No longer can it be ignored that manmade electromagnetic radiation poses innumerable risks to human health
The Ubiquity of Electrosmog
Concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMF) are branded pseudoscientific conspiracy theories and relegated to the realm of tin-hat wearing quackery. However, a recent publication in the peer-reviewed journal Immunologic Research entitled “Electrosmog and Autoimmune Disease,” sheds new light on the validity of concerns about this so-called electrosmog with which we are constantly inundated.
Although we encounter natural microwave electromagnetic radiation in the form of cosmic radiation from outer space, the aurora borealis, and thunderstorms, the vast majority of electrosmog that we encounter is largely manmade (1). These atmospheric phenomena, however, emit electromagnetic radiation at lower radio frequencies and are negligibly weak in comparison to manmade sources, which have increased exponentially due to the emergence of television, cellular phone technologies, and WiFI, all of which utilize microwave frequency bands (1).
According to researchers Marshall and Heil (2017), for instance, “The recent release of WiGig and anti-collision vehicle radars in the 60 GHz region embody a 1000-fold increase in frequency, and photon energy, over the exposures mankind experienced up until the 1950s” (1).
How Electrosmog Interfaces with the Bioelectromagnetic Body
It is intuitive that electrosmog would interact with human biology, since human physiology operates in part via electromagnetic fields. Apart from physical information superhighways such as the blood, nervous, and lymphatic systems, the body uses electromagnetic forms of energy transmission and communication which are several orders of magnitude faster than chemical diffusion (2).
Called biophotonic emission (BPE), these quanta of electromagnetic energy have a visibility one thousand times lower than the sensitivity of our naked eye and are quintessential to cellular metabolism and to the powering of our energy-intensive nervous and immune systems (3). Harbored within our genetic material, biophotonsserve as a mode of instantaneous communication from one body part to another and to the extraneous world (4) and their emission is influenced by our global state of health (5). Research even suggests that mental intention and the fabric of our consciousnessis mediated by these quantum of light, which operate as highly coherent frequencies and generate an ordered flux of photons (4).
Thus, both the stuff of consciousness and the functioning of our cellular energetics is premised upon electromagnetism, which may be susceptible to distortion by electrosmog. Curtis and Hurtak describe the electromagnetic body as both “an entire body distinct from the chemical body that interpenetrates it” and “a light circulatory system operating on an energetic level in a markedly different manner from that of its molecular counterparts” (2). That there is “an incredible amount of activity at levels of magnification or scale that span more than two-thirds of the 73 known octaves of the electromagnetic spectrum” (6) in the human body is emblematic of our vulnerability to electromagnetic disturbances.
Potential Immune Disturbances due to Electrosmog Exposure
Although current public health laws are predicated on effects of short-term exposure, research suggests that dosage and repetitive exposures likely influence health risk of electrosmog (7). Two thirds of studies examined report ecological effects of electromagnetic radiation, and researchers state that, “current evidence indicates that chronic exposure to electromagnetic radiation, at levels that are found in the environment, may particularly affect the immune, nervous, cardiovascular and reproductive systems” (7).
Although the conventional mantra is that no harm is incurred from low-energy radio waves, low-level exposures to ionizing radiation are known to manifest profound effects upon human physiology (1). Ionizing radiation exposure, which occurs secondary to nuclear energy accidents, for example, produces immunosuppression, so much so that some scientists have even suggested radon exposure as a therapeutic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis due to its inhibition of inflammatory immune messengers such as the adipokine visfatin (8).
There is, however, often a substantial lag time between exposure and the materialization of symptomatology (1). The detriment to immune defense “often does not become apparent until the body catastrophically fails to overcome an acute challenge” (1). In addition, new science is overturning the previous assumption that immunosuppressive effects are exclusive to ionizing radiation exposure.
A research group headed by Lushinov, for example, found that repeated exposures to low-level non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation impaired the immune response in mice, negatively influencing immunogenesis, or the ability of the immune response to respond to an immune-provocating antigenic substance (9). The exposure to low-intensity electromagnetic radiation negatively influenced thymic and splenic cellularity, causing a statistically significant decrease in the immune cells generated by these lymphoid organs (9). The immunocompetence of the Aegean wall lizard was also significantly reduced upon daily exposure to radiofrequency resembling the amount of electrosmog emitted from cordless phones (10).
Moreover, Gapeev and colleagues (2006) elucidated that exposure to low-intensity non-ionizing electromagnetic waves exerted equivalent immunosuppressive effects to a single dose of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac (11). In another experiment, exposure to low-intensity electromagnetic radiation reduce the footpad edema and local hyperthermia, also known as swelling and heat, that accompanied injection of zymosan, an agent that induces acute inflammation (12). This constitutes evidence that electrosmog exposure may impair the normal immune response to potential threats.
Human Proteins are Responsive to Electromagnetic Waves
Biomolecules, which are constantly undergoing molecular collisions and interacting on the scale of picoseconds, are subject to forces exerted by incident electromagnetic fields (1). According to researchers Marshall and Heil, “It seems likely that signals a million times lower than those currently being used in research may be sufficient to elicit a tangible change in human biology” (1).
We take wireless technology for granted, even though it is basically “magic.” And that perceived magic has led to myths and fallacies that need to be dispelled.
Wireless, or radio if you prefer, is a strange and wonderful phenomenon. Voice, music, video, and data miraculously move almost instantaneously from one place to another invisibly through the air. How could that be? Our entire environment is an invisible fog of thousands of electromagnetic waves. The whole phenomenon has been amazing to me since I was a kid. Even though I understand it I am still in awe of the technology.
That said, wireless technology is a complex subject. It has taken me most of my life time to learn it. And I still don’t know it all. But to non-wireless engineers, radio must seem an enigma. There’s much to get accustomed to and understand. What follows are 11 myths about wireless you may not know but should.
1. Wireless was invented by Marconi.
No, it was not. I would give my vote to Heinrich Hertz, who should get more recognition for his earliest demonstration of the concept. But we do use his name as the unit of frequency measurement. As for Marconi, he was a major contributor to the technology and is probably best known for putting the theory into practice. Marconi engineered the early radio equipment and demonstrated its capabilities. The real inventor of radio was Tesla, who did little to advance the science beyond a few clever demonstrations. Tesla was posthumously awarded the U.S. patent in 1943.
2. The Federal Communications Commission is the primary communications regulator.
The FCC implements the rules and regulations regarding most commercial and personal wireless products and applications. They manage the spectrum and define all kinds of guidelines like power, antennas, bandwidth, modulation, and interference. But they aren’t the only U.S. regulatory agency. The other agency that most of you have not encountered is the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA). The NTIA is the manager and regulator of all government and military wireless spectrum and equipment. It’s a division of the Department of Commerce. They work closely with the FCC to rule the airwaves.
3. Radio waves work like magnetic induction.
Not so. A radio wave is really a combination of an electric field at a right angle to a magnetic field. The two travel together in a direction perpendicular to both fields. As they propagate from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna, they stay together. Essentially the fields break away from the antenna, or radiate, and then actually support and rejuvenate one another along the way. The math describing that process was spelled out as far back as 1873 by James Clerk Maxwell. This signal that’s radiated is called the far field. It’s the real radio wave.
The field close to the antenna, typically within one wavelength, is called the near field. Transmission is more by magnetic field than by combined magnetic and electric fields. The near field signal is non-radiative. The near field is really inductive coupling that occurs between the primary and secondary windings of an air core transformer. The near field isn’t the real radio wave.
4. The propagation of a radio wave is basically the same for all wireless applications.
No way. Radio signals act differently depending on their frequency. Low-frequency signals in the 50- to 3000-kHz range travel by ground or surface wave. The vertically polarized signal hugs the ground and is mostly dissipated after a few hundred miles.
AM broadcast stations represent one example. Signals in the 3- to 30-MHz range travel by sky wave. The signals essentially are refracted by the ionosphere back to earth. Depending on the angle of radiation, time of day, and the specific ionosphere layer encountered, the signal could travel by skipping long distances nearly around the world. Frequencies over 30 MHz and up into the mmWave range travel by direct line of sight from antenna to antenna. These signals are usually reflected or absorbed, so range is generally limited.
5. We have totally run out of frequency spectrum.
Not completely, but we’re working toward that it seems. Most of the so-called “good” spectrum (~500 MHz to 6 GHz) is pretty much consumed, but plenty of spectrum exists at the higher frequencies beyond about 30 GHz.
Some say there’s a spectrum crisis as more wireless products and services are developed. One contributor to the shortage is the growing Internet of Things (IoT) movement. With billions of new devices coming on line, spectrum usage is something to worry about. But it’s the cellular industry that lusts after spectrum the most. The FCC hosts auctions to sell off available chunks of spectrum when they become available. Billions of dollars are collected.
6. Radio broadcasting is dead.
You may have gotten the impression that AM, FM, and TV broadcasting were on their way out thanks to all the internet streaming of music and video. But it’s not. While the number of AM stations has declined a bit, FM is growing. Satellite radio is also healthy. Furthermore, almost 20% of the U.S. population gets its TV by over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts. This includes satellite TV broadcasting. On top of that, short wave broadcasting is still around; not so much in the U.S., but it’s still big in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and other more remote parts of the world.
7. The most widely used wireless standard is Wi-Fi.
Wi-Fi is certainly a heavily used wireless standard. But in terms of sheer volume of radios in use, Bluetooth is probably the more widespread. It’s in all cell phones, most cars and trucks, headphones, speakers, retail beacons, and a mixed bag of other applications. It takes two chips to implement any Bluetooth applications. That’s why billions of Bluetooth radio chips are sold annually.
8. Cell phones give you a brain tumor.
That myth has been around ever since the first cell phones emerged in the late 1980s. It’s been studied multiple times, and the outcome is that cell phones don’t cause brain tumors. Perhaps if you held the phone to your head eight or so hours a day, you may get brain damage. But today, instead the process of holding the phone to your ear and head for a voice call has been replaced by holding the phone in your hands in front of you while you text, read email, or watch a YouTube video. No cancer.
9. Wireless data transfer is always faster than wired data transfer.
Not true. Wired data communications say by Ethernet or fiber optics, is very solid and usually faster than wireless. Ethernet can do 100 Gb/s and optical is now doing up to 400 Gb/s using PAM4. With a solid link, data can be faster because it doesn’t have to deal with all of the free space link and path problems of wireless.
Wireless free space path loss is very high; there’s always noise and interference that limits the data rate. But wireless has come a long way over the years with error correction, multichannel modulation like OFDM, MIMO, and phased arrays. As a result, wireless begins to approach wired speeds. Under ideal conditions, wireless data can hit levels of 10 to 100 Gb/s.
10. Rain and snow make satellite TV, phones, and data services unreliable.
You have probably heard of this one but it not true. Actually, at some frequencies in older systems, rain does attenuate the signal. But today, most components, equipment, and systems compensate for it with good link margins. We would not be using so many satellites if the coverage were iffy. What would we do without things like GPS, worldwide sat phones, space telescopes, and military surveillance?
11. Millimeter waves will never be practical.
Maybe that was true in the past, but today mmWaves are widely used thanks to the availability of semiconductor devices to generate and process these signals. Millimeter waves cover the 30- to 300-GHz range. All sorts of systems use them, especially radar and satellite. The 802.11ad WiGig WLAN products at 60 GHz are now available. Automotive radars use 77 GHz. And many of the forthcoming 5G cellular and fixed wireless access systems use mmWaves. Researchers are working on terahertz wave technology now.
There should be a wireless appreciation day to celebrate its existence. How about every day?
John McDonald’s reference to Chicken Little’s cry “the sky is falling” (“Fears over radiation overblown”, Citizen, February 16) carries a witty bite as he belittles those who are concerned with the effects of pulsed modulated and continuous microwave radiation.
My dear Mr. McDonald, where is your science? An acorn of corporate propaganda must have fallen on your head. Over 200 scientists from more than 38 nations submitted a collective appeal to the United Nations and the WHO requesting that they “exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly, risk to children and fetal development (EMFscientist.org).”
Humanity has never experienced such a magnitude and bombardment of cumulative radiation that we are experiencing today. As for the moral of the famous children’s story, the crafty fox said, “Come with me and I can show you the way.” Chicken Little and the gang were duped and so met their tragic demise because they lacked knowledge of Lion’s whereabouts. Had they known where they were going, they would not have fallen prey to Foxy Woxy’s big fat lie. Obviously if Chicken Little had done his research in the first place, he would have avoided the whole sordid mess and saved the unsuspecting fowl community.
Public worried about adverse health impacts
By PATRICK BLAIS
WOBURN – Local officials and citizens alike recently expressed grave concerns about possible adverse health effects from magnetic fields emitted from Eversource’s proposed 345,000 volt transmission line project.
During a recent gathering in City Hall, the City Council caught its first glimpse of the utility company’s likely final route for the high-voltage conduit, which the electricity distributor intends to bury under various local roadways around Horn Pond and by Washington Street and Montvale Avenue in East Woburn.
“I know there’s a lot of questions about what a typical construction project looks like for an underground transmission line. Safety is a top priority,” said Chad Roland, a project manager from Eversource.
Ultimately, with Eversource’s public health and electromagnetic field (EMF) expert absent from the introductory hearing, the City Council continued its deliberations until March 20.
EMF exposure
Various citizens attending the public hearing challenged Eversource’s contention the project will pose no risk to citizens through constant exposure to EMF being emitted from the 345KV lines.
One such resident was Brian Carpenter, a Washington Street resident whose home is situated within 300-feet of the proposed line.
According to Carpenter, he had researched EMF exposure at length during proceedings over the past two years before the Mass. Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), which earlier this week, was expected to finalize a decision that grants state permits approving the project route and exempting the petitioners from having to adhere to some local zoning bylaws within the impacted communities.
As the Washington Street resident explained, EMF levels resulting from the high-voltage line, and especially from the 10 “splicing” vaults spaced across the entire 8.5-mile project route, were a source of contention during the EFSB proceedings.
In particular, community leaders from Stoneham and Winchester urged the state board to mandate the use of a more advanced protective sheath around the lines to create a stronger shield from EMF emissions.
“I’ve been following this project since the beginning. I share the concerns about health issues, and I know there was other technology that was suggested to reduce the EMF. That was rejected by Eversource,” said Carpenter, who was a “limited intervenor” during the EFSB case.
“I think these health concerns are legitimate. I don’t think anyone in this room, including those from Eversource, would want this 30 feet from their house. I have my granddaughter at my house every day,” he added.
The debate over EMF exposure stems from a number of scientific studies which examine a potential link between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukemia clusters. Some research also indicates close proximity and prolonged exposure to elevated EMF can cause health problems that include nausea, inner-ear balance and vertigo issues, vomitting, and poor cognitive performance.
Though in the United States there is no official government guidelines regarding safe EMF levels, the World Health Organization (WHO) has acknowledged the findings of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiatation Protection (ICNIRP), which concludes acute exposure to static EMF above 400 microTesla (mT) can be harmful for humans.
According to Thomas Gerety, an accountant who lives at 43 Washington St., he has unearthed evidence that EMF levels by a proposed vault at Leland Park will exceed WHO standards.
Gerety, referencing a report from Eversource’s EMF consultant, urged the City Council to hit the pause button on the permit request, so city officials can examine the findings for themselves.
“He does admit we’ll exceed the World Health Organization thresholds,” said the East Woburn resident. “The doctor himself along with the World Health Organization agrees this causes childhood leukemia cancer. Does that sound familiar?”
“We’re going to spray Leland Park with higher EMFs. The surrounding communities got together and hired their own EMF experts,” he added. “Everyone should just huddle up and say, ‘[Let’s] stop for a breather’, just so everyone can get a handle on the science.”
EFSB findings
This Wednesday, the state’s EFSB was slated to vote on a tentative decision that approves the scope of the work and settles a final route for the high-voltage cable.
In that tentative decision, which is 173-pages long, presiding case officer Robert Shea conceded a growing volume of scientific research on health effects from EMF exposure has contributed to an ongoing debate about the construction of high-voltage power lines.
However, Shea, citing the fact the WHO remains unconvinced about the link between EMF and childhood cancer, explains the EFSB tries to balance public demands for uniform safety standards against mitigation that would create extreme financial hardships for utility companies.
“A number of historical studies appeared to show a statistical association between residential distances from transmission lines and human health effects,” wrote Shea, whose proposed decision was released on Feb. 14. “However, the WHO has stated the evidence for a casual relationship between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia is limited.”
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.”
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.
“We recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry…RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.” — 2017 5G Scientific Appeal (signed by more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries)
Nationwide, communities are being told by wireless companies that it is necessary to build “small cell” wireless facilities in neighborhoods on streetlight and utility poles in order to offer 5G, a new technology that will connect the Internet of Things (IoT). At the local, state, and federal level, new legislation and new zoning aim to streamline the installation of these 5G “small cell” antennas in public rights-of-way.
The radiation from small cells is not small: Wireless antennas emit microwaves — non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation — and essentially function as cell towers. Radiation emitted from small cells is expected to typically travel from 10 feet up to several hundred feet.
Millions of small cells to be built in front yards: The Federal Communications Commission estimates that millions of these wireless transmitters will be built in our rights-of-way, directly in front of our homes.
5G will add to — not replace — our current wireless technology: 5G will add in another layer of wireless radiation to our environment. 5G will not only utilize wireless frequencies already in use but also add in higher frequencies — submillimeter and millimeter waves — in order to transmit data at superfast speeds.
Community authority is overruled: Communities are being stripped of their right to make decisions about this new technology. ”Streamlining” means almost automatic approval. Public notice and public hearings are being eliminated. Even if every homeowner on the block opposes the antennas on their street, the opposition will be disregarded.
Scientists worldwide are calling for a halt to the 5G Roll-out: In 2017, over 180 scientists and doctors issued
a declaration calling for a moratorium on the increase of 5G cell antennas citing human health effects and impacts to wildlife.
Cumulative daily radiation exposure poses serious public health risks: Peer reviewed, published science indicates that exposures to wireless radiation can increase cancer risk and alter brain development and damage sperm. Most people are unaware that wireless technology was never tested for long-term safety, that children are more vulnerable and that the accumulated scientific evidence shows harm.
Decreased property values: Studies show property values drop up to 20% on homes near cell towers. Would you buy a home with a mini cell tower in the yard?
Read Research on Cellular Base Stations Near Homes
Microwave antennas in front yards present several worker and public safety issues: Unions have already filed comments that workers were injured, unaware they were working near transmitting antennas. How will HVAC workers, window washers, and tree cutters be protected? The heavy large equipment cabinets mounted on poles along our sidewalks also present new hazards. Cars run into utility poles, often, what then?
There is a safer alternative: Worldwide, many regions invest in safer and smarter fiber optic cabling all the way to each home, rather than antennas in front yards. Wired fiberoptic connections are safer, faster, more reliable, provide greater capacity, and are more cyber-secure.
www.ehtrust.org
I’ve gotten the question here on the show for years. And it’s natural to wonder about it. When you put your phone against your head, is the radiation that’s emitted doing physical harm to your body?
It begged the question no one wanted to ask or know the answer to, will using your phone give you cancer?
Concerns about 
Wireless, or radio if you prefer, is a strange and wonderful phenomenon. Voice, music, video, and data miraculously move almost instantaneously from one place to another invisibly through the air. How could that be? Our entire environment is an invisible fog of thousands of electromagnetic waves. The whole phenomenon has been amazing to me since I was a kid. Even though I understand it I am still in awe of the technology.
a recent gathering in City Hall, the City Council caught its first glimpse of the utility company’s likely final route for the high-voltage conduit, which the electricity distributor intends to bury under various local roadways around Horn Pond and by Washington Street and Montvale Avenue in East Woburn.
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.
