advisory Board of the Center for Safer Wireless. "This
is a game changer, there is no question," he said. "It confirms what we have
been seeing for many years - though now we have evidence in animals as well
as in humans." Carpenter went on to add, "The NTP has the credibility of the
federal government. It will be very difficult for the naysayers to deny the
association any longer."
"Such positive results ... suggest that human health
might be in some danger," Dariusz Leszczynski, a Finnish researcher who
focuses on radiation and health said in an email. "The human health risk might
not only be possible but it might rather be probable."
Joel Moscowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family
and Community Health at University of California, Berkeley offered research to
indicate health effects from cell phones in the op/ed section of the Wall Street
journal on Sunday, May 23. According to Dr. Moscowitz "The NTP report did not
assess the overall risk of tumors for both types of tumors studied. By my
calculation, thirty of 540 (5.5%), or one in 18 male rats exposed to cell phone
radiation developed cancer. In addition, 16 pre-cancerous hyperplasias were
diagnosed. Thus, 46 of 540, or one in 12 male rats exposed to cell phone
radiation developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion........ Though not
statistically significant one in 33 female rats exposed to cell phone
radiation developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion. No cancers were found
in 90 male and 90 female rats in the unexposed control group."
The
Center for Safer Wireless believes the NTP study offers more credible evidence
that products emitting pulsed radiofrequency radiation can cause health effects.
We think everyone should take precautions when using wireless devices such as
cellphones, iPads, tablets, laptops, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc.
Regards,
Desiree
Jaworski
Executive
Director
|
Monday, September 16, 2013
American Academy of Pediatrics Demands FCC Protect Children from Cell Phone & Wireless Radiation
Letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the
FCC Regarding Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Standards
The American Academy of Pediatrics submitted the following letter to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
Communications Commission (FCC).
The letter urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards that:
1.) protect children's health and well-being from radiation emitted by cell phones and other
wireless devices; 2.) reflect how people actually use their cell phones; and
3.) provide sufficient information to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.
The letter is also available on the FCC's web site at http://bit.ly/17tQclg.
August 29, 2013
The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn
Acting Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20054
The Honorable Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg
Commissioner
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Dear Acting Chairwoman Clyburn and Commissioner Hamburg:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of
60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical
specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents,
and young adults appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule
“Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies”
published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2013.
In the past few years, a number of American and international health and scientific bodies
have contributed to the debate over cell phone radiation and its possible link to cancer. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the United Nations’
World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes
mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The National Cancer
Institute has stated that although studies have not demonstrated that RF energy from
cell phones definitively causes cancer, more research is needed because cell phone technology
and cell phone use are changing rapidly. These studies and others clearly demonstrate the
need for further research into this area and highlight the importance of reassessing current
policy to determine if it is adequately protective of human health.
60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical
specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents,
and young adults appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule
“Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies”
published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2013.
In the past few years, a number of American and international health and scientific bodies
have contributed to the debate over cell phone radiation and its possible link to cancer. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the United Nations’
World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes
mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The National Cancer
Institute has stated that although studies have not demonstrated that RF energy from
cell phones definitively causes cancer, more research is needed because cell phone technology
and cell phone use are changing rapidly. These studies and others clearly demonstrate the
need for further research into this area and highlight the importance of reassessing current
policy to determine if it is adequately protective of human health.
As radiation standards are reassessed, the AAP urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards
that:
Protect children’s health and well-being. Children are not little adults and are
disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation.
Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific
to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other
wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to
ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.
Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone
radiation since 1996. Approximately 44 million people had mobile phones when the standard
was set; today, there are more than 300 million mobile phones in use in the United States.
While the prevalence of wireless phones and other devices has skyrocketed, the behaviors
around cell phone uses have changed as well. The number of mobile phone calls per day, the
length of each call, and the amount of time people use mobile phones has increased, while cell
phone and wireless technology has undergone substantial changes. Many children, adolescents
and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless
phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per
day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience
a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults,
because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures.
FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today.
phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per
day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience
a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults,
because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures.
FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today.
Provide meaningful consumer disclosure. The FCC has noted that it does not provide
consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to
allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure
available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual
exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the
information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to
help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we
support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience.
The AAP supports the reassessment of radiation standards for cell phones and other wireless
products and the adoption of standards that are protective of children and reflect current
use patterns. If you have questions, please contact Clara Filice in the AAP’s Washington
Office at 202/347-8600.
products and the adoption of standards that are protective of children and reflect current
use patterns. If you have questions, please contact Clara Filice in the AAP’s Washington
Office at 202/347-8600.
Sincerely,
Thomas K. McInerny, MD FAAP
President
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)