10 Year Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation finds Link to Cancer – FDA does Nothing
10 Year Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation finds Link to Cancer – FDA does Nothing
Submitted by Natural Solutio... on Fri, 2018-11-23 16:22
Fassa Health Impact News
results of a 30 million dollar, ten-plus yearstudyon
the effects of cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) were published
this year, 2018, confirming suspicions that cell phone use is
was conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National
Toxicology Program as by The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
nomination as a necessary study to determine safe levels of RFR with cell
animal study showed RFR can cause cancer while stirring up more
controversy from others who claim the NIH results don’t equate to normal
cell phone use dangers with humans even though there have been several
this study was not epidemiological, where surveys are done to determine
usage among humans. Michael Wyde, PhD, the study’s lead toxicologistclaimed:
major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly
how much radio frequency radiation the animals received — something
that’s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often
relied on questionnaires.”
Conclusions Were Based on the Consensus of an Outside Panel With the
study linked to this article doesn’t declare any conclusions. It merely
explains the details involved with its process.
conclusions had to be from a consensus among the researchers and a panel
of outside experts who reviewed it.
are the agreed upon conclusions regarding cell phone radiation outcomes on
tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant
tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign,
malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
For female rats and male and female
mice, it was unclear if tumors observed in the studies were associated
with RFR used by cell phones. This is also known asequivocal
evidence. [Emphasis added](Source)
doesn’t get any clearer thanclear
just that, some evidence but not enough to make a conclusive assertion,
but without discounting the evidence presented.
a red flag that shouldn’t be ignored if health risks are involved.
Animal Study and It’s Procedure
rodents were a mixture of mice and rats, male and female, some pregnant
that totaled 3,000 or more rodents over the 10-year period. Their average
life expectancy is around two years.
subject rodents that were placed in fiberglass cages within
electromagnetic reverberation chambers that were made of materials that
won’t absorb electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and capable of generating
RFR at different frequencies and powers.
mice and rats were housed similarly in chambers without RFR generators.
They were housed individually and fed standard rodent chow and purified
water according to their needs within the chamber’s climate controlled
rodents were exposed to 10-minute bursts of RFR at different speeds and
intensities alternating with 10 minutes of no radiation exposure. This
added up to nine hours of radiofrequency exposure per day during the two
years of their normal lives.
researchers were able to control the specific absorption rate (SAR) by
measuring the amount of RF energy absorbed by a unit of mass in watts per
kilogram, or W/kg. This is what lead researcher Michael Wyde meant when he
spoke of this study’s uniqueness of being “able to control exactly how
much radio frequency radiation the animals received.”
this research began a little over 10 years before the 2018 report covered
in this article, the type of radiation studied was within the parameters
of 2G and 3G used during that era. It was later that 4G was put into mass
use, and now 5G is coming in.
the study title stated, the purpose of the study was to examine cell phone
radiation on body tissue temperature which may have long-term carcinogenic
effects. Some of the rats and mice subjected to RFR did manifest cancerous
of the control rodentssubjected
to RFR developed tumors.
outcome, though apparently not the intent of the study, demonstrated there
are more dangers from cell phone RFR than simply unwanted thermal effects
earlier Health and Human Services (HHS) paper that “nominated” the
Toxicology Program study went to the FDA as well. The paper admitted that
there were studies showing cancerous effects from cell phone RFR and EMF
tower studies, but others were contradictory.
nomination paper urged an animal study with a rigorous
structure and enough subjects and time exposure to draw a more definitive
conclusion. The National Toxicity Program working group carried it out
with the resulting consensus shown above.
International Studies Ignored
the HHS ignored theIARC’s
critical monograph reviewof
16 studies on EMF and RFR potential carcinogenicity prior to 2013. Despite
contradictions within the studies, the IARC declared that radio frequency
electromagnetic fields arepossiblycarcinogenic
to humans (Group 2B).
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) is the same group
within the World Health Organization (WHO) that declared glyphosate isprobablycarcinogenic
to humans (Group 2A). Group 1 is carcinogenic, period, no modifiers or
1 – Carcinogenic to humans
2A – Probably carcinogenic to humans
2B – Possibly carcinogenic to humans
3 – Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans
4 – Probably not carcinogenic to humans(Source)
would seem that as long as there’s any potential of health hazards from
any technology or chemical, the precautionary principle should be invoked
to pause the technology’s use in an environment shared by humans and other
the microwave communications industry maintains more influence over
politicians, the FCC, and our health agencies.
it’s pushing for a rapid expansion to 5G telecommunication technology.
FDA is at the center of this controversy. It is under the Department of
Health and Human Services(HHS)along
with the NIH and the CDC. The FDA is supposed to work with the FCC
(Federal Communications Commission) to ensure wireless communication is
though it was part of the initial nomination process for this recently
(2018) published study, the FDA refused to recognize any dangers for
humans, stating the evidence may not apply to humans and that the RFR
rodents were exposed to was more than what humans experience.
everyone agrees with Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the FDA’s Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, who declared:
findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage. We believe the
existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting
the public health.
those who disagree is a former government toxicologist,Ronald
Melnick, PhD, who is now an independent consultant.
wrote in his articleThere’s
a clear cell phone-cancer link, but FDA is downplaying itpublished
claiming that conclusions about human risk cannot be drawn from animal
studies runs counter to standard practices of evaluating human cancer
risks by public health agencies including the U.S. EPA, NTP, IARC, and
even the FDA.
chemical known to cause cancer in humans is also carcinogenic in animals
when adequately tested.
mentions several other inaccuracies that Shuren and the FDA used to defend
their rejection of the study’s conclusions, mentioning how the FDA agreed
to this study to determine the possibility of non-thermal adverse
reactions for radiofrequency radiation associated with cell phone use.(Source)
less restrained criticism of the FDA’s stance came fromDr.
Robert Rowen, who exclaimed:
animal study found a clear link between EMF from mobile phones and
cancers in animals. And what did the FDA do? It has chosen to ignore the
study citing the possibility that the data cannot be transferred to
study was done to show that non-ionizing radiation will not cause cancer
or damage other than by thermal effects. It disproved that assumption.
offer an explanation to you. We now know that you don’t have to break
DNA standards to alter its function. DNA vibrates at its own frequency.
It is like a coiled spring. Throw in a toxic frequency and you alter the
vibration of the DNA and hence alter its function and gene expression.
me, it’s a no-brainer. But to the Fraud and Deception Administration,
its OK for the public to go on and use this technology willy-nilly and
permit installation of 5g networks on every other street corner. This is
the similar mentality that has brought us the vaccine dogma from the
Government is not Protecting Us From Radio Frequency Radiation
unfortunate that the very government agencies that are supposed to protect
us from corporate-caused toxins are actually working to clear the way for
dangerous enterprises that threaten our health.
are too many who don’t realize that most politicians on both sides of the
aisle and their appointed bureaucrats who run these agencies lack the
integrity and fortitude to stand up for the public welfare.
are too concerned about corporate lobby contributions and their own
careers, which may lead to advancement into more lucrative private sectors
as gratis for helping make their malfeasance legal.
have to focus on those who are not welcomed by the establishment but
stand-up for the truth and research on their own to survive in health
instead of sickness.