International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP Note: Critical Evaluation of Two Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Animal Carcinogenicity Studies Published in 2018

Evaluation of electric field (E) exposure levels and its relationship with the sleep quality of residents around the BTS antennas in Sabzevar, Iran

Mobile devices and base transceiver station (BTS) are the main sources of human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the levels of exposure to RF-EMF in three different time intervals and three different distances from BTS antennas in Sabzevar. Additional goals were to investigate the electric field (E) difference between different microenvironments, between the suburbs and downtown, and evaluating the sleep quality of residents around BTS antennas at different distances. The results showed significant differences between the values of E Avg and E max Avg at different times (T1, T2, and T3), different distances (50, 100, and 300 m) from BTS antennas, and between BTS antennas located in the suburbs and downtown. No significant differences were observed between the values of E Avg and E max Avg in terms of microenvironments. Poor sleep quality (>5) was recorded in the residents around the BTS antennas at different distances, and a significant difference was observed between the sleep quality of the residents at a distance of ˂100 m compared to the residents at a distance of ˃300 m. The recorded levels of E in all places and times were below the human safety limits set by the Iranian National Standardization Organization, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, indicating the absence of potential risk due to exposure to E in the study area.

1.7 GHz long-term evolution radiofrequency electromagnetic field with stable power monitoring and efficient thermal control has no effect on the proliferation of various human cell types

Long-term evolution (LTE) radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) is widely used in communication technologies. Thus, the influence of RF-EMF on biological systems is a major public concern and its physiological effects remain controversial. In our previous study, we showed that continuous exposure of various human cell types to 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 2 W/Kg for 72 h can induce cellular senescence. To understand the precise cellular effects of LTE RF-EMF, we elaborated the 1.7 GHz RF-EMF cell exposure system used in the previous study by replacing the RF signal generator and developing a software-based feedback system to improve the exposure power stability. This refinement of the 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF generator facilitated the automatic regulation of RF-EMF exposure, maintaining target power levels within a 3% range and a constant temperature even during the 72-h-exposure period. With the improved experimental setup, we examined the effect of continuous exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF at up to SAR of 8 W/Kg in human adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ASCs), Huh7, HeLa, and rat B103 cells. Surprisingly, the proliferation of all cell types, which displayed different growth rates, did not change significantly compared with that of the unexposed controls. Also, neither DNA damage nor cell cycle perturbation was observed in the 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF-exposed cells. However, when the thermal control system was turned off and the subsequent temperature increase induced by the RF-EMF was not controlled during continuous exposure to SAR of 8 W/Kg LTE RF-EMF, cellular proliferation increased by 35.2% at the maximum. These observations strongly suggest that the cellular effects attributed to 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF exposure are primarily due to the induced thermal changes rather than the RF-EMF exposure itself.

Problems in evaluating the health impacts of radio frequency radiation

In an effort to clarify the nature of causal evidence regarding the potential impacts of RFR on biological systems, this paper relies on a well-established framework for considering causation expanded from that of Bradford Hill, that combines experimental and epidemiological evidence on carcinogenesis of RFR. The Precautionary Principle, while not perfect, has been the effective lodestone for establishing public policy to guard the safety of the general public from potentially harmful materials, practices or technologies. Yet, when considering the exposure of the public to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, especially those arising from mobile communications and their infrastructure, it seems to be ignored. The current exposure standards recommended by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) consider only thermal effects (tissue heating) as potentially harmful. However, there is mounting evidence of non-thermal effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation in biological systems and human populations. We review the latest literature on in vitro and in vivo studies, on clinical studies on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as well as the epidemiological evidence for cancer due to the action of mobile based radiation exposure. We question whether the current regulatory atmosphere truly serves the public good when considered in terms of the Precautionary Principle and the principles for deducing causation established by Bradford Hill. We conclude that there is substantial scientific evidence that RFR causes cancer, endocrinological, neurological and other adverse health effects. In light of this evidence the primary mission of public bodies, such as the FCC to protect public health has not been fulfilled. Rather, we find that industry convenience is being prioritized and thereby subjecting the public to avoidable risks.

Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Development of Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma

Vestibular schwannomas (VSs) are benign, slow-growing tumors of the eighth cranial nerve. Sporadic unilateral VSs constitute approximately 95% of all newly diagnosed tumors. There is little known about risk factors for developing sporadic unilateral VS. Potential risk factors that have been reported are familial or genetic risk, noise exposure, cell phone use, and ionizing radiation, whereas protective factors may include smoking and aspirin use. More research is needed to elucidate the risk factors for development of these rare tumors.

Electromagnetic Frequency Pollution in Malawi: A Case of Electric Field and Magnetic Flux Density Pollution in Southern Africa

In this study, electric field and magnetic flux density pollution levels were measured in southern Africa, a case of Blantyre City in Malawi, between 2020 and 2021. Sixty short-term measurements were performed using Trifield Electro Magnetic Frequency meter model TF2 in 30 different locations. Five high-population-dense sampling points were selected from school campuses, hospitals, industrial areas, markets, residential areas, and within the commercial and business center (CBC) of Blantyre. Electric field and magnetic flux density pollution monitoring was conducted between 10:00-12:00 h and 17:00-19:00 h for short-range analysis. Short-range results show that the maximum measured electric field pollution were 249.24 mV/m and 207.85 mV/m between 10:00-12:00 and 17:00-19:00 respectively, which are below the public limits of 4200.00 mV/m for public exposure. Similarly, maximum short-range results for magnetic flux density were 0.073 G and 0.057 G between 10:00-12:00 and 17:00-19:00 respectively which are below the public limits of 2 G for public exposure. Both measured electric and magnetic flux density were compared with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), World health organization (WHO), and Institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE). It was determined that all measured values for both electric and magnetic flux density were smaller than set limits for non-ionizing radiation for both public and occupation health. More importantly, these background measurements establish a baseline for future changes to be compared against public safety.

Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields above 100 MHz on Fauna and Flora: Workshop Report

ABSTRACT

This report summarizes the effects of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields with frequencies above 100 MHz on flora and fauna presented at an international workshop held on 5-7 November 2019 in Munich, Germany. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at these frequencies are commonplace; e.g., originating from transmitters used for terrestrial radio and TV broadcasting, mobile communication, wireless internet networks, and radar technologies. The effects of these radiofrequency fields on flora, fauna, and ecosystems are not well studied. For high frequencies exceeding 100 MHz, the only scientifically established action mechanism in organisms is the conversion of electromagnetic into thermal energy. In accordance with that, no proven scientific evidence of adverse effects in animals or plants under realistic environmental conditions has yet been identified from exposure to low-level anthropogenic radiofrequency fields in this frequency range. Because appropriate field studies are scarce, further studies on plants and animals are recommended.

Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G

In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC's and ICNIRP's exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.

Wi-Fi technology and human health impact: a brief review of current knowledge

An enormous increase in the application of wireless communication in recent decades has intensified research into consequent increase in human exposure to electromagnetic (EM) radiofrequency (RF) radiation fields and potential health effects, especially in school children and teenagers, and this paper gives a snap overview of current findings and recommendations of international expert bodies, with the emphasis on exposure from Wi-Fi technology indoor devices. Our analysis includes over 100 in vitro, animal, epidemiological, and exposure assessment studies (of which 37 in vivo and 30 covering Wi-Fi technologies). Only a small portion of published research papers refers to the “real” health impact of Wi-Fi technologies on children, because they are simply not available. Results from animal studies are rarely fully transferable to humans. As highly controlled laboratory exposure experiments do not reflect real physical interaction between RF radiation fields with biological tissue, dosimetry methods, protocols, and instrumentation need constant improvement. Several studies repeatedly confirmed thermal effect of RF field interaction with human tissue, but non-thermal effects remain dubious and unconfirmed.

Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review

Importance

Concerns over radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and carcinogenesis have long existed, and the advent of 5G mobile technology has seen a deluge of claims asserting that the new standard and RFR in general may be carcinogenic. For clinicians and researchers in the field, it is critical to address patient concerns on the topic and to be familiar with the existent evidence base.

Observations

This review considers potential biophysical mechanisms of cancer induction, elucidating mechanisms of electromagnetically induced DNA damage and placing RFR in appropriate context on the electromagnetic spectrum. The existent epidemiological evidence in humans and laboratory animals to date on the topic is also reviewed and discussed.

Conclusions and Relevance

The evidence from these combined strands strongly indicates that claims of an RFR-cancer link are not supported by the current evidence base. Much of the research to date, however, has been undermined by methodological shortcomings, and there is a need for higher-quality future research endeavors. Finally, the role of fringe science and unsubstantiated claims in patient and public perception on this topic is highly relevant and must be carefully considered.

Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks

Currently the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is about to be rolled out worldwide. Many persons are concerned about potential health risks from radiofrequency radiation. In September 2017, a letter was sent to the European Union asking for a moratorium on the deployment until scientific evaluation has been made on potential health risks (http://www.5Gappeal.eu). This appeal has had little success. The Health Council of the Netherlands released on September 2, 2020 their evaluation on 5G and health. It was largely based on a World Health Organization draft and report by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, both criticized for not being impartial. The guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were recommended to be used, although they have been considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards (http://www.emfscientist.org). The Health Council Committee recommended not to use the 26 GHz frequency band until health risks have been studied. For lower frequencies, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines were recommended. The conclusion that there is no reason to stop the use of lower frequencies for 5G is not justified by current evidence on cancer risks as commented in this article. A moratorium is urgently needed on the implementation of 5G for wireless communication.

Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?

New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs-but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest

The fifth generation, 5G, of radiofrequency (RF) radiation is about to be implemented globally without investigating the risks to human health and the environment. This has created debate among concerned individuals in numerous countries. In an appeal to the European Union (EU) in September 2017, currently endorsed by >390 scientists and medical doctors, a moratorium on 5G deployment was requested until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences has been conducted. This request has not been acknowledged by the EU. The evaluation of RF radiation health risks from 5G technology is ignored in a report by a government expert group in Switzerland and a recent publication from The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Conflicts of interest and ties to the industry seem to have contributed to the biased reports. The lack of proper unbiased risk evaluation of the 5G technology places populations at risk. Furthermore, there seems to be a cartel of individuals monopolizing evaluation committees, thus reinforcing the no-risk paradigm. We believe that this activity should qualify as scientific misconduct.

Continuous Exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence

Due to the rapid development of mobile phone technology, we are continuously exposed to 1.7 GHz LTE radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), but their biological effects have not been clarified. Here, we investigated the non-thermal cellular effects of these RF-EMFs on human cells, including human adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ASCs), Huh7 and Hep3B liver cancer stem cells (CSCs), HeLa and SH-SY5Y cancer cells, and normal fibroblast IMR-90 cells. When continuously exposed to 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF for 72 h at 1 and 2 SAR, cell proliferation was consistently decreased in all the human cells. The anti-proliferative effect was higher at 2 SAR than 1 SAR and was less severe in ASCs. The exposure to RF-EMF for 72 h at 1 and 2 SAR did not induce DNA double strand breaks or apoptotic cell death, but did trigger a slight delay in the G1 to S cell cycle transition. Cell senescence was also clearly observed in ASC and Huh7 cells exposed to RF-EMF at 2 SAR for 72 h. Intracellular ROS increased in these cells and the treatment with an ROS scavenger recapitulated the anti-proliferative effect of RF-EMF. These observations strongly suggest that 1.7 GHz LTE RF-EMF decrease proliferation and increase senescence by increasing intracellular ROS in human cells.

Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a 'possible' human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.