Feb 20, 2018 — by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley; original article here
A. NTP Study: Analyze the Overall Tumor Risk
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.:
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) researchers did not carefully examine the overall tumor risk, that is, the risk of an animal developing any type of tumor due to cell phone radiation exposure. There are several strong justifications for conducting this analysis.
First, a 5-year, $5 million Air Force study found low incidences of various types of tumors in male rats exposed to microwave radiation. In that study, the exposed rats were three times more likely to get cancer than the control rats. The study employed much lower intensity microwave radiation than the NTP studies.
Second, early toxicology research on the effects of tobacco found low incidences of many types of tumors among animals exposed to tobacco smoke. Scientists dismissed this evidence as they assumed an agent could not cause cancer in different types of tissue. History later proved them wrong.
Finally, my preliminary analysis of the overall tumor risk using summary data from the appendices to the NTP report, found that male rats exposed to cell phone radiation were significantly more likely to develop cancer than control rats (38% vs. 25.5%; p = .021), and more likely to develop a nonmalignant tumor (70% vs. 54%; p = .003).
Male rats in the lowest cell phone radiation exposure group, 1.5 watts per kilogram, were also more likely to develop a nonmalignant tumor than control rats (74% vs. 54%; p < .001). Although cancer incidence for this low exposure group was greater than the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (34% vs. 25.5%; p = .163).
B. Ramazzini Study: More Than a Coincidence
New Large Animal Study, Like NTP’s, Links RF to Schwannoma of the Heart
Ramazzini Study: 2,448 Rats Lifetime Exposed to 1800 MHz GSM
- Group A: 5 V/m = 66,300 µW/m² (0.7% of US RF Microwave radiation exposure guideline)
- Group B: 25 V/m = 1,658,000 µW/m² (17% of US RF Microwave radiation exposure guideline)
- Group C: 50 V/m = 6,630,000 µW/m² (66% of US RF Microwave radiation exposure guideline)
Note: US RF Microwave radiation exposure guideline = 61 V/m = 10,000,000 µW/m²
Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany:
There are lots of nerve fibers wrapped in Schwann cells. We are learning that if the exposure is focused at one place, like the head, the schwannomas occur in the auditory nerve, whereas if it is a whole-body exposure they occur elsewhere, such as in the heart.” Carpenter, a medical doctor who trained as a neurophysiologist, is the .
It is also striking that other tumors occurred in organs such as the prostate, pancreas, thyroid and liver in the NTP study,” Carpenter added, “These observations suggest a much greater number of sensitive organs than we have previously documented in humans to date.
Note: We now know that even weak RF signals have biological effects; it is the pulsing effects of EMFs that are particularly dangerous. V/m is often the most meaningful measurement because it gives peak signal strength, while μW/m² measures Power Flux Density (PFD) by averaging the power levels over time. Wireless devices and infrastructure have peak power levels that are 100 times or 1,000 times higher than average power levels, as detailed here.
C. Fallacies of US RF/MW Radiation Exposure Guidelines
This is more fully explained here.
RF Microwave Exposure Guidelines: 1,500 MHz to 300,000 MHz
|Basis||Organization||RF/MW Exposure Limits1||Collection Time2||Meter Setting3||Year|
|Acute Burns||FCC4||10,000,000 µW/m²||30 mins||Avg. RF/MW||19965|
|Acute Burns||ICNIRP6||10,000,000 µW/m²||6 mins||Avg. RF/MW||1998|
|Acute Burns||IEEE7||10,000,000 µW/m²||30 mins||Avg. RF/MW||2005|
|Biological Effects||BioInitiative||3–6 µW/m²||30 mins||Peak RF/MW||2012|
Footnotes for RF/MW Exposure Limits: 1,500 MHz to 300,000 MHz:
This is the time an RF/MW technician must remain on site to complete the RF/MW meter reading of a rate of exposure; this does not measure total dose of RF/MW radiation (which is total exposure over time) ↩
Federal Communications Commission, which is not a health agency ↩
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which is not a health agency ↩
Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, which is not a health agency ↩