Regarding ICNIRP'S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program's Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields

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.

Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks

Children today are conceived and live in a sea of wireless radiation that did not exist when their parents were born. The launch of the digital age continues to transform the capacity to respond to emergencies and extend global communications. At the same time that this increasingly ubiquitous technology continues to alter the nature of commerce, medicine, transport and modern life overall, its varied and changing forms have not been evaluated for their biological or environmental impacts. Standards for evaluating radiation from numerous wireless devices were first set in 1996 to avoid heating tissue and remain unchanged since then in the U.S. and many other nations. A wide range of evidence indicates that there are numerous non-thermal effects from wireless radiation on reproduction, development, and chronic illness. Many widely used devices such as phones and tablets function as two-way microwave radios, sending and receiving various frequencies of information-carrying microwave radiation on multiple simultaneously operating antennas. Expert groups advising governments on this matter do not agree on the best approaches to be taken. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limited screen time for children under the age of two, but more than half of all toddlers regularly have contact with screens, often without parental engagement. Young children of parents who frequently use devices as a form of childcare can experience delays in speech acquisition and bonding, while older children report feelings of disappointment due to 'technoference'-parental distraction due to technology. Children who begin using devices early in life can become socially, psychologically and physically addicted to the technology and experience withdrawal upon cessation. We review relevant experimental, epidemiological and clinical evidence on biological and other impacts of currently used wireless technology, including advice to include key questions at pediatric wellness checkups from infancy to young adulthood. We conclude that consistent with advice in pediatric radiology, an approach that recommends that microwave radiation exposures be As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) seems sensible and prudent, and that an independently-funded training, research and monitoring program should be carried out on the long term physical and psychological impacts of rapidly changing technological milieu, including ways to mitigate impacts through modifications in hardware and software. Current knowledge of electrohypersensitivity indicates the importance of reducing wireless exposures especially in schools and health care settings.

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions

Due to the continuous rising ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used in modern societies-primarily from wireless technologies-that have now become a ubiquitous biologically active environmental pollutant, a new vision on how to regulate such exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level is needed. Government standards adopted for human exposures are examined for applicability to wildlife. Existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the U.S. and others used in Canada and throughout Europe, should be strengthened and enforced. New laws should be written to accommodate the ever-increasing EMF exposures. Radiofrequency radiation exposure standards that have been adopted by worldwide agencies and governments warrant more stringent controls given the new and unusual signaling characteristics used in 5G technology. No such standards take wildlife into consideration. Many species of flora and fauna, because of distinctive physiologies, have been found sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. Such exposures may now be capable of affecting endogenous bioelectric states in some species. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that low-level EMF exposures have numerous adverse effects, including on orientation, migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance, defense, vitality, longevity, and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as 'habitat' so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. A robust dialog regarding technology's high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards should be set accordingly for wildlife, including, but not limited to, the redesign of wireless devices, as well as infrastructure, in order to reduce the rising ambient levels (explored in Part 1). Possible environmental approaches are discussed. This is Part 3 of a three-part series.

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.

Effects of Long-Term and Multigeneration Exposure of Caenorhabditis elegans to 9.4 GHz Microwaves

A large number of studies on the biological effects of microwaves are carried out using rodents and cells, but the conditions are difficult to control, and the irradiation period is short; the results obtained have always been controversial and difficult to reproduce. In this study, we expose nematodes to an electromagnetic environment for a long-term and multigeneration period to explore the possible biological effects. Wild-type N2 strains of Caenorhabditis elegans are exposed to 9.4 GHz microwaves at a specific adsorption rate of 4 W/kg for 10 h per day from L1 larvae to adults. Then, adult worms are washed off, and the laid eggs are kept to hatch L1 larvae, which are continuously exposed to microwaves until passing through 20 generations. The worms of the 10th, 15th, and 20th generations are collected for index detection. Interestingly, we found that the fecundity of C. elegans decreased significantly in the exposed group from the 15th generation. At the same time, we found that the growth of C. elegans decreased, motility decreased, and oxidative stress occurred in the exposed group from the 10th generation, which may play roles in the decreased spawning in worms. We preliminarily believe that the microwave energy received by worms leads to oxidative stress, which causes a decrease in the spawning rate, and the underlying mechanism needs to be further studied. © 2022 Bioelectromagnetics Society.

Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological studies and research on laboratory animals link radiofrequency radiation (RFR) with impacts on the heart, brain, and other organs. Data from the large-scale animal studies conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute support the need for updated health-based guidelines for general population RFR exposure.

OBJECTIVES

The development of RFR exposure limits expressed in whole-body Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a metric of RFR energy absorbed by biological tissues.

METHODS

Using frequentist and Bayesian averaging modeling of non-neoplastic lesion incidence data from the NTP study, we calculated the benchmark doses (BMD) that elicited a 10% response above background (BMD10) and the lower confidence limits on the BMD at 10% extra risk (BMDL10). Incidence data for individual neoplasms and combined tumor incidence were modeled for 5% and 10% response above background.

RESULTS

Cardiomyopathy and increased risk of neoplasms in male rats were the most sensitive health outcomes following RFR exposures at 900 MHz frequency with Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) modulations. BMDL10 for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats following 19 weeks of exposure, calculated with Bayesian model averaging, corresponded to 0.27-0.42 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 0.20-0.29 W/kg for GSM modulation. BMDL10 for right ventricle cardiomyopathy in female rats following 2 years of exposure corresponded to 2.7-5.16 W/kg whole-body SAR for CDMA and 1.91-2.18 W/kg for GSM modulation. For multi-site tumor modeling using the multistage cancer model with a 5% extra risk, BMDL5 in male rats corresponded to 0.31 W/kg for CDMA and 0.21 W/kg for GSM modulation.

CONCLUSION

BMDL10 range of 0.2-0.4 W/kg for all sites cardiomyopathy in male rats was selected as a point of departure. Applying two ten-fold safety factors for interspecies and intraspecies variability, we derived a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg, an exposure level that is 20-40-fold lower than the legally permissible level of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body SAR under the current U.S. regulations. Use of an additional ten-fold children's health safety factor points to a whole-body SAR limit of 0.2-0.4 mW/kg for young children.