A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation

RF: Microwave News Article Archive (2004 - )

September 27, 2021

A detailed examination —likely the most exhaustive ever attempted— of the environmental effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has been published in Reviews on Environmental Health.

“Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna” is in three parts, the last of which was posted today.

Taken together, the three papers run over 200 pages in the journal and include more 1,000 references.

A detailed examination —likely the most exhaustive ever attempted— of the environmental effects of non-ionizing radiation has been published in Reviews on Environmental Health.

“Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna” is in three parts, the last of which was posted today. They are:

August 25, 2021

“Threshold of RF EMF Effect on Human Brain,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, posted August 23, 2021. Lowest SAR threshold for effect on EEG is more than a 1,000 times lower than level deemed safe by ICNIRP and the U.S. FCC. Also the changes in EEG are similar to those seen in depression.

July 18, 2021

“Development of Health-Based Exposure Limits for RFR from Wireless Devices Using a Benchmark Dose Approach,” Environmental Health, posted July 17, 2021. From the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “The analysis presented here supports a whole-body SAR limit of 2-4 mW/Kg for adults... and 0.2-0.4 mW/Kg for young children.” Open access.

June 11, 2021

A new analysis from the radiation group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) calls into question the agency’s own classification of wireless radiation as a possible human carcinogen.

On May 27, IARC’s Isabelle Deltour presented the new analysis of the incidence of malignant brain tumors (glioma) in the Nordic countries —Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden— over the last several decades. She spoke at an online colloquium hosted by the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection, known as the BfS.

Deltour argued that the trends are mostly not “compatible” with those seen in the epidemiological studies —principally, Interphone and Lennart Hardell’s— that were the basis of IARC’s 2011 designation of RF radiation as a possible, or 2B, human carcinogen.

February 16, 2021

Alexander Lerchl wanted a seat at the table and wanted it bad. It was 2010 and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was setting up a working group to assess the cancer risks of RF radiation. The meeting would be a landmark event with major long-term implications for the cell phone industry.

As it turned out, in May 2011, the working group voted, by a large margin, to classify RF, including cell phone radiation, as a possible human carcinogen. But that outcome was far from assured before its 30 members —from 14 countries— deliberated for eight days at IARC headquarters in Lyon, France.

Lerchl, a professor at Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany, was making a name for himself as a self-appointed debunker of claims of radiation health effects. Lerchl craved to be invited to Lyon, but IARC would not have him.

March 11, 2020

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has issued updated guidelines for exposures to RF/microwave radiation.

“The guidelines have been developed after a thorough review of all relevant scientific literature, scientific workshops and an extensive public consultation process. They provide protection against all scientifically substantiated adverse health effects due to EMF exposure in the 100 kHz to 300 GHz range,” according to...

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has issued updated guidelines for exposures to RF/microwave radiation.

“The guidelines have been developed after a thorough review of all relevant scientific literature, scientific workshops and an extensive public consultation process. They provide protection against all scientifically substantiated adverse health effects due to EMF exposure in the 100 kHz to 300 GHz range,” according to...

February 10, 2020

Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer, U.S. FDA, released February 10, 2020.

“[T]here is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose-response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.”

November 4, 2019

After eight years of work, the World Health Organization (WHO) is reopening its review of the health effects of RF radiation for a summary report intended to serve as a benchmark for its more than 150 member countries. The report will be used as a guide to respond to widespread concerns over the new world of 5G.

The WHO issued a public call in October for detailed literature reviews on ten types of RF–health impacts from cancer to fertility to electrohypersensitivity. Some see the move as a sign that the health agency is interested in opinions beyond those of its long-time partner, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). They hope that the WHO is finally ready to recognize evidence of low-level effects, in particular the link between cell phones and cancer. Others are far from convinced.

The skeptics see the new reviews as little more than a ruse.

August 29, 2018

“Clear Evidence of Cell Phone RF Radiation Cancer Risk,” IEEE  Microwave Magazine, Sept/Oct 2018.

Jim Lin,12-yr former member of ICNIRP (& editor-in-chief of Bioelectomagnetics), writes: “Perhaps the time has come to judiciously reassess, revise & update [the ICNIRP] guidelines” so that they protect against long-term RF exposures. As of now they only address acute effects.

August 1, 2018

“Occupational Exposure to High-Frequency EMFs and Brain Tumor Risk in the INTEROCC Study: An Individualized Assessment Approach,” Environment International, online July 31, 2018.

“In conclusion, despite the improved quantitative exposure assessment used in this study, the results do not support a positive association between occupational exposure to high-frequency EMF and either glioma or meningioma risk. However, given our limited statistical power, due to the small number of exposed participants, and despite our results’ lack of significance our findings foster the need for further research focusing on RF magnetic fields and tumor promotion, as well as possible interactions with other frequencies and with chemicals.” (see press release.)

July 25, 2018

“A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication,” Environmental Health Perspectives, online July 23, 2018.

“We found preliminary evidence suggesting that RF-EMF may affect brain functions such as figural memory in regions that are most exposed during mobile phone use.”

July 24, 2018
June 21, 2017

“WHO, RFR and Health —A Hard Nut To Crack (Review),” International Journal of Oncology, posted June 21, 2017.

By Lennart Hardell. A review of WHO and ICNIRP’s roles in the ongoing evaluation of RF and health. Includes details of a March meeting with WHO’s Maria Neira, who denied there are any conflicts of interest at work. Open access.

February 16, 2017

“RF Radiation Injures Trees Around Mobile Phone Base Stations,” Science for the Total Environment, December 1, 2016.

“We found a high-level damage in trees within the vicinity of phone masts.” From a German-Spanish team.

September 8, 2016

“The Effects of RF EM Radiation on Sperm Function,” Reproduction, posted September 6, 2016.

“We propose a mechanistic model in which RF-EMR exposure leads to defective mitochondrial function associated with elevated levels of ROS production…” From Australia, open access.

March 31, 2016

“The results of our experiments suggest the remarkable sensitivity … of the Antarctic amphipod … Even 2 nT RF regardless of frequency was able to disrupt orientation.” (1-10 MHz)

March 18, 2016

Weak RF fields may indeed be able to promote cancer, according to two leading members of the EMF/RF research community. Frank Barnes and Ben Greenebaum are offering theoretical arguments to explain how low-level RF radiation can alter the growth rates of cancer cells. They present their ideas in an article which has just...

Weak RF fields may indeed be able to promote cancer, according to two leading members of the EMF/RF research community. Frank Barnes and Ben Greenebaum are offering theoretical arguments to explain how low-level RF radiation can alter the growth rates of cancer cells. They present their ideas in an article which has just...

July 8, 2015

“Oxidative Mechanisms of Biological Activity of Low-Intensity RF Radiation,” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, posted online July 7, 2015.

This review indicates that among 100 peer-reviewed papers “93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems.”

June 25, 2015

Lancet Oncology, the journal which published the official announcement of IARC’s decision to designate RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen, has issued a correction to the conflict of interest (COI) statement it had included for...

Lancet Oncology, the journal which published the official announcement of IARC’s decision to designate RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen, has issued a correction to the conflict of interest (COI) statement it had included for...

March 25, 2015

Pages

Subscribe to RF: Microwave News Article Archive (2004 - )