Posted on by pmg

US Govt Study of Wireless Radiation Exposure Proves Clear Evidence of Link to Heart Cancer

What did $30 million NTP studies find?

NTP studies found that exposure to high levels of Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR), like that used in 2G and 3G service for calls and texts, was associated with:

  • Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats.

The tumors were pheochromocytomas. For female rats, and male and female mice, it was unclear, also known as equivocal, whether cancers observed in the studies were associated with exposure to RFR. The conclusions were based on the NTP four categories.

Laboratory rats were exposed to 900 MHz, a frequency used by cellphones for cellular calls and texts

Nov. 1, 2018; Adapted from the Original New York Times article here.

For decades, health experts have struggled to determine whether or not cellphones cause cancer. On Thursday, the National Institute of Health and Envionmental Sciences (NIEHS) released the final results of what experts call the world’s largest and most costly experiment to look into the question. The study originated in 1999, cost $30 million and involved some 3,000 rodents. The experiment, by the NIEHS’ National Toxicology Program, found positive evidence that Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) from cellphones is linked to heart cancer, brain cancer and DNA damage in male rats.

John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement

“We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,”.

Study RF-EMR Exposure Durations: 9 Hours a Day

Bucher also stated that the exposure levels and durations in the study (9 hours/day) were greater than what people typically encounter from their cell phones, but the durations are only about 1/3 of what people typically encounter from cellular infrastructure antennas (24 hours/day).

This means the results cannot “be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience.” from their cell phones (real exposure durations may be shorter from their cell phones) or from cellular infrastructure antennas (real exposure durations may be three times longer from infrastructure antennas). The study examined 2G/3G frequencies which are still in use today for making calls and texts.

Experts argue, even a small demonstrated rise in cancer occurrence could have wide implications, given that billions of people now using cellphones and the current push to densify 4G and 5G cell antennas attached to utility and light poles in residential neighborhoods. The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users. The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.

NTP Accepts Advice from Expert Peer-Review Panel

The toxicology program released a preliminary draft of the study findings in May 2016, saying the radiation had “likely caused” the brain tumors. This February, in a draft report, it backed away from that relatively firm conclusion. In March, however, a peer-review panel of 11 experts from industry and academia voted to advise the agency that it should raise the confidence level from “equivocal evidence” to “some evidence” of a link between cellphone radiation and brain tumors in male rats. The same peer-review panel advised the agency that it should raise the confidence level from “some evidence” to "clear evidence" for heart tumors in male rats. Experts say it is not unusual for cancer patterns to vary between sexes in both people and animals, including the study’s mice and rats.

The rodents in the studies were exposed to radiation nine hours a day for two years. For the rats, the exposures started before birth and continued until they were about 2 years old. Some 2 to 3 percent of the male rats exposed to the radiation developed malignant gliomas, a deadly brain cancer, compared to none in a control group that received no radiation. The study also found that about 5 to 7 percent of the male rats exposed to the highest level of radiation developed certain heart tumors, called malignant schwannomas, compared to none in the control group. Malignant schwannomas are similar to acoustic neuromas, tumors that can develop in people, in the nerve that connects the ear to the brain.

The Risk Analysis From RF-EMR Exposures Will Be Conducted by the FCC and FDA

The rats were exposed to radiation at a frequency of 900 megahertz — typical of the 2G/3G cellphone service for calls and texts. Current cellphones use 2G/3G and 4G frequencies and 5G phones are expected to debut around 2020. The newer 5G phones would send/receive data on a greater range of frequencies (from 600 MHz to 86,000 MHz).

In June, at a meeting of scientific counselors to the toxicology agency, Donald Stump, one of the members, worried that the study “will be vulnerable to criticism that it was conducted using outdated technology.” The challenge, he added, is how to move forward with experiments that are large enough to be significant yet nimble enough to keep pace with the rapidly evolving devices. The toxicology agency is building smaller exposure chambers that will let it evaluate newer technologies in weeks or months, instead of years. These future studies are to focus on measurable physical signs, or biomarkers, of potential effects from RF-EMR exposures, including DNA damage, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.

During a telephone news briefing on Wednesday, Dr. Bucher, the senior scientist at the toxicology agency, said evidence of DNA damage from the current study showed some evidence and warranted further examination. He said the overall findings of the study — 384 pages devoted to rats, 260 to mice — had been conveyed to the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration, which regulate cellphones and gauge any risks to human health. Dr. Bucher declined repeatedly to assess the hazard