‘High Certainty’ Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Animals, WHO Study Finds

Science & Health | Rights & Freedoms

4 hours ago

Originally posted by: Children's Health Defense

A systematic review commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded there is “high certainty” evidence that cellphone radiation exposure causes two types of cancer in animals.

The WHO-backed review, published online April 25 in Environmental International, determined radiofrequency-electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices were linked to an increased risk of malignant gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas, or nerve tumors, in the heart in studies on animals. The review noted that both tumor types had previously been found in studies on humans.

The WHO’s review also concluded there is “moderate certainty” evidence that cellphone radiation exposure causes an increased risk of rare liver and adrenal gland tumors.

Ron Melnick, Ph.D, chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) and a former senior toxicologist in the National Toxicology Program (NTP), said in a statement:

“The evidence is now clear — cell phone radiation can cause cancer in animals in concordance with the tumor types identified in human studies of mobile phone users. As animal studies are essential for predicting cancer risk in humans, governments should develop science-based safety standards to protect human health.”

The WHO review prompted leading scientists with the ICBE-EMF on April 27 to call for “immediate policy action” to protect people from possible harm from wireless radiation exposure.

“Given this high level of certainty,” ICBE-EMF said in a press release, “government policymakers worldwide should immediately move to revise their RF radiation exposure limits to protect public health and the environment.”

ICBE-EMF is a “consortium of scientists, doctors and related professionals” who study RF-EMF and make recommendations for RF-EMF exposure guidelines “based on the best peer-reviewed scientific research publications.”

The group warned that delaying such revisions “could have serious consequences amid the global surge in the use of wireless communication devices.”

WHO researchers analyzed 52 studies

The review, partially funded by the WHO, sought to systematically evaluate the effect of wireless radiation exposure on cancer in experimental animals.

For the review, the authors systematically analyzed 52 studies. They concluded there is “moderate certainty” evidence of an increased risk of some rare tumors, such as pheochromocytomas in the adrenal glands and hepatoblastomas in the liver.

They found “no or minimal” evidence of increased cancer risk in the kidney and mammary gland.

They also found “no or minimal” evidence of increased cancer risk in some body systems, including the gastrointestinal/digestive, endocrine, musculoskeletal, urinary, reproductive and auditory systems.

In their report, the authors of the WHO study acknowledged that animal studies are commonly used when assessing whether something might be carcinogenic to people. However, it’s “complex” to extrapolate human cancer risk from animal studies when the thing being studied is wireless radiation, they said.

One of the 52 studies reviewed by the WHO researchers was the NTP’s $30 million study on cellphone radiation that found “clear evidence” of malignant heart tumors in male rats, “some evidence” of malignant brain tumors in male rats, and “some evidence” of benign, malignant and complex combined adrenal gland tumors in male rats.

The NTP is an “interagency program composed of, and supported by” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), according to the agency’s website.

As The Defender reported, the NIH refuses to reveal nearly 2,500 pages of records related to the NTP’s decision to shut down its research on how wireless radiation affects human health.

‘You know we’re in trouble’ when industry-friendly WHO says there’s a problem

The WHO report is part of a WHO-commissioned series of scientific reviews of the possible health risks of wireless radiation. So far, most of the other studies in the series have found no increased health risk from wireless radiation.

For instance, a review on the plausible link between wireless radiation and brain cancer in humans claimed it found no link. ICBE-EMR posted a rebuttal and called for its retraction.

Critics, including ICBE-EMF member Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., and Mona Nilsson, have said this is likely because some of the studies’ authors are biased against finding health risks linked to wireless radiation exposure.

Nilsson, co-founder and director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, said she found it surprising that the latest WHO review recognized wireless radiation’s harmful effects.

“On the contrary, the WHO has a history of downplaying them and promoting industry-friendly opinions,” Nilsson said.

In a March 7 post on his Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website, Moskowitz noted that all of the WHO’s scientific review teams have one or more members from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley.

ICNIRP, which Moskowitz called a “cartel,” is a German nonprofit that issues RF radiation exposure limits “produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues.”

The wireless industry favors the ICNIRP limits because they’re designed to protect people only from radiation levels high enough to generate heat — meaning the limits turn a blind eye to the possible health effects from radiation levels lower than those needed to heat human tissue.

One of the latest WHO study authors, Andrew Wood, has been affiliated with ICNIRP since 2013.

Given that the WHO review authors may be biased, it’s especially noteworthy that this latest review found “high certainty” evidence of increased cancer risk from wireless radiation, said Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program.

“When even the WHO panel designed to whitewash the issue says there is a problem, you know we’re in trouble,” she said.

Eckenfels added:

“It’s ridiculous that, despite these clear health risks, residents cannot choose where cell towers are placed based on concerns that the radiation from a cell tower near their kids’ school might impact their kids’ health.

“That’s why our 704 No More initiative is so important.”

CHD’s initiative is raising money to legally challenge Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996. The section states:

“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.

Please Donate Today

Time for WHO to classify wireless radiation as ‘known human carcinogen’

Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D., a leading scientist with ICBE-EMF, said he thinks there’s now enough evidence for the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to reclassify RF-EMF as a Group 1 human carcinogen.

In 2011, IARC classified RF-EMF as a Group 2B hazard that is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Hardell said that the latest WHO review reinforces experts’ claims that enough scientific evidence has accumulated for IARC to classify RF-EMF as a “known human carcinogen.”

“We have now similar findings of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma in human epidemiology, laboratory studies on animals and mechanistic studies such as on reactive oxidative species with DNA damage,” he said. “These results fulfill the criteria for a human carcinogen.”

Nilsson agreed. She estimated there are now “several hundred” studies that outline the mechanisms by which wireless radiation increases a person’s risk of cancer, such as causing DNA damage and oxidative stress.

Elizabeth Kelley, managing director of ICBE-EMF, pointed out that 267 scientists from 45 nations have signed the EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for greater health protection from EMF exposure.

“Hundreds of scientists worldwide agree that current exposure limits are outdated and do not adequately protect against health risks,” Kelley said.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not revised its human exposure to RF radiation limits in nearly 30 years.

Although the FCC sets the legal limit on human wireless radiation exposure, the commission is not under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The FCC is an independent U.S. agency overseen by Congress.

The FCC continues to defy a 2021 court mandate to explain how its current limits adequately protect humans, especially children, and the environment from harm.

The agency needs to act now if it’s going to protect public health, according to Moskowitz. He said in a statement:

“The preponderance of the research published since 1996 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to low levels of modulated or pulsed wireless RF radiation.

“Given the widespread global usage of wireless among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease will have broad implications for public health.”

Related articles in The Defender