Major Study links Cell Phones and Cancer!

The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) has released partial results from an animal study of the effect of radiofrequency radiation associated with cell phones. The group found radiofrequency radiation was linked to a higher risk of two cancers

"For years, the understanding of the potential risk of radiation from cell phones has been hampered by a lack of good science," said Otis W. Brawley, M.D., American Cancer Society Chief Medical Officer. "This report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science...

"The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk. The findings are unexpected; we wouldn't reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk. It's interesting to note that early studies on the link between lung cancer and smoking had similar resistance, since theoretical arguments at the time suggested that there could not be a link.

"The new report covers only partial findings from the study, but importantly one of the two cancers linked to cell phone radiation was malignant gliomas in the brain. The association with gliomas and acoustic neuromas had been suspected from human epidemiology studies.

"The second cancer, called a schwannoma, is an extremely rare tumor in humans and animals, reducing the possibility that this is a chance finding. "And importantly, the study found a 'dose/response' effect: the higher the dose, the larger the effect, a key sign that this association may be real.

"The fact that this finding was observed only in male rats has some wondering if the data is not reliable. It's important to note that these sorts of gender differences often appear in carcinogenic studies, so the fact they show up here should not detract from the importance of the findings. "This new evidence will undoubtedly factor into ongoing assessments by regulators to determine the potential cancer risk posed by cell phones."

The American Cancer Society is looking for a response from government agencies, like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), about the safety of cell phone use. "The NTP was given the difficult task of trying to answer important questions about the potential cancer risk posed by cell phones, and the group did not shirk from its responsibility," Brawley said. "NTP staff were clearly aware of the potential importance of this study and went the extra distance to ensure the best science is used. They used double the number of animals required for this type of study; they convened not one but three panels to look at abnormal tissues from treated animals to ensure that what was identified as a brain and heart tumor was indeed a brain and heart tumor; they solicited review from multiple scientists from outside the NTP to critically review all aspects of the data analysis and study findings, to ensure the findings would stand up to the critical assessment expected once these unexpected findings were released.

"While this study adds significantly to the evidence that cell phone signals could potentially impact human health, it does not actually tell us how certain scenarios of cell phone use change our long-term risks of getting cancer.

"For example, the animal studies were performed at very high signal strengths, near but below levels that would cause animal tissue to heat up.

"Additional research will be needed to translate effects at these high doses to what might be expected at the much lower doses received by typical or even high-end cell phone users.


International Scientists Appeal to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology

WHO's conflicting stance on risk needs strengthening, say 190 scientists

New York, NY, May 11, 2015.

Today 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk.

These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide. The "International EMF Scientist Appeal" asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women. The Appeal highlights WHO's conflicting positions about EMF risk. WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B "Possible Carcinogen" in 2011, and Extremely Low Frequency fields in 2001. Nonetheless, WHO continues to ignore its own agency's recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines, developed by a self-selected group of industry insiders, have long been criticized as non-protective.

The Appeal calls on the UN to strengthen its advisories on EMF risk for humans and to assess the potential impact on wildlife and other living organisms under the auspices of the UN Environmental Programme, in line with the science demonstrating risk, thereby resolving this inconsistency. Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University, says, "International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA. The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines." Joel Moskowitz, PhD, of University of California, Berkeley, says, "ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds. These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today. Scientists signing the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population and wildlife from EMF exposures."

To watch a Dr. Martin Blank announce the Scientists appeal and the reasons for it, please watch the video below:


Health & Science Experts Ring Alarm Bells regarding the Dangers of EMF & WiFi Exposure!

We are now entering the era of "The Internet of Things" (IoT) where all our appliances will be Wi-Fi enabled, endlessly communicating with each other and us through so-called smart devices. This "brave new world" dictates that human exposure to radiofrequency radiation must greatly increase in order to accommodate the technology. This is a planned world being created by technocrats totally ignorant of the reality of our biology, an ignorance fostered by the existing thermal-effects only standards/guidelines. Now, more than ever, we need new, biologically relevant standards to meet the challenge of the future.

Don Maisch, PhD.,
Australia

"There is much high-quality research showing bio-physiological effects from permitted electromagnetic exposures; these findings are not nullified by research which fails to find effects. To claim that the 'weight of evidence' does not support these effects (even if it were true) is misleading. To infer that this means no precautions are needed is illogical and non-scientific." "It would help parents and policy makers if consensus among advisory organizations and scientists could be reached acknowledging that assurance of safety of chronic low-dose radiofrequency exposure cannot be guaranteed and is related to ill-health in some people. Therefore, minimizing exposure, especially children's, is sensible. This should be treated like other daily health precautions and warnings such as those about diet."

Mary Redmayne, Ph.D.,
Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia

"Man-made electromagnetic fields impact all living organisms, acting first on the unit membrane. We must reduce our dependence on 'wireless' technologies, reduce the numbers of masts (i.e., cell towers), of Wi-Fi apparatus, of cordless phones and so on, and clearly indicate, in public spaces, the intensity of the ambient electromagnetic field."

Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD.,
Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Belgium.

"Non-ionizing radiation (NIR) absorption by the population increased many times in the last few decades. The health effects of this will show a dramatic impact in the near future. Therefore effective precautionary procedures should urgently be adopted aiming to reduce NIR exposure and to reduce its health risks, in line with the IARC 2002 and 2011 recommendations that NIR is a possible human carcinogen".

Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD.,
Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

"One of the most serious environmental pollutants affecting the health of human populations and resulting in chronic illness is electrosmog. A combination of low frequency electromagnetic fields, poor power quality, ground current and especially radio frequency and microwave radiation is making people sick. We have enough peer-reviewed scientific studies documenting the adverse effects, which include cancers, reproductive problems and symptoms of electrohypersensitivity, for governing bodies to promote practices, devices and legislation that reduce our exposure to these frequencies.

Putting Wi-Fi in schools; allowing cordless phones that radiate constantly to be manufactured; placing wireless baby monitors near an infant; using a wireless tablet, smart phone or computer while pregnant; holding a cell phone next to the head and keeping a cell phone in a bra or hip pocket or under a pillow; placing cell phone antennas near homes, schools and on hospitals; metering electricity, water and gas with wireless smart meters and designing smart appliances for the home will be viewed by future generations as dumb technology generated by greed for a population that is largely ignorant of the consequences. We need to protect the health and wellbeing of future generations, because without them there is no future! If we don't do it . . . who will?

Dr. Magda Havas, PhD,
Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada

"Electromagnetic fields from power and telecommunications systems, as they are present in our everyday environment, have biological and human health impacts that have not been officially acknowledged. The effects of these fields have simply not been taken seriously enough."

Paul Héroux, PhD,
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health McGill University Medicine, Montreal Canada, InVitroPlus Laboratory, Department of Surgery Royal Victoria Hospital

"Our studies show that exposure to electromagnetic fields with intensity lower than the ICNIRP exposure guidelines can produce biological effects. Thus, on a precautionary basis, before we understand the detailed mechanisms, we should adopt protective standards for the ubiquitous and increasing electromagnetic fields in occupational and public environments."

Dr. Wenjun Sun,
Director of Institute of Environmental Medicine, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

"Evidence of health hazard is here since IARC 2011. It surely was enough time to introduce new safety standards and Precautionary Principle."

Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen.

The harmful effects of electromagnetic fields, regardless of their frequencies, are now scientifically settled. Pregnant women (the fetus) and children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable. WHO has recognized the possibly carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields; its policy program should now be urgently extended to the recognition of electrohypersensitivity as a full affection entering the nosologic framework of Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance. This is what the international congress held on the 18th of May, 2015 at the Royal Belgian Academy of Medicine proposes.

Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH,
Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, European Cancer & Environment Research institute, Executive Director.

"Our research finds that periodic, pulsed electromagnetic fields used for wireless communication reduce vegetative bio-regulation activity. Continued exposure to WiFi in Germany has deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system. "We must reduce the spread and utilization of these systems."

Lebrecht von Klitzing, PhD.
Medical Physicist, Institute of Environmental Physics, Wiesenthal, Germany

"Wireless technology has driven most new high-tech products and has been a key factor in everyday domestic and commercial life. Still no serious efforts have been made by authorities to look seriously without bias at the health effects especially for heavy users, children, and pregnant women. Our research points out the necessity for precautionary measures and new safety limits given the complexity of the signals (with modulation and pulses) unlike any other radiation on earth."

LUKAS H. MARGARITIS,
Professor emeritus of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Coordinator, Radiation Research Program THALIS Dept of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology. NATIONAL AND KAPODISTRIAN UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS, Greece

"The debate about the effect of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on human health is a growing concern of the 21st century. On the basis of scientific evidence, there is no question that EMF emissions from several devices like cell phones, cellular antennas, and microwave ovens, have a causative effect on the brain and reproductive organs. But no action has been taken despite our awareness of the harmful impact of electro-pollution due to political interference. It is therefore imperative that the implications of electro-pollution must be fully explored by government bodies after consulting with concerned experts, and safety criteria be re-examined."

Dr. Kavindra Kesari, MBA, PhD.,
Resident scientist, School of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio Finland; Assistant Professor, Professor, Jaipur National University, India

"Limiting the exposure to electromagnetic fields is indeed among the basic steps to ensure a better life for mankind!"

SMJ Mortazavi, Ph.D,
Professor of Medical Physics, Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), Dean, Medical Physics & Medical Engineering Department, Dean, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran

"It is immoral that the regulatory standards for electromagnetic fields (EMF) used in cellular communication are inadequate and pose a serious health risk. The amount of harm from radio frequency EMF exposure to the brain is inestimable. Children are at higher risk, than professional workers."

Professor Yury Grigoryev, MD,
Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; Member, International Advisory Committee for the WHO "EMF and Health" Program. Moscow, Russia.

"International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) must be revisited due to the existence of their adverse effects on our bodies, particularly on the male reproductive system. It is time to re-establish the safety level of EMF for the general public to reduce our exposure to protect us from EMF."

Dr. Yoon-Won Kim, MD. PhD.
Professor, Hallym University and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, Korea.

"Trees and animals are showing important signs that mankind does not comprehend. We know with certainty that anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation is slowly eroding the health of living organisms: animals, plants and people. It is urgent that society as a whole address this serious environmental and health problem." Alfonso Balmori, Biologist. Independent researcher on wildlife and EMF, Spain

Alonso Balmori - Spain

"Technological applications using non-ionizing radiation are advancing rapidly, increasing at every step the gap with the assessment of their possible side effects. The REFLEX project and other scientific reports others like the BioInitiative have unfortunately been ignored by the authorities worldwide. Perhaps the coming generations will curse these leaders for their ineffectiveness at the right moment"

Claudio Gomez- Perretta, MD, PhD.
Researcher, University La Fe of Valencia, Spain

"Based upon epidemiological studies there is consistent evidence of increased risk for brain tumors (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated with use of wireless phones. Urgent revision of current guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency emissions is needed."

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD,
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

"Active mobile phone handsets have a dramatic impact on the behavior of honeybees by inducing the worker piping signal, triggering the swarming process, the sign of a disturbed bee colony. Signals from mobile phones and masts (i.e., cell towers) could also be contributing to the decline of honeybees around the world. I am calling on the international scientific community for more research in this field and for protection of this crucial pollinator."

Dr. phil. nat. Daniel Favre,
Biologist and apiary adviser, Switzerland

"We need shorter and more controlled radiation exposure for a happy and healthy world."

Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag PhD.,
Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey

"None of the radiofrequency radiation exposure guidelines take pregnant women, fetuses, and the elderly into consideration! RF exposure limits for the general public should be lowered to protect all those more vulnerable to electromagnetic fields"

Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan,
Founding Chair, Biophysics Dept ; Founding Director, GNRK Center Medical Faculty of Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

"International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA. The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines."

Martin Blank, PhD.,
Special Lecturer, Columbia University, New York USA

"Solutions must be found that place the highest priority on protecting people and the planet over the powerful economic forces driving new technologies without thought for biology. We can have both innovation and public safety if there is political will. This transcends national boundaries. The UN, WHO and UNEP are the best organizations on earth to make these recommendations."

Elizabeth Kelley, MA,
is the Director of EMFScientist.org, and formerly was Managing Secretariat for the International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety, Italy

"While we like our electronic gadgets, the worldwide demand for these technologies of convenience only grows, as do the gargantuan profits that come from selling the devices and their services. While human health and safety continue to be dismissed by many, growing scientific evidence is showing a dark side to cell phone, WiFi, smart meter and point-to-point technologies. Migratory birds -- incredibly important to the global economy and for the ecological services they provide -- now appear to be negatively affected by non-ionizing radiation. This alarm sounds a call to action acknowledging that electromagnetic radiation is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed."

Dr. Albert Manville,
Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University; Senior Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Emeritus/Retired; and Wildlife Consultant, WHCS LLC.,USA

"U.S. regulatory standards and international guidelines only control for short-term heating of tissue. The standards do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF) that are common today. The scientists who signed the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population, and animal and plant life from EMF exposures.

There has been strong support from the international scientific community for the Appeal, even among those who believe that scientists should not take public policy positions. Some have taken personal risks to sign the Appeal because this is a public health issue that affects everyone now, as well as future generations."

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D.,
Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA