OAKLAND (KPIX) — Is a cell tower going up in your neighborhood? If it’s not now, it may soon.
Wireless carriers are installing millions of them across the country to enable the new, faster 5G cellphone technology. While many are looking forward to faster cell service, many are also asking: Are there legitimate health concerns?
That question is keeping John Hiestand up at night. Outside his bedroom window he can see a new pole where Verizon will soon install a next-generation cell tower.
“This would be a big tower generating lots of RF outside of our bedroom window 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for many years,” he said.
It’s called a “small cell” or “distributed antenna system.” The industry says they’re safe. Many in Piedmont aren’t convinced – including the Hiestands.
“Our daughter is a cancer survivor,” John Hiestand explained.
Thirteen-year-old Sophia Hiestand has been one of many petitioning the city council to deny this cell tower.
“I mostly talked about my cancer and how it affected me, even though you’re not supposed to talk about health issues, I still did,” Hiestand said.
However, according to federal law the city simply can’t consider health concerns. It’s outlined in a small section of the Telecommunications Act, based on science from 1996, back when we were still talking on cellphones that looked like bricks.
“I find it really unfair,” said Hiestand.
If cities do consider health, cell companies can sue them.
So, with few legal arguments to deny a tower, they’re popping up outside bedroom windows and school campuses, despite objections from across the country.
“5G can be a tremendous boom to California but only if it can be put up quickly and easily,” said Hayward Assembly member Bill Quirk. Quirk co-authored legislation that would make it even harder for cities like Piedmont to object to a tower.
“You wouldn’t have to go through the planning commission, through the city council,” Quirk explained.
Quirk, a former NASA scientist, says he may resurrect the bill that was recently vetoed by governor Brown.
“I know scientifically that putting up these cell phone towers is safe,” he said.
But the International Association of Frefighters disagrees. It began opposing cell towers on fire stations, after firefighters complained of health problems.
“These firefighters developed symptoms,” says Dr. Gunnar Heuser who conducted a pilot study on firefighters at a station with cell towers.
“The symptoms included problems with memory, problems with intermittent confusion, problems with weakness,” Heuser said.
Heuser says their brain scans suggest even low-level RF can cause cell damage and he worries about more vulnerable groups like kids.
“We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said.
So, following lobbying by firefighters, assemblyman Quirk and his co-author exempted fire stations from their bill, making them one place cell companies couldn’t put a tower.
“This is the first piece of legislation that anyone is aware of where somebody got an exemption because they were concerned about health. Did they tell you at all about the study?” we asked the assemblyman.
Quirk’s response: “All I know is that when the firefighters ask, I do what they ask me to do.”
“Because they are strong lobbyists?” we asked him. His response: “Yes.”
“So if school teachers and parents had a strong lobby and they ask you to pass something that would prevent these from going up near schools, would you do that?” we asked Quirk.
His response: “If I couldn’t get the votes any other way!”
“It’s not only the firefighters, it’s the people that live within the vicinity of these towers,” Stefani said.
Anthony Stefani started with the San Francisco Fire Department in 1974. The 28-year veteran retired as the captain of Rescue 1 in 2003.
Stefani notes that current regulations don’t take into account continuous low-level exposure from these small cells 24-hours a day. He also says some fellow firefighters reported that their symptoms disappeared when they move to a station without a tower.
“More of these studies have to be done,” he says.
Many international scientists agree. More than 230 scientists from 41 nations — who have published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on electromagnetic fields and biology and health — have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal.
They cite “serious concerns” about “increasing exposure to EMF” based on “numerous recent scientific publications” linking low levels of wireless radiation to health effects.
They’re calling for stronger regulations, disclosure about wireless industry ties to regulatory agencies, and they want publicly funded studies on the health effects of EMF emitting devices/base stations (i.e. cell towers).
“I do not believe that there is any health impact on firefighters or anyone else, from cells, period!” Assemblyman Quirk asserted. However he added, “I think doing more studies is always a good thing.”
Considering the the circumstances, we asked Quirk: “Do you think that maybe you should consider putting a pause on legislation that speeds up these towers until there is definitive evidence that there is no harm?”
His’s response: “We can do a lot of studies and there are people right now believe it or not who are sure the world is flat.”
In a statement the CTIA says it defers to the experts when it comes to the safety of cellular telephones and antennas:
“According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and numerous other international and U.S. organizations and health experts, the scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cellphones.
Likewise, the FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis and its standards for RF exposure are based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. That’s why the FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are “safe.” This scientific consensus has stayed the same even after the NTP’s release in 2016 of its partial findings in a study involving cellphones and lab animals.
The FCC also sets exposure limits for cell site antennas that transmit signals to phones. Those limits, like the limits for cell phones, are even more conservative than standards adopted by leading international standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
The FCC states that typical ground exposures to base station antennas are “hundreds to thousands of times less than the FCC’s limits for safe exposure” and “there is no reason to believe that such [antennas] could constitute a potential health hazard” to nearby residents.”
The World Heath Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Though the cell phone industry stresses there are “no known health risks.”
What about the unknown? Well, back in Piedmont the Hiestands don’t want to wait around to find out.
“We are going to get some meters. We’re going to measure the micro-radiation today and then when the cell towers go up, we can measure it and see how dangerous it really is,” said John Hiestand. He says if he has to they’ll move.
“For my daughter’s health, definitely,” he said.
Piedmont was able to temporarily block permits for some small cell towers but now the company installing them for Verizon, Crown Castle, is suing the city.
Meanwhile new research set to be published next month could radically alter the debate. For the first time it establishes a scientific link between RF radiation and cancer in lab rats:
In response, the Chief Medical Director of the American Cancer Society said this first-of-its-kind government study “marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk.”
Massachusetts Leads the Nation with Five Bills to Protect Citizens
Contributed by Cece Doucette
(Ashland, MA) Massachusetts legislators have introduced five bills this session to address public exposure to wireless radiation. Lisa Lavine Nagy, M.D., government liaison for the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, explains, “Scientific literature[1] has proven that exposure to wireless radiation is responsible for numerous medical symptoms and conditions. A landmark study[2] by the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has proven that DNA damage as well as brain and heart tumors develop in mice exposed to cell phone radiation. Other studies report lowered sperm count[3] in men as well as damage to the fetal brain when a pregnant woman uses the cell phone[4]. A leading autism researcher at Harvard[5] has observed links between wireless radiation exposure and autism.”
The science documenting negative health effects of smart meters[6] and Wi-Fi[7] is also emerging. Many people are already experiencing radiation related symptoms in schools, homes, and workplaces. Effects can include insomnia, headaches, fast heartbeat, dysautonomia, anxiety, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), tingling, nausea, skin rashes, cognitive impairment, depression, and behavioral issues. Non-industry funded scientists[8] indicate children and fetuses are especially vulnerable.
Says Dr. Nagy, “We must apply the precuationary principle[9] and protect the public from potential harm with safe practices. These practices should be based on new data as well as the health experiences of people worldwide who are using these technologies.
As happened in the case of tobacco, EMFs (electromagnetic fields) are all too slowly being recognized as having negative health impacts. The science on EMFs has existed for decades, and other countries[10] have already established more protective radiation exposure limits. Many physicians in the United States are seeing patients every day with electrical intolerance induced by overexposure in their environment.
The five Massachusetts bills are the first steps in taking action and educating the public on responsible use of today’s technology:
S.1268[11]Resolve creating a special commission to examine the health impacts of electromagnetic fields will look at non-industry-funded science and recommend public protections. Sponsored by Senator Karen E. Spilka and referred to the Joint Committee on Public Health[12]. Co-sponsored by Jack Lewis, James B. Eldridge, Kevin J. Kuros, and Bruce E. Tarr.
S.1864[13] An Act relative to utilities, smart meters, and ratepayers’ rights gives utility customers the no-fee choice of retaining non-wireless radiation-emitting water, gas and electrical meters and refusing installation of “smart” utility meters. Sponsored by Senator Michael O. Moore and referred to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy[14]. Co-sponsored by Diana DiZoglio, David Paul Linsky, Linda Dean Campbell, Kate Hogan, Jack Lewis, Marjorie C. Decker, Solomon Goldstein-Rose, and Jennifer L. Flanagan.
S.107[15] An Act relative to disclosure of radiofrequency notifications requires manufacturer warnings be prominently displayed on product packaging of wireless radiation-emitting devices. Sponsored by Senator Julian Cyr and referred to the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure[16]. Co-sponsored by Timothy R. Whelan and Sarah K. Peake.
S.108[17] An Act relative to the safe use of handheld devices by children requires specific language be included on product packaging, as modeled by an ordinance[18] unanimously passed in Berkeley, California. Sponsored by Senator Julian Cyr and referred to the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure[19]. Co-sponsored by Timothy R. Whelan.
H.2030[20] An Act relative to best management practices for wireless in schools and public institutions of higher education requires the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to establish wireless technology standards to protect the health and safety of public school students and staff. Sponsored by Representative Carolyn C. Dykema and referred to the Joint Committee on Education[21]. Co-sponsored by Jack Lewis, Michael O. Moore, and Angelo J. Puppolo.
Today we are surrounded by a wide variety of high frequency electromagnetic fields. Radio, television and mobile communication technologies transmit a multitude of high frequency signals. These fields are useful for modern communication, but can adversely affect other electronic devices. Conductor tracks and wires of the devices act as antennas and the coupled electromagnetic energy can, depending on the field strength and circuit, negatively alter the performance characteristics of a device or directly destroy components. For example, we all know the “crack” of radios, when a mobile phone is nearby. In case of power supplies, the negative impact of the electromagnetic field could express itself in form of a drop in the output voltage.
To prevent this from happening, the EMC standard IEC 61000-4-3 regulates tests regarding the immunity of devices against high frequency electromagnetic fields. This article describes the general regulations of the standard, gives an overview on electromagnetic fields with their effects and names some measures to increase the immunity of electronic devices.
What are high frequency electromagnetic fields
High frequency electromagnetic fields are located in the electromagnetic spectrum in the frequency range between 100 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). They are generally radiated from an antenna and can transmit energy and information over long distances. Due to the wide range of possible uses of high-frequency electromagnetic fields, especially for modern communication today, (e.g. radio, television, mobile communications, cordless cellphones, WLAN and Bluetooth applications) people are surrounded by a multitude of different transmission devices that operate with different transmission powers and frequencies. The frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic fields are linked by the propagation velocity (in free space this is the speed of light c) and describe the wave character of the fields. At high frequencies f, the wavelengths λ (lambda) are small and correspondingly larger at low frequencies. When propagated in free space, the wavelengths are between 3 kilometers and 1 millimeter.[1] λ=c/f
Table: Frequency bands and wavelengths
Unit of measurement of the electric field strength
The intensity or strength of the fields is indicated either in the form of the electric field strength (unit: volts per meter, V / m), or the magnetic field strength (unit: amps per meter, A / m), or in the form of power flux density (unit: watts per square meter, W / m2).[1]
Propagation of high-frequency electromagnetic fields
As the distance from a transmitter increases, the field strength decreases rapidly. In free space, the power flux density decreases with the square of the distance, which means, with the double distance the flux density decreases to a quarter. Because many antennas radiate with certain preferred directions due to their design, the intensity at locations in the vicinity of a transmitter can be very different, despite identical distances to the source. As a rule, it is not possible to deduce the field strengths at a particular location alone from the distance. High-frequency electromagnetic fields can also be reflected or absorbed by objects that are in the direction of propagation. Which mechanism predominates depends, among other things, on the material properties of the respective object. Therefore, the propagation of high-frequency fields in the real environment often differs significantly from the simple case given above; the propagation in free space.[1]
Effect on humans
Humans contain many electrically charged particles and polar molecules. Although polar molecules, such as the water molecule, are electrically neutral as a whole, they carry a negative charge at one end and a positive charge at the other. Electric and magnetic fields exert a force on electrically charged or polar particles to move. In a high-frequency electromagnetic field, the particles move very fast in time with the frequency. They rub together and heat is created. If the fields are very strong, entire cells can move due to the force effect. They align themselves in the field or migrate. Such non-thermal effects cannot be triggered by fields of radio applications, since their field strength is not sufficient for this.
Decisive for the biological effect of high-frequency fields is the energy absorbed by the body. The basis for this is the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR, unit of measure: Watts per kilogram, W / kg). It indicates the power (energy per time) absorbed per kilogram of tissue. If the body is only heated locally, the blood can dissipate the extra heat. If the whole body is heated, the skin is supplied with more blood and the heat is released by evaporation on the skin surface (sweating). Health effects can be expected if certain thresholds are exceeded and the body’s thermoregulation is disturbed.[1]
Electromagnetic Field And Health, Electromagnetic Field And Health Problems, Electromagnetic Field And Public Health, Electromagnetic Field Bad For Health, Electromagnetic Field Effects On Human Health, Electromagnetic Field Health And Environment, Electromagnetic Field Health And Safety, Electromagnetic Field Health Concerns, Electromagnetic Field Health Effects, Electromagnetic Field Health Issues, Electromagnetic Field Health Risks, Electromagnetic Field Impact On Health, Electromagnetic Field Mental Health, Electromagnetic Field Who Health, Electromagnetic Fields And Health Issues, Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health Who, Electromagnetic Fields Exposure And Health, Electromagnetic Fields Health Study, Electromagnetic Fields Health Symptoms, Electromagnetic Fields Public Health England, Electromagnetic Fields World Health Organization, Health Implication Of Electromagnetic Field, Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Health Effects, Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Health Effects
MUMBAI: Bollywood actress Juhi Chawla, a radiation awareness campaigner, has flagged concerns about 5G mobile phone technology, saying it shouldn’t be implemented without analysing potential harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation on human health.
She sought to know whether the Centre, which is implementing 5G to achieve the objectives of Digital India, has done enough research on the new technology.
The actress-cum-movie producer has written a letter to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, cautioning against the health hazards due to EMF (electromagnetic) radiation from mobile tower antennas and WiFi hotspots.
“Many well-known national and international scientists, epidemiologists and technical professors have mentioned about adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation on human health,” she stated in her letter.
Chawla, who runs the project ‘Citizens for Tomorrow’ to raise awareness about environment, said the Centre has “blindly” started working on implementing 5G technology to achieve the objectives of Digital India.
Speaking to , the 50-year-old actress said the government is implementing 5G mobile technology for better speed and network but is “blatantly ignoring” the harmful effects of radiation on human health.
“Various international scientists are against the introduction of 5G and there are studies that indicate harmful effect (of radiation) on health. This is a matter of concern,” she said.
Chawla sought to known whether adequate research was done on 5G technology.
“Has this technology been researched upon and if yes, when and where was the research done, what was the duration of this research, was the research funded and if yes, who has funded it. Also, will the research, if conducted, be published?” she asked.
In her letter, the actress claimed mobile tower antennas are installed on buildings by ignoring the Department of Telecommunication guidelines.
“In addition to this, a web of WiFi hot spots has been set up throughout the city. The radiation network has surrounded us 24×7, affecting our health,” she stated.
However, city-based environmentalist Debi Goenka said the impact of cell phone radiation has been studied extensively by the industry. All these studies have said there is no adverse impact of radiation on human health.
“However, there are several instances where people exposed to radiation have experienced health problems. In such a situation, the best way forward is to follow the precautionary principle approach, and reduce the intensity of radiation even though this may add to industry costs,” said Goenka, Executive Trustee, the Conservation Action Trust.
“I personally use headphones whenever I use my mobile, and I would advise all of you to do the same. The only thing out of our control is the location of cellphone towers.
“These have to be in locations that will minimise the continuous exposure of radiation to the public,” Goenka said.
5g And E-health, 5g E-health, 5g Health, 5g Health Issues, 5g Health Marketing Group, 5g Health Problems, 5g Mobile Health, 5g Network Health, 5g Wifi Health
A real estate transaction is typically a major financial investment and future commitment. Dealing with the bank and loan funding; coordinating inspections with realtors, professionals and current owners; the endless planning and expectations; and the sales pressure in general can be exciting but also overwhelming. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) have traditionally not been part of a due diligence real estate inspection and evaluation. This has changed in the last few years. Concerns about potential health impacts have brought up questions about significant EMF and radio frequency (RF) sources at the property, building or in its proximity.
There are so many considerations and decisions to make; does the location work for the commute to work and the children’s school; in what style should the new building be furnished; is remodeling needed; how far can we stretch the budget – the list does on and on. One really important question is: Does the building fulfill our needs for a safe and healthy home or office? We don’t want to find out after the expense of moving that the new building has elevated EMF or RF fields in sensitive areas such as bedrooms, children’s play areas or our office space.
The best time to prevent surprises later on is during the initial inspection period before all paperwork is signed and the purchase is completed. During this inspection period, different professional trades are evaluating the property and building(s) for possible shortcomings such as building defects, faulty electrical installations, roof failures, etc. However, these inspections are not designed to determine if a building or property presents low or high EMF or RF environments.
Many indoor environmental and public health research professionals feel that EMF/RF evaluations and measurements should be a part of a healthy building inspection. While the scientific community is still divided, many scientists and institutions recommend “prudent avoidance” as the safest approach. An EMF/RF evaluation at the start of the real estate transaction before remodeling begins is the best and most cost effective time to implement possible shielding methods.
Only trained and experienced professionals with the appropriate and calibrated equipment can determine the exposure in the areas of concern. AC-magnetic fields, commonly referred to as EMF, can be hidden and only detected using appropriate EMF testing services protocols and professional equipment. Certain electrical installations and lighting features, or wiring errors that are code violations can cause elevated AC-magnetic fields. These elevated EMF fields and the possible code violations often go undetected in regular home inspections that solely focus on functionality.
Why is it important for you to know about magnetic fields?
Our indoor environment has changed dramatically in the past ten years. Many wireless devices are impacting our indoor environment such as cellular antennas, TV and radio broadcasting transmitter, radar, wireless router and access points. Many are added all the time, such as video game systems, , wireless printers, baby monitors, security systems, wireless devices and appliances controlled with the latest mobile phone app. This trend will only continue. Do you believe that our recently and dramatically changed indoor environment has no effect on our health and development of our children or performance and well being of employees? Or do you feel we should be cautious, and choose to limit our personal exposure in areas where we spend a lot of time such as sleeping areas, children’s play areas and our work areas. Many organizations and countries outside the US recommend lower long-term exposure limits and precautionary action levels. Why is that so? Are they more sensitive individuals or are we unaware of the potential dangers?
At EMF & RF Solutions, we don’t speculate. We assess an area using scientific methods to provide you with the information to make an educated decision and exercise your right to choose what you want to be exposed to in your own home, building or office.
We can help create a low EMF and RF environment in your future building. The recipe to a successful outcome is following a systematic protocol in assessment, designing the mitigation plan if necessary, and verifying the achievement of the design goals. The steps for a low EMF/RF assessment, consultation and possible development of a mitigation plan consist of:
Assessment of low and high frequency background levels present on the property
Assessment of low and high frequency levels present in the building
Develop and design of a possible mitigation according to your benchmarks for sensitive areas
Consult on prudent placement in all sensitive areas
Design shielding concepts as indicated
Retain a qualified electrician to verify proper electrical installation and grounding system if indicated
Shielding implementation by qualified craftsmen
Measurements to confirm compliance to your benchmarks
Certification of the site or building
If you would like us to help you in the assessment or design of a low EMF in Real Estate, please call us at 760-942-9400 or email to:
The voluminous but sometimes puzzling results also aren’t likely to prompt U.S. agencies or other bodies to immediately change how they regulate the ubiquitous devices or view their health risks.
Questions over whether cell phones harm health have persisted for decades. The devices emit non-ionizing, electromagnetic radiation of the sort that heats food in a microwave oven, but scientists have struggled to conclusively link cell phone use to cancers or other illnesses.
In a bid to clarify matters, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which plays a key role in developing U.S. cell phone regulations, asked the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institutes of Health to launch studies examining the issue. Yesterday, NTP released two studies conducted as part of a $25 million research program.
In the studies, which lasted 2 years, rats and mice of both sexes ran freely in specially constructed reverberation chambers where their entire bodies were exposed to radiation. The levels ranged from a low of 1.5 watts per kilogram to a high of 10/Kg, and exposures were limited to the 2G and 3G frequencies, which are still widely used for voice calls and texting. In general, the animals were exposed to radiation levels that either matched or exceeded what’s permissible under current U.S. regulations.
Exposures began during pregnancy and then continued nine hours a day for 2 years, “which is not a situation that most people will encounter when using cell phones,” said John Bucher, a senior scientist at NTP who co-directed the study. “Though it does allow us to explore the potential for biological effects if they’re going to occur.”
The study’s strongest finding was that male rats had an elevated risk of developing tumors, called malignant schwannomas, in the connective tissues surrounding nerves in the heart. Sex- and species-dependent increases were also observed for lymphoma, as well as cancers of the prostate, skin, lung, liver and brain, but these findings were weaker by comparison and possibly due to causes other than radiation. Similarly, the researchers observed non-cancerous health effects — including lower birth weights, evidence of DNA damage, and heart conditions – among exposed rats, although it was not always clear if the conditions were caused by radiation exposure.
In a counterintuitive result, male rats and mice exposed to radiation lived longer, and had lower levels of age-related kidney disease, than males not exposed to radiation.
Early reactions to the findings suggest they will not dramatically reshape the debate over cell phone safety. Both critics and supporters of current risk evaluations and safety standards claim the studies support their points of view.
The new findings are “incredibly important,” says David Carpenter, a public health physician at the University of Albany, New York, who has long warned of cell phone dangers. “I think this is the first clear evidence showing that these sorts of radiofrequency fields increase risks for all kinds of cancer,” he says, noting that malignant schwannomas have been detected in previous human studies of cell phone risk. He believes that more of the associations between radiation exposure and rodent disease could have reached statistical significance had the study included a larger number of animals.
Jonathan Samet, who led a prominent international scientific panel that concluded that cell phone radiation was a “probable” human carcinogen, predicts the new studies won’t “nudge that classification in one direction or another.” The panel led by Samet, dean of the Colorado State University School of Public Health in Fort Collins, was organized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a specialized agency of the World Health Organization.
The findings don’t suggest that U.S. regulations on cellphone radiation need to be tightened, said Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a statement. The new studies, when combined with previous research, have “given us the confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”
The NTP’s Bucher, who helped lead the new studies, says he has no intention of changing his cell phone habits.
In a statement, the U.S. National Cancer Institute noted that “often, when concerns are raised about exposures that may confer low-level risk for a rare cancer outcome—as is the case for cell phones and brain tumors—it takes time and many studies to come to a conclusion based on the weight of the evidence.” It notes that a major European study of cell phones and brain tumor risk is expected to report results later this year.
Meanwhile, external experts are scheduled to review the new NTP studies at a meeting in late March. NTP also plans to continue its animal studies in new chambers that replicate the radiation produced by the current generation of 4G cell phones.
(Reuters) – Male rats exposed to very high levels of the kind of radiation emitted by cellphones developed tumours in the tissues around their hearts, according to a draft report by U.S. government researchers on the potential health risks of the devices.
Female rats and mice exposed in the same way did not develop tumours, according to the preliminary report from the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), a part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The findings add to years of research meant to help settle the debate over whether cellphone radiation is harmful.
Although intriguing, the findings can not be extrapolated to humans, NTP scientists and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said on Friday. They noted that the animal studies were meant to test extreme exposures to cell phone radiation, and that current safety limits on cellphone radiation are protective.
However, the two 10-year, $25 million studies – the most comprehensive assessments of health effects and exposure to radiofrequency radiation in rats and mice to date – do raise new questions about exposure to the ubiquitous devices.
In the studies, about 6 percent of male rats whose entire bodies were exposed to the highest level of cell phone radiation developed schwannomas – a rare type of tumour – in nerve tissue near their hearts, while there were no schwannomas in animals that were not exposed to radiation.
“The intriguing part of this is the kind of tumours we saw were similar to tumours noted for quite some time in some epidemiological studies in heavy duty cellphone users,” John Bucher, a senior scientist with NTP, said in a telephone interview.
“Of course, these were in the nerves in the ear and next to the brain, but the tumour types were the same as we saw in the heart.”
Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, noted that the studies were negative for common tumours.
“These draft reports are bound to create a lot of concern, but in fact they won’t change what I tell people: the evidence for an association between cellphones and cancer is weak, and so far, we have not seen a higher cancer risk in people,” he said in a statement on Twitter.
Brawley said if cellphone users are concerned about this data in animals they should wear an earpiece.
Unlike ionizing radiation such as that from gamma rays, radon and X-rays, which can break chemical bonds in the body and are known to cause cancer, radiofrequency devices such as cellphones and microwaves emit radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing radiation.
The concern with this type of radiation is that it produces energy in the form of heat, and frequent exposure against the skin could alter brain cell activity, as some studies have suggested.
In the NTP study, rats and mice were exposed to higher levels of radiation for longer periods of time than what people experience with even the highest level of cellphone use, and their entire bodies were exposed all at once, according to the draft report.
Bucher said the effect likely only showed up in the male rats because they were larger, and likely absorbed more radiation than the female rats or mice.
Cellphones typically emit lower levels of radiation than maximum levels allowed, the draft report said.
Cellphone radiation quickly dissipates, so the risk, if any, would be to areas of the body in close proximity to the device emitting the radiation, Bucher said.
He said the findings are intended to help inform the design of future cell phone technologies. The study looked at only 2G and 3G frequencies, which are still commonly used for phone calls. It does not apply to 4G or 5G, which use different frequencies and modulation, he said.
NTP, a part of the National Institutes of Health, will hold an external expert review of its findings on March 26-28.
Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, head of the FDA’s radiological health division, said there is not enough evidence to say cellphone use poses health risks to people.
“Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we have not seen an increase in events like brain tumours,” he said in a statement. “We believe the current safety limits for cellphones are acceptable for protecting the public health.”
Asked what the public should take from the study, Bucher said, “I wouldn’t change my behaviour based on these studies, and I haven‘t.”
Nevertheless, the findings are potentially a concern for device makers, especially the world’s three biggest smartphone sellers, Apple Inc, Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and China’s Huawei Technologies.
The CTIA, the trade association representing AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc, Apple Inc, Sprint Corp, DISH Network Corp, and others, said on Friday that previous studies have shown cellphone RF energy emissions have no known heath risks.
”We understand that the NTP draft reports for its mice and rat studies will be put out for comment and peer review so that their significance can be assessed,” the group said.
Samsung and Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Reporting by Bill Berkrot and Caroline Humer in New York, David Shepardson in Washington and Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Susan Thomas and Diane Craft
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones, cell phone towers, wireless Internet, power lines, household electrical wiring and more can trigger serious symptoms, including headaches, fatigue and confusion, in people who are electrosensitive
There are a number of factors that influence the degree to which you may be affected by EMFs, and your level of heavy metal toxicity is likely one of them
Heavy metals in your brain also act as micro-antennas, concentrating and increasing reception of EMF radiation
Any kind of metal implants and/or amalgam (silver) tooth fillings will significantly increase reception of microwaves, and the mircrocurrents from cell phones and other ambient fields
By Dr. Mercola
Electomagnetic fields (EMFs) are all around us, no matter where you live these days. They emanate from power lines, televisions, household electrical wiring, appliances and microwaves.
They come from cell phones, cell phone towers and wireless Internet connections.
It is estimated that 3-8 percent of populations in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms, while 35 percent experience mild symptoms, according to Dr. Thomas Rau, medical director of the world-renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Switzerland.1
There are a number of factors that influence the degree to which you may be affected by EMFs.
For example, your body weight, body-mass index, bone density, and water and electrolyte levels can alter the conductivity and biological reactivity to EMFs. Heavy metals in your brain also act as micro-antennas, concentrating and increasing reception of EMF radiation.
How Heavy Metal Toxicity May Make Electrohypersensitivity Worse
The issue of heavy metal toxicity in relation to electromagnetic toxicity may be one of the most significant. According to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura’s research, the more your system is contaminated with heavy metals from silver amalgam fillings, eating contaminated fish, living downstream from coal burning power plants and so forth, the more your body becomes a virtual antenna that actually concentrates radiation, making it far more destructive.2
“Heavy metals can weaken our field through their frequency outputs by modulating compatible frequency components of the body resulting in a weakening of the field thereby causing unhealthy biochemical changes. If you have accumulated toxic metals in your brain, and since your brain is an antenna, you can actually receive more cell phone radiation, which in turn can cause the microbes in your system to overreact and create more potent mycotoxins.
This can create a never-ending vicious cycle between the microbes and metals in your body and your exposure to electromagnetic fields, which can lead to hypersensitivity. I have seen that a high percentage of illness including chronic infections are caused, and/or aggravated, by electromagnetic field exposure. Then chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and other chronic pain syndromes can easily develop or worsen.”
Likewise, any kind of metal implants and/or amalgam (silver) tooth fillings will significantly increase reception of microwaves, and the mircrocurrents from cell phones and other ambient fields. In case you’re wondering how to detect electrohypersensitivity, the five most common symptoms are:
These fields are useful for modern communication, but can adversely affect other electronic devices. Conductor tracks and wires of the devices act as antennas and the coupled electromagnetic energy can, depending on the field strength and circuit, negatively alter the performance characteristics of a device or directly destroy components. For example, we all know the “crack” of radios, when a mobile phone is nearby. In case of power supplies, the negative impact of the electromagnetic field could express itself in form of a drop in the output voltage.
ever, city-based environmentalist Debi Goenka said the impact of cell phone radiation has been studied extensively by the industry. All these studies have said there is no adverse impact of radiation on human health.
There are so many considerations and decisions to make; does the location work for the commute to work and the children’s school; in what style should the new building be furnished; is remodeling needed; how far can we stretch the budget – the list does on and on. One really important question is: Does the building fulfill our needs for a safe and healthy home or office? We don’t want to find out after the expense of moving that the new building has elevated EMF or 
Many indoor environmental and public health research professionals feel that EMF/RF evaluations and measurements should be a part of a healthy 
The voluminous but sometimes puzzling results also aren’t likely to prompt U.S. agencies or other bodies to immediately change how they regulate the ubiquitous devices or view their health risks.
(Reuters) – Male rats exposed to very high levels of the kind of radiation emitted by cellphones developed tumours in the tissues around their hearts, according to a draft report by U.S. government researchers on the potential health risks of the devices.
