Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage.
From an article published by The Nation magazine in March 2018 (more on this later).
Prior evidence of the dangers of RF radiation
In 2011, the World Health Organisation classified cell phones (then 4G) as Category 2B agents, which means that radiofrequency (RF) radiation from mobile phone technology has been officially categorised as “possibly carcinogenic” to humans for nearly a decade. The WHO decision was based on the findings by its own panel, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), following a wide-ranging review of existing studies. News of the new classification was quietly reported at the time, although little serious attention was paid to the WHO’s findings or to consideration of their potential ramifications. For instance, the New York Times’ report contained the following reassurance:
“This I.A.R.C. classification does not mean cellphones cause cancer,’’ John Walls, vice president for public affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry group, said in a statement. Mr. Walls noted that both the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration have concluded that the weight of the scientific evidence does not link cellphones with cancer or other health problems. 1
Click here to read the full article.
On the other hand, Japanese Broadcasting Corporation NHK decided that the new IARC report was significant enough to run as its headline:
Cancer experts at the World Health Organization have for the first time found evidence that the heavy use of mobile phones may increase the risk of developing brain tumors. The announcement was made on Tuesday during a meeting of scientists at WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France…
The researchers advised that cellphones be placed in the third highest cancer-risk category on the agency’s 5-scale classification system. That category also includes lead and chloroform.
The scientists said research indicates that the risk for developing brain cancer increases by 40 percent among people who use mobile phones for 30 minutes a day for at least 10 years. They added that more research should be conducted. One scientist advised taking practical measures to reduce exposure, such as using hands-free devices or texting.
It was the first time WHO has reported that electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones pose a cancer risk. 2
The IARC panel, which consisted of 31 scientists from 14 countries, had been led by Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, a member of President Obama’s National Cancer Advisory Board. Another adviser to the IARC was Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus with the University of Toronto, who is now calling for RF radiation to be reclassified to the same level as cigarettes, X-rays and asbestos:
“Many scientists worldwide now believe that radiofrequency radiation should be elevated to a Class One human carcinogen, on the same list as Cigarettes, X-Rays, and Asbestos.” 3
On May 30th Dr Anthony Miller joined a panel of experts in Toronto to deliver a new statement on the health effects of RF radiation:
War-gaming the science for the big wireless cover-up
This article does not argue that cell phones and other wireless technologies are necessarily dangerous; that is a matter for scientists to decide. Rather, the focus here is on the global industry behind cell phones—and the industry’s long campaign to make people believe that cell phones are safe.
write Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie in a very detailed investigative report that was published by The Nation magazine back in March 2018. Their piece continues:
That campaign has plainly been a success: 95 out of every 100 adult Americans now own a cell phone; globally, three out of four adults have cell-phone access, with sales increasing every year. The wireless industry is now one of the fastest-growing on Earth and one of the biggest, boasting annual sales of $440 billion in 2016.
Before returning to this excellent article I wish to add a brief aside based on an off-the-cuff rebuttal by my (at the time) 18-year-old nephew, who once said abruptly “I’d rather have a phone and get cancer”. In one way, of course, this was simply an offhanded instance of youthful bravado and trust in one’s inherent invulnerability. We were all bulletproof once upon a time. However, it also brings into the open a more widespread attitude that has been unconsciously adopted by anyone who depends on today’s mobile technology. Just like the smokers of old, we have no wish to be cautioned against the product we love, and so when it comes to convincing customers (who in the West now make up 90-plus percent of the adult population), the approach of flat-out denial is akin to pushing against an open door. Small wonder therefore that, as Hertsgaard and Dowie go on to point out, “Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products”:
This Nation investigation reveals that the wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did; it also borrowed from the same public-relations playbook those industries pioneered. The playbook’s key insight is that an industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the argument going. That amounts to a win for the industry, because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits.
Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided.
They then cite examples to show how this tried-and-tested strategy has been adopted by the wireless industry:
Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as [George] Carlo’s WTR [the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project] did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings.
A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect. 4
Click here to read the full article entitled “How big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation” published by The Nation magazine.
Embedded below is a presentation given by Dr Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, on research into the cellular effects of electromagnetic field exposure on humans:
5G means the weaponisation of cellphone technology
In order to transmit the enormous amounts of data required for the Internet of Things (IoT), 5G technology, when fully deployed, will use millimetre waves, which are poorly transmitted through solid material. This will require every carrier to install base stations every 100 metres 5 in every urban area in the world. Unlike previous generations of wireless technology, in which a single antenna broadcasts over a wide area, 5G base stations and 5G devices will have multiple antennas arranged in “phased arrays” 6 7 that work together to emit focused, steerable, laser-like beams that track each other.
Each 5G phone will contain dozens of tiny antennas, all working together to track and aim a narrowly focused beam at the nearest cell tower. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted rules 8 permitting the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts, ten times more powerful than the levels permitted for current phones.
Each 5G base station will contain hundreds or thousands of antennas aiming multiple laser-like beams simultaneously at all cell phones and user devices in its service area. This technology is called “multiple input multiple output” or MIMO. FCC rules permit the effective radiated power of a 5G base station’s beams to be as much as 30,000 watts per 100 MHz of spectrum, 9 or equivalently 300,000 watts per GHz of spectrum, tens to hundreds of times more powerful than the levels permitted for current base stations.
From an international appeal calling for a moratorium on 5G which outlines in a subsequent section of its report how “5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G” and in consequence, why the hazards are far greater for both human and animal populations [with all footnotes retained]:
The idea that we will tolerate tens to hundreds of times more radiation at millimetre wavelengths is based on faulty modelling of the human body as a shell filled with a homogeneous liquid. 10 11 The assumption that millimetre waves do not penetrate beyond the skin completely ignores nerves,12 blood vessels 13 14 and other electrically conducting structures that can carry radiation-induced currents deep into the body. 15 16 17 Another, potentially more serious error is that phased arrays are not ordinary antennas. When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that reradiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These reradiated waves are called Brillouin precursors. 18 They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough.19 5G will probably satisfy both criteria.
In addition, shallow penetration in itself poses a unique danger to eyes and to the largest organ of the body, the skin, as well as to very small creatures. Peer-reviewed studies have recently been published, predicting thermal skin burns 20 in humans from 5G radiation and resonant absorption by insects, 21 which absorb up to 100 times as much radiation at millimetre wavelengths as they do at wavelengths presently in use. Since populations of flying insects have declined by 75-80 per cent since 1989 even in protected nature areas, 22 5G radiation could have catastrophic effects on insect populations worldwide. A 1986 study by Om Gandhi warned that millimetre waves are strongly absorbed by the cornea of the eye, and that ordinary clothing, being of millimetre-size thickness, increases the absorption of energy by the skin by a resonance-type effect. 23 Russell (2018) reviews the known effects of millimetre waves on skin, eyes (including cataracts), heart rate, immune system and DNA. 24
The full list of dangers (of which I have presented only extracts) is less surprising once we consider the fact that the proposed 5G microwave transmitters will be operating in ranges previously used only to defrost and cook food in microwave ovens. It is a region of the electromagnetic spectrum that has, as the authors of the appeal also rightly point out, been deployed in directed-energy weapon systems used in military operations and crowd control. 25
Click here to read the full statement of the international appeal and a list of initial signatories that includes Annie Sasco, former Chief of Research Unit of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon and former Acting Chief, Programme for Cancer Control of the World Health Organization; and Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University.
Cell phones are mostly harmless, probably
At the time of WHO’s reclassification of RF radiation back in 2011, I posted an article that, for whatever reason, remains one of the least viewed of any posts. In that piece I drew attention to the precedents set by the tobacco, asbestos and nuclear power industries:
But the mobile phone industry is hanging tough of course. Like the asbestos industry, the tobacco companies and the nuclear lobby, it is demanding further proof, whilst reminding us that there is still no established mechanism that links microwave radiation to cancer, which is perfectly correct. Basically, we’ll just have to wait and see, because as Professor Lawrie Challis, an expert in the field and Chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR), told The Times in an interview back in 2007:
“You can look at almost any cancer where you know what the cause was. You find absolutely nothing for ten years,” he says. The groundbreaking study proving the link between lung cancer and smoking showed a similar delay, he says. “You look at what happened after the atomic bomb. Nagasaki, Hiroshima. You find again a long delay, nothing for ten years. The same for asbestos disease.” So although the many existing studies into mobile phone safety have shown no dangers does not deter him. “The people who’ve done these studies have been cautious. They say, ‘We can’t rule out the possibility’. But I want to know whether it’s there.” 26
Click here to read full article.
In the same post entitled “cellphones are mostly harmless, probably”, I concluded sardonically:
As NHK reports, this is the first time WHO has warned that mobile phones pose any risk of cancer, and it may very well be that the dismal data needed to make their judgement conclusive will arrive in future years, just as it did with atomic radiation, asbestos, and smoking. Or perhaps the men from the industry were right for a change, and so who knows, regularly microwaving the brain might not cause cancer, or a whole range of other suspected neurological disorders. Maybe instead it will turn out to boost intelligence, promote feelings of well-being and happiness, and generally increase life expectancy. Crazier discoveries have been made, probably.
What we can be sure, is that if and when cellphone users begin suing for damages, the industry will fight any claims to the bitter end. Their defence, as usual, will depend upon plausible deniability. Meanwhile, with the release of this week’s report, WHO have put themselves in the clear. They’re not taking any chances. And though their announcement might well be too little, too late, at least you can’t say they didn’t warn you.
Click here to read my full post.
Back to the precautionary principle
In the years since the WHO investigation, evidence has further compounded that RF radiation poses a serious threat not only to human health, but also to wildlife. As Dr Anthony Miller said in his recent statement delivered in Toronto on May 30th warning of healthcare costs of the proposed 5G rollout:
“Many scientists including myself now believe that the evidence is such that if IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) were to re-evaluate radiofrequency radiation it would be placed in Class One (i.e., a human carcinogen) and governments could not possibly ignore that. In fact, fortunately for us an advisory committee the International Agency for Research on Cancer has recommended that radiofrequency radiation be re-evaluated with high priority. So we are hoping this will occur very shortly.”
[read a full transcript below]
For these reasons it is as a matter of urgency that we must press our governments and local authorities to act in accordance with the well-established ‘precautionary principle’. As Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie concluded in their excellent investigative report for The Nation magazine:
The wireless industry’s determination to bring about the Internet of Things, despite the massive increase in radiation exposure this would unleash, raises the stakes exponentially. Because 5G radiation can only travel short distances, antennas roughly the size of a pizza box will have to be installed approximately every 250 feet to ensure connectivity. “Industry is going to need hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of new antenna sites in the United States alone,” said Moskowitz, the UC Berkeley researcher. “So people will be bathed in a smog of radiation 24/7.”
There is an alternative approach, rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the “precautionary principle,” which holds that society doesn’t need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists’ petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 5G technology. Current safety guidelines “protect industry—not health,” contends the petition, which “recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of [5G]…until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.” 27
The link to the petition above is now broken and so I redirect readers to the more recent international appeal and petition which is available here.
And I encourage readers again to read Hertsgaard and Dowie’s report published by The Nation magazine in full.
Addendum: transcript of Dr Anthony Miller’s full statement
I was associated with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that recommended the World Health Organisation list all radiofrequency radiation – that is the radiation that powers cell phones and wifi – as a possible carcinogen. The classification was officially designated as 2B. 2B is a list of possible carcinogens that also includes lead and DDT. That was back in 2011.
This classification was based on the epidemiology and other evidence that was available then, but since then a lot has changed. New science has emerged, both human and animal [studies], human by analysis of some of the studies that were performed before including the Canadian participation in what was called Interphone.* New updated analyses of the studies in Sweden – Sweden being one of the first countries to introduce cell phones and therefore having people with the longest exposure; and they have demonstrated that the longer the exposure, the greater the risk. But equally important there have been two very large animal carcinogenicity studies. Now we learnt, more than twenty years ago – thirty years ago – I was involved in some of this in Canada, that we should not allow companies to introduce new chemicals without them first being tested for the possibility of carcinogenicity. There is every reason why such a requirement should be placed on companies that propose to introduce new radiation which will expose all of us.
The two studies that have been conducted in the last ten years but reported only last year were run by the National Toxicology Program [NTP] in the United States – a very large animal study – and another by the prestigious Ramazzini Institute in Italy.† Both of them showed that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency radiation increases the risk of cancer. And indeed they also showed that the cancers are similar to some of the cancers that are being observed in humans, and they showed that this sort of radiation increases the damage to our DNA; and if our DNA is damaged then our risk of cancer increases substantially.
Many scientists including myself now believe that the evidence is such that if IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) were to re-evaluate radiofrequency radiation it would be placed in Class One (i.e., a human carcinogen) and governments could not possibly ignore that. In fact, fortunately for us an advisory committee the International Agency for Research on Cancer has recommended that radiofrequency radiation be re-evaluated with high priority. So we are hoping this will occur very shortly.
In the meantime, we all must take care. We all must recognise that we are being exposed to radiofrequency radiation. We must do our best through our MPs, through our discussions with our municipalities, to prevent the introduction of 5G, which will only make matters worse.
[the transcript is my own]
1 From a New York Times article entitled “Cellphone Radiation May Cause Cancer, Advisory Panel says”, by Tara Parker-Pope and Felicity Barringer, published Tuesday 31st May. well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/cellphone-radiation-may-cause-cancer-advisory-panel-says/
2 From NHK World news headlines “WHO panel warns cellphones may cause cancer” published Wednesday 1st June. www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_35.html
3 From a press release entitled “Ontario Doctors Warn of Rising Health Care Costs after 5G Roll Out” published on May 30, 2019. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ontario-doctors-warn-of-rising-health-care-costs-after-5g-roll-out–845905505.html
4 From an article entitled “How big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation” written by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, published in The Nation magazine on March 29, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/
5 De Grasse M. AT&T outlines 5G network architecture. RCR Wireless News, Oct. 20, 2016. https://www.rcrwireless.com/20161020/network-infrastructure/att-outlines-5g-network-architecture-tag4. Accessed July 9, 2018.
6 Hong W, Jiang ZH, Yu C, et al. Multibeam antenna technologies for 5G wireless communications. IEEE Tr Ant Prop. 2017;65(12):6231-6249. doi: 10.1109/TAP.2017.2712819.
7 Chou H-T. Design Methodology for the Multi-Beam Phased Array of Antennas with Relatively Arbitrary Coverage Sector. Conference paper: 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation; Paris, France. doi: 10.23919/EuCAP.2017.7928095.
8 47 CFR § 30.202 — Power limits.
9 Hong W, Jiang ZH, Yu C, et al. Multibeam antenna technologies for 5G wireless communications. IEEE Tr Ant Prop. 2017;65(12):6231-6249. doi: 10.1109/TAP.2017.2712819.
10 Technical Report. European Telecommunications Standards Institute; 2007:7. http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/125900_125999/125914/07.00.00_60/
tr_125914v070000p.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2018. “The Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM) is used for radiated performancemeasurements [and is] filled with tissue simulating liquid.”
11 Research on technology to evaluate compliance with RF protection guidelines. Electromagnetic Compatibility Laboratory, Tokyo. http://emc.nict.go.jp/bio/phantom/index_e.html. Accessed July 18, 2018.“SAR is measured by filling phantom liquid that has the same electrical properties as those of the human body in a container made in the shape of the human body, and scanning the inside using an SAR probe.”
12 Becker RO, Marino AA. Electromagnetism and Life. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1982:39.“The evidence seems to be quite conclusive that there are steady DC electric currents flowing outside of the neurones proper in the entire nervous system.”
13 Nordenström B. Biologically Closed Electric Circuits. Stockholm: Nordic Medical Publications; 1983.
14 Nordenström B. Impact of biologically closed electric circuits (BCEC) on structure and function. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1992;27(4):285-303. doi:10.1007/BF02691165.
15 Devyatkov ND, ed. Non-Thermal Effects of Millimeter Radiation. Moscow: USSR Acad. Sci.; 1981 (Russian).
16 Devyatkov ND, Golant MB, Betskiy OV. Millimeter Waves and Their Role in the Processes of Life. (Millimetrovye volny i ikh rol’ v protsessakh zhiznedeyatel’nosti). Moscow: Radio i svyaz’ (Radio and Communication); 1991 (Russian).
17 Betskii OV. Biological effects of low-intensity millimetre waves (Review). Journal of Biomedical Electronics. 2015(1):31-47. http://www.radiotec.ru/article/15678. Accessed July 31, 2018.
18 Albanese R, Blaschak J, Medina R, Penn J. Ultrashort electromagnetic signals: Biophysical questions,safety issues and medical opportunities,” Aviat Space Environ Med. 1994;65(5 Supp):A116-A120. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a282990.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2018.
19 Pepe D, Aluigi L, Zito D. Sub-100 ps monocycle pulses for 5G UWB communications. 10th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP). 2016;1-4. doi: 10.1109/EuCAP.2016.7481123.
20 Nasim I, Kim S. Human exposure to RF fields in 5G downlink. arXiv:1711.03683v1. Accessed June 17, 2018.
21 Thielens A, Bell D, Mortimore DB. Exposure of insects to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Nature/Scientific Reports. 2018;8:3924. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2018.
22 Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E. More than 75 per cent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS One. 2017;12(10):e0185809. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809&type=printable. Accessed June 17, 2018.
23 Gandhi O, Riazi A. Absorption of millimeter waves by human beings and its biological implications. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech. 1986;34(2):228-235. doi:10.1109/TMTT.1986.1133316.
24 Russell CL. 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environ Res 2018;165:484-495. https://zero5g.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/5-G-wireless-telecommunications-expansion-Public-health-and-environmental-implications-Cindy-L.-russell.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2018.
25 Active Denial Technology. Non-Lethal Weapons Program. https://jnlwp.defense.gov/Press-Room/Fact-Sheets/Article-View-Fact-sheets/Article/577989/active-denial-technology/. Published May 11, 2016. Accessed June 10, 2018.
26 From an article entitled “Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century?… ‘Absolutely’” by Alice Miles and Helen Rumbelow, published in The Times on 20th January 2007. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1294717.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
27 From an article entitled “How big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation” written by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, published in The Nation magazine on March 29, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/
Two wireless trade associations contributed $4.7 million to the Interphone study launched by the WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That $4.7 million represented 20 percent of the $24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a “firewall” mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR’s findings, but whether such firewalls work is debatable. “Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding,” Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki, has explained.
To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the Interphone study’s conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.) The Interphone study also concluded that individuals who had owned a cell phone for 10 years or longer saw their risk of glioma increase by nearly 120 percent. However, the study did not find any increased risk for individuals who used their cell phones less frequently; nor was there evidence of any connection with meningioma.
When the Interphone conclusions were released in 2010, industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call “creative truth-telling.” “Interphone’s conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject,” John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters. The wiggle word here is “overall”: Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain-cancer rates, stipulating “overall” allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry’s customers. The Wall Street Journal announced “Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk,” while the BBC’s headline declared: “No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk.”
From an article entitled “How big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation” written by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, published in The Nation magazine on March 29, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/
A second large study has found tumors in the Schwann cells —schwannomas— in the hearts of male rats exposed to cell phone radiation.
The new finding comes from the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy.
The malignant schwannomas of the heart seen in the Italian study are the same as those described by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) earlier this month as the basis for their concern that cell phone radiation, both GSM and CDMA, can lead to cancer. Ramazzini embarked on its RF project in 2005, about the same time as the NTP effort was taking off.
A paper detailing the Ramazzini experiment is expected to be published in Environmental Research, a peer-reviewed journal, within a week. [Update: Now available here.]
“It is a positive study and will buttress the findings from the NTP rat study,” Tony Miller told Microwave News. Miller, an emeritus professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, is serving as the guest editor for a special issue of the journal, which will include the Ramazzini paper. Miller declined to offer any other details prior to publication.
Fiorella Belpoggi, the Ramazzini Institute’s director of research, presented preliminary results of the study last fall. Speaking at the annual symposium of the Collegium Ramazzini, known as “Ramazzini Days,” in late October, Belpoggi reported finding schwannomas in the heart of male rats exposed to GSM cell phone radiation, according to a number of those who were at the meeting. (The abstract of Belpoggi’s paper is available here.)
This is “more than a coincidence,” was a typical response from close observers of cell phone toxicology studies who had heard or were told of the new results. No one wanted to speak for attribution until they had a chance to read the new Ramazzini paper. “It’s amazing given that malignant schwannoma of the heart is a super rare cancer,” said one of those interviewed.
In an e-mail exchange, Belpoggi confirmed that her paper would be available online within days. She would not comment further.
From an article entitled “New Large Animal Study, Like NTP’s, Links RF to Schwannoma of the Heart”, published by Microwave News on February 20, 2018. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/more-coincidence