RF: Microwave News Article Archive (2004 - )

“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.

“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.

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...

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...

“Magnetoreception in Birds: The Effect of RF Fields,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, posted online December 24, 2014.

“RF fields appear to affect magnetoreception only as long as they are present—their disruptive effect appears to be gone when they are no longer applied, without lasting after-effects.” From the Wiltschko-Ritz team. Open access.

“Exposure to RF EMFs from Broadcast Transmitters and Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Census-Based Cohort Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology, posted online February 19, 2014, from Switzerland.

“Did not find evidence of an association between RF EMF epxosuure from broadcast transmitters and incidence of childhood leukemia.” Note that only 7 of the 283 leukemia cases were exposed to >0.2 V/m (~0.01 µW/cm²).

The Federal Communications Commis-sion (FCC) has never levied a fine against a cell phone company for exceeding its RF exposure limits from a base station antenna.

That’s not because all of the 300,000 cell sites in the U.S. comply with the FCC rules, according to an Industry Insider with years of training and experience measuring RF radiation. He told us that he has found RF levels higher than those allowed under the FCC rules at sites across the country. The real reason there have been no fines, he said, is “because there’s collusion between the companies and the government.” The insider, an RF engineer, calls himself “EMF Expert”; he asked that his real name not be used.

"The carriers and the FCC have an extremely cozy relationship," said the engineer. "Whenever there's a problem, someone in the FCC's RF safety office warns the carrier and the company then puts the 'fire' out."

^{“Cancer Risks Related to Low-Level RF/MW Exposures, Including Cell Phones,”}

by Poland's Stan Szmigielski, posted online by Electromagnetic Medicine and Biology, on January 15, 2013: "[S]o far, the published studies do not show that mobile phones can increase considerably the risk of cancer. This conclusion is backed up by the lack of a solid biological mechanism, and the fact that brain cancer rates are not going up significantly. However, all of the studies so far have weaknesses, which make it impossible to entirely rule out a risk."

Switzerland’s Meike Mevissen and Chris Portier of the U.S. offer their insiders’ acccount of last May’s IARC search for consensus on the cancer risks of RF radiation in their article, “The Eyes of the World Were Upon Us.” It’s a serious