Saturday, June 04, 2016

National Toxicology Program: Not the First Government Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats

National Toxicology Program: Not the First Government Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats



Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, June 3, 2016

The National Toxicology Program's recent study is not the first randomized controlled trial to find that exposure to non-thermal levels of microwave radiation can cause cancer in male rats.

A U.S. Air Force study conducted from 1980 to 1982 which was documented in a series of nine technical reports and later published in the peer-reviewed journal, Bioelectromagnetics, found that 18% of 100 male rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation for two years developed cancer as compared to only 5% of 100 rats in the sham-exposed control group. The relative risk of developing cancer in the wireless radiation exposure group was 4.46 (p = .005).




When will the federal government fund the research
 needed to determine the types and amounts of exposure to cellphone and other wireless radiation that are safe?

To read the full summary of this Air Force study or download the paper:
http://bit.ly/saferemrAF

--

Also see:
National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer: SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report on cancer risk from cellphone radiation
Government Failure to Address Wireless Radiation Risks


Cell Phone Radiation Boosts Cancer Rates in Animals; $25 Million NTP Study Finds Brain Tumors
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website:               http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:             http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:     http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                  @berkeleyprc

Friday, June 03, 2016

Obituary - Professor Bhanu Iyengar

Obituary - Professor Bhanu Iyengar

Dear All on my mailing list,

This morning I received news about a former coworker, professor Bhanu Iyengar from India, who suddenly - after a brief illness - passed away on April 29th, this year.

I am so very, very sorry to hear this, she was one of the nicest and most intelligent, warm-hearted and kind persons I have ever come across. She will be very much missed, be so sure.

My eyes are filled with tears, and on my office shelf (in front of me) I look at her beautiful small bags which she sent me as a gift, containing the most fantastic Indian teas. They will be loved and cherished items of remembrance.

I often discussed the issues of health effects of modern, artificial electromagnetic fields with her, when she stayed in my laboratory. When I told her that I had doubts about my own results and my own capacity, she looked at me and said "Don't be silly! Anyone with a healthy and working brain realizes that the modern society does contain profound dangers, no living creature can sustain such horrible loads of exposure as we are witnessing now. It is just a matter of time before the truth will be revealed. And your capacity is good enough, never worry about that, you silly man!"

I now say - "Dear Bhanu, in your Heavenly laboratory, keep your hand at us - the truth, as we have seen it emerge from the recent American Toxicology Program results, and similar - now is coming to us. You were so right."

With my very best regards
Yours sincerely
Olle


(Olle Johansson, associate professor

The Experimental Dermatology Unit

Department of Neuroscience

Karolinska Institute

171 77 Stockholm

Sweden)

Wednesday, June 01, 2016

Telstra takes over Australia's new National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR)

Telstra takes over Australia's new National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR)


In its 2004 Annual Report, Australia’s Telstra corporation stated, under the heading “Risk factors”, that “the establishment of a link between adverse health effects and electromagnetic energy (EME) could expose us to liability or negatively affect our operations”. This concern is understandable for Telstra – for if a clear trend emerges in cancer statistics that there may be a connection between telecommunications technology and cancer, such as brain cancers from mobile phone use, it would be bad news indeed for Telstra.

Could this be a factor in Telstra going after control of Australia’s new National Cancer Screening Register, which the government has said “will ensure Australia remained a world-leader in cancer research, prevention and treatment”.

Will we see the register later enlarged to include brain cancers as well? If this were to be the case then it is not inconceivable that ‘inconvenient’ cancer data could be easily and quietly ‘massaged’ or hidden for the benefit of Telstra’s corporate interests.

Of course Telstra would never do such a thing would they? LOL!

The other BIG question is why has the government selected Telstra over far more experienced organizations to take control over the NCSR?

It will be interesting just who Telstra selects to run the NCSR….the usual suspects perhaps? READ ON.

Read the post here.

Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal call for a precautionary approach in light of the NTP study

Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal call for a precautionary approach in light of the NTP study


Statement on the U.S. National Toxicology Program that reports cell phones cause cancer by the Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal

This $25 million study, executed by the U.S. government, provides support for what we are stating in the ‘International EMF Scientist Appeal’, that a precautionary approach should be exercised and lower electromagnetic field exposure guidelines should be set.

Visit the home page of the International EMF Scientist Appeal here.

Read the post here.

SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report on cancer risk from cellphone radiation - Countering disinformation about the NTP study

SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report 
on cancer risk from cellphone radiation - 
Countering disinformation about the NTP study


Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, May 31, 2016

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health reported partial findings from their $25 million study of the cancer risk from cellphone radiation. Controlled studies of rats found showed that cellphone radiation caused two types of tumors, glioma and schwannoma. The results “…could have broad implications for public health.”

See http://bit.ly/NTPsaferemr for a one-page fact sheet which summarizes biased statements, or “Spin,”  about the NTP study and“Facts" which counter the disinformation.

--
Also see:
News Media Nix NTP Phone Cancer Study; “Don’t Believe the Hype”

Are More People Getting Brain Tumors? GBMs, the Most Virulent Type, Are Rising
Microwave News, May 31, 2016
http://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-and-brain-tumor-rates

Some Scientists Criticize Media Coverage of Cellphone Study
Suzanne Potter, Public News Service - CA, May 31, 2016
http://bit.ly/NTPpublicnews

U.S. Cellphone Study Fans Cancer Worries
Ryan Knutson, Wall Street Journal, May 28, 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-cellphone-study-fans-cancer-worries-1464393051



The Wall Street Journal Asks, "Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?

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

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website:                http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:              http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:      http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                   @berkeleyprc

EHT: Landmark Study Ignites Cell Phone Cancer Firestorm

EHT: Landmark Study Ignites Cell Phone Cancer Firestorm



Louis Slesin of Microwave News First Broke the Story that $25 Million NTP Study Found Brain Tumors
Wall Street Journal: Incidences of Tumor in Rats Exposed to Low-level Radio Waves, Reigniting Debate Over Safety
WSJ Journalist Ryan Knutsen discusses the NTP study in this WSJ video live interview as well as his story featuring Dr. Davis and Dr. Moskowitz. Read More
Mother Jones: "Game-Changing" Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer
"The findings should be a wake-up call for the scientific establishment. I think this is a game changer." stated Dr. Chris Portier Read More
Consumer Reports: Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer in Rats, Government Study Finds
"The results of this large, long-term study could dramatically shift the national debate over cell phone safety." Read More
Wall Street Journal: Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?
Joel M. Moskowitz and Larry Junck publish opposing arguments on the need for action.

Increases in Cell Phone Brain Cancer May Be Undetected For Decades: Oxford University Press Blog
Cancer researchers detail why Australian study showing no brain cancer rise is irrelevant.
Read More

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Sore head? Just blame it on your smartphone: Nearly half of us suffer from 'technology hangover' due to overuse

Sore head? Just blame it on your smartphone: Nearly half of us suffer from 'technology hangover' due to overuse

  • Technology overuse leaving us with headaches, sore eyes and exhaustion
  • Some 45 per cent admit too much technology leaves them exhausted,
  • And 26 per cent say they feel drained after looking at a screen for too long

Feeling drained and exhausted with a splitting headache?

It may not be down to too many glasses of wine last night.

Instead, it could be your computer and smartphone that are to blame – leaving you with a ‘technology hangover’.

Feeling drained and exhausted with a splitting headache? It may not be down to too many pints last night. Instead, it could be your computer and smartphone
Feeling drained and exhausted with a splitting headache? It may not be down to too many pints last night. Instead, it could be your computer and smartphone

As we spend more time using technology, we are being left with headaches, sore eyes and exhaustion, according to research.

More than one in three Britons are suffering from sore eyes, while a further 17 per cent admitted that they have severe headaches after using technology for prolonged periods.

And some 45 per cent admit too much technology leaves them exhausted, while 26 per cent say they feel drained after looking at a screen for too long.

But emotional factors also cause technology hangovers – with one in 20 claiming that spending too much time online leaves them with low self-esteem.

More than one in three Britons are suffering from sore eyes, while a further 17 per cent admitted that they have severe headaches after using technology for prolonged periods
More than one in three Britons are suffering from sore eyes, while a further 17 per cent admitted that they have severe headaches after using technology for prolonged periods

The survey, for a natural stress remedy firm, found 21 per cent of those asked find switching off a struggle after a long time online – and 15 per cent said staring at the screen has affected their sleep considerably.

More than a quarter said that they are left feeling ‘lost’ if their phone runs out of battery and 12 per cent say without their phone, they suffer with FOMO (fear of missing out).


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3613684/Sore-head-Just-blame-smartphone-Nearly-half-suffer-technology-hangover-overuse.html#ixzz4DuxCpoFf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A new paper! "Modern Electronic Devices: An Increasingly Common Cause of Skin Disorders in Consumers"

A new paper! "Modern Electronic Devices: An Increasingly Common Cause of Skin Disorders in Consumers"

Corazza et al., "Modern Electronic Devices: An Increasingly Common Cause of Skin Disorders in Consumers".

Abstract: The modern conveniences and enjoyment brought about by electronic devices bring with them some health concerns. In particular, personal electronic devi ces are responsible for rising cases of several skin disorders, including pressure, friction, contact dermatitis, and other physical dermatitis. The universal use of such devices, either for work or recreational purposes, will probably increase the occurrence of polymorphous skin manifestations over time. It is important for clinicians to consider electronics as potential sources of dermatological ailments, for proper patient management. We performed a literature review on skin disorders associated with the personal use of modern technology, including personal computers and laptops, personal computer accessories, mobile phones, tablets, video games, and consoles.

US CDC/NIOSH developing strategies for managing workplace exposures to extremely low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF)

US CDC/NIOSH developing strategies for managing workplace exposures to extremely low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF)

Precautionary Control Measures for Occupational ELF Magnetic Fields

Jun 22, 2016


Speakers Slides: Coming Soon
Join us Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 10:00am Pacific Time/1:00pm Eastern Time for a discussion with Dr. Joseph Bowman on precautionary control measures for occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF). 



Featured Speaker:
Dr. Joseph Bowman is a senior Research Chemist with NIOSH (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh) and is currently assessing occupational EMF exposures for the seven-country INTEROCC study of brain cancer. He is also developing NIOSH publications on strategies for managing workplace exposures to lower frequency EMF. Three of his 60 publications have received honorable mentions for NIOSH and CDC awards. Starting with a 1986 epidemiologic study of childhood leukemia risks from electric and magnetic fields in Los Angeles, he has focused on assessing exposure to EMF from power lines, cell phones, and other sources in workplaces and the environment. He received a PhD in physical chemistry from the University of Wisconsin in 1971 and was a Certified Industrial Hygienist from 1982 – 2011.


This call will be hosted by the EMF working group and moderated by Antoinette (Toni) Stein, PhD. This call will last 30 minutes and will not be recorded. Questions will be taken through our Q&A comments page. 

André Fauteux, éditeur
Magazine La Maison du 21e siècle (et son supplément Maison saine)
tél/fax : 450 228-1555
2955 Domaine-du-lac-Lucerne
Sainte-Adèle Qc J8B 3K9


http://healthandenvironment.org/wg_calls/18482

Monday, May 30, 2016

Views on the NTP cell phone cancer study

Views on the NTP cell phone cancer study


Understandably the recently released NTP study has generated many opinions (some expert and some far from it) on what the study means for mobile phone users. The official audio download from Friday’s teleconference is now available online and in addition the NTP now has a new webpage titled “Cell Phones”

(the 74-page report of partial findings and the same audio are also linked at the bottom of it)

Following are some of the articles on the study. Please take special note at the last entry below, from the Australian Science Media Centre’s (AusSMC) SIMEX blog posting which quotes Dr Rodney Croft’s expert analysis of the NTP study. Dr. Croft has this amazing gift of being able to take a complex issue, such as the NTP study and simply boil it down to a brief reassuring statement for the media to unquestionably digest and regurgitate in their news stories.
Never mind the science such as the IARC classification of “mobile phone-like exposure” as a possible human carcinogen which is backed up by Professor Bruce Armstrong’s statement in the same SIMEX blog, immediately above Croft’s, that “This report supports the IARC monograph’s conclusion that RF is possibly carcinogenic to humans”. – Rodney simply and predictably avoids this and concludes that “the NTP report does not provide reason to move from the current scientific consensus that mobile phone-like exposure does not impact health.”

Just who’s scientific consensus does he follow?

Read the post here.

Geneva: Electrosensitive Persons at the University Hospital (HUG)

Geneva: Electrosensitive Persons at the University Hospital (HUG)

Reading this comment, you will see that there are no special provisions being made at HUG for treating electrohypersensitive persons.  In fact, improvements probably need to be made to provide better care for persons with other disabilities.  Following this comment is the introduction to a 2011 report on electrohypersensitivity, a summary of which can be found on the Website of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU).  

Professor Arnaud Perrier and Séverine Lalive Raemy
believe that part of being attentive to the needs of all
patients includes providing better care for handicapped
persons.
Electrosensitive persons at Geneva's university hospital (HUG)
by Meris Michaels, Readers' Mail, Tribune de Genève, 2 April 2016

If one wants to "promote care" of handicapped persons at HUG, places free of electromagnetic (EM) waves should be created to treat electrosensitive persons (estimated to be 5% of the population). These persons, sensitive to the radiation emitted by Wi-Fi and other wireless technologies, cannot be treated at hospitals because this type of radiation saturates treatment rooms and even patient rooms. Everyone could become electrosensitive.

In the January 2016 magazine published by CSS Insurance, the president of Doctors for the Protection of the Environment, Dr. Peter Källin, states: "More and more evidence suggests that electromagnetic pollution, even below the limit values, is harmful to health." Dr. Källin criticizes the fact that the population is often insufficiently informed about the way to use these new means of communication in order to reduce electromagnetic pollution.



His advice: disconnect, switch off, distance oneself. In Sweden, where electrohypersensitivity is recognized as a functional impairment, hospitals equipped with treatment rooms shielded from waves exist for persons suffering from this intolerance.

The raising of awareness of all caregivers in the medical profession regarding the harmful effects of radiation, including the specific needs of electrosensitive persons, should be a part of their training.

*****

Introduction to Abstract of 2011 Report on Electrohypersensitivity
- Link can be found by searching on "OFEV and electrohypersensitivty (in German, some parts in French, introduction to abstract in English)
- Link to report summary - not available in English:  http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01669/index.html?lang=fr

This report describes the status of the scientific knowledge as of the end of 2011 concerning the electromagnetic hypersensitivity (or electrosensitivity) of human beings. It takes account of scientifically published experimental and epidemiological studies and individual case reports which meet the criteria for environmental medicine casuistics. The term “electrosensitive” is applied to people who suffer from negative effects on their health or wellbeing which they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields in their daily life. To date there are no recognised diagnostic criteria, nor has any evidence been found that the effects suffered by electrosensitive people are directly attributable to their exposure to electromagnetic fields in their daily life. The question whether this may nonetheless be the case for some people within the group of electrosensitive human beings remains unanswered. The “nocebo effect”, i.e. the fact that the anticipation of an effect on health or wellbeing can already trigger or intensify such symptoms, probably plays at least a partial role. No clear differences in the constitution of people with and without electrosensitivity have been identified which could form the basis for diagnostic criteria, and very few reports on therapeutic options or successes can be found in related scientific literature. 

Sunday, May 29, 2016

U.S. Cellphone Study Fans Cancer Worries

U.S. Cellphone Study Fans Cancer Worries

Researchers found incidences of tumor in rats exposed to low-level radio waves, reigniting debate over safety

A multiyear, peer-reviewed study has a link between cancer and the type of radio frequencies commonly emitted by cellphones. WSJ's Ryan Knutson discusses with Tanya Rivero. Photo: iStock
By   
RYAN KNUTSON
Updated May 28, 2016 11:51 a.m. ET 
For almost as long as people have had cellphones, scientists have been debating whether the now-ubiquitous devices cause health effects.
More than a decade ago, the U.S. government set in motion a study to help answer the question. Its initial findings were released this week.The researchers said the findings were significant enough that they felt the urgency to release the results before the entire study was complete.
The study found “low incidences” of two types of tumors—one in the brain and one in the heart—in male rats that were exposed to the kinds of low-level radio waves that are emitted by cellphones.
The researchers, as well as scientists not involved in the study, said it was still too soon to draw sweeping conclusions about whether cellphones cause cancer.
“Much work remains to be done to understand the implications, if any, of these findings on the rapidly changing cellular technologies that are in use today,” said John R. Bucher, the associate director of the Department of Health and Human Services run National Toxicology Program, which conducted the study. Yet “we felt it was important to get the word out.”
ENLARGE
Scientists pointed out some of the studies’ unusual findings: Tumors weren’t observed in female rats exposed during the tests. And rats that were exposed to radio-frequency energy lived longer than the control group, which had no exposure.
“There is a long way to go from the findings reported here…and a finding that radio-frequency [electromagnetic radiation] is a human carcinogen,” said Jonathan Samet, a professor at University of Southern California who was chairman of the World Health Organization committee that in 2011 determined cellphones were possibly carcinogenic.
The report was released late Thursday night after some of the study’s conclusions began to leak to the media. More than half of the 74-page document was scientific reviewers’ responses to the findings.
Michael Lauer, deputy director for extramural research at the National Institutes of Health, whose review of the results were included with the findings, said he couldn’t support the study’s conclusions. “The higher survival with [radio-frequency radiation], along with the prior epidemiological literature, leaves me even more skeptical of the authors’ claims,” he wrote.
Advertisement
 
The researchers said it wasn’t uncommon for toxicology studies to find results in one sex but not the other. “It’s often not explainable, but it’s not unusual,” Dr. Bucher said. “It is very difficult to explain why something doesn’t happen.”
Reverberation chambers tested by National Institute of Standards and Technology.   ENLARGE
Reverberation chambers tested by National Institute of Standards and Technology.PHOTO: NTP
Dr. Bucher said between 70% and 80% of the people who reviewed the results before its release felt there was a significant association. “This is not a universal conclusion as you can tell by the reviewers’ comments,” Dr. Bucher said. “Overall, we feel that the tumors are in fact likely to be related to the exposures.”
Wireless carriers and phone manufacturers deferred questions to a trade group called CTIA, which said it was reviewing the findings. In a statement, the CTIA said numerous international and U.S. organizations “have determined that the already existing body of peer-reviewed and published studies shows that there are no established health effects from radio frequency signals used in cellphones.”
This month, a survey of brain cancer rates in Australia reported no increase since the introduction of mobile phones there almost three decades ago, a result found in other countries, too.
“Given the lack of evidence for an increased incidence of brain tumors in the population in recent decades, I do not expect health agencies to react very strongly to these findings,” said Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania. “But they certainly will examine them carefully.”
Devra Davis, founder of advocacy group Environmental Health Trust, disagreed. “If we treat this as we did the early studies on passive smoking, asbestos, or hormone replacement therapy and wait for more proof of human harm before taking steps to reduce exposures our grandchildren will pay the price,” Dr. Davis said. “The absence of an epidemic of brain cancer at this time is not proof of the safety of cellphones.”
The Federal Communications Commission, which administers cellphone safety standards in the U.S., said it had been briefed on the results. In 2013, the agency said it would examine its safety standards to see whether they needed updating, though it has yet to make any changes.
“Scientific evidence always informs FCC rules on this matter,” a spokesman said. “We will continue to follow all recommendations from federal health and safety experts including whether the FCC should modify its current policies and RF exposure limits.”
The NTP study was designed to expose rats to levels of cellphone radiation that could be considered similar to what humans may experience by using a cellphone at maximum power.
“The NTP report linking radiofrequency radiation to two types of cancer marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk,” said Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. “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,” Dr. Brawley added.
The tumors were found in rats that were exposed to levels below the current U.S. exposure limits of 1.6 watts per kilogram. Tumors were also found in rats that had been exposed to levels above legal limits, but not high enough to cause the animals to heat up, researchers said.
A key element of the debate is what the biological mechanism might be that is causing the health effect. Until now, the only widely agreed upon way radio-frequency energy impacted humans was through heating tissues. Unlike X-rays, or other types of radiation, cellphones operate at frequencies that don’t affect cells or destroy DNA.
The results suggest that there may be no safe level of exposure to cell phone or wireless radiation.
—Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
If the rats weren’t exposed to enough radio-frequency radiation to heat cells, yet still had health effects, the question is what mechanism might be causing that.
There also didn’t appear to be an increased risk based on increased exposure in the rats. That could mean radio-frequency energy isn’t the direct cause—or it could mean that the amount of exposure isn’t the determining factor.
“The results suggest that there may be no safe level of exposure to cell phone or wireless radiation,” said Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley who has been an outspoken proponent of the idea that cellphones cause health effects. “We should encourage government and industry to take measures to reduce our exposure to wireless radiation.”
The NTP said it was unlikely that other similar studies could be conducted, given the size and scale of this one. Another factor is that new cellular technologies, such as high-speed LTE networks, weren’t around when this study first began in 2005. It plans to release the complete study results by the fall of 2017.
“We are aware of the fact there is certainly not an increase in brain cancer rates in the U.S. over the course of time,” Dr. Bucher said. “And this may well be because the current cellphone use is safe. This is an issue that we continue to look at.”
Write to Ryan Knutson at ryan.knutson@wsj.com