Recent studies have reignited the debate on the health effects of Internet penetration and the increased use of smart phones all over the world. Researchers suggest that the electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi, mobile phones/towers, ipads, smart metres and many other devices that uses the Radio Frequency spectrum, is making humans sick.

The science is strong, extensive, in some cases over 50 years old (army scientist studying the effects of radar) and many leading scientists are very worried. However, the world of industry, and more worryingly, the government bodies that regulate exposure and public health, has chosen to look the other way. The consequences are awful.

Also, the World Health Organization (WHO) has acknowledged the “anxiety and speculation” regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their alleged effects on public health.A United Kingdom’s (UK’s) leading doctor on the issue, Dr. Erica Mallery Blythe, said there is also an estimated 13,000,000 Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Sufferers (EHS) in Europe. Sweden classifies EHS as a ‘disability’ and there are now 500,000 registered EHS sufferers in Sweden.

Blythe said: “The debate saying there’s no proof just doesn’t cut it anymore… that’s sounding like smokers in the 70’s and 80’s. It is clear that ubiquitous exposure from EMF is messing with us at a very subtle level… quantum biology is where this is going to be established. But before then many people will fall ill. Teachers, doctors and nurses themselves…all of us… but most importantly and most at risk, children.”

A recent cell phone radiation study by researchers from the Orebro University, Sweden, has confirmed cancer risk.The National Toxicology Programme (NTP) under the Swedish National Institutes of Health has completed the largest-ever animal study on cell phone radiation and cancer.

According to Associate Director of the NTP, Dr. John Bucher, the results confirmed that cell phone radiation exposure levels within the currently allowable safety limits are the “likely cause” of brain and heart cancers in these animals. One in twelve male rats developed either malignant cancer (brain and rare heart tumours) or pre-cancerous lesions that can lead to cancer. Tumors called schwannomas were induced in the heart, in the same kind of cells in the brain that have lead to acoustic neuromas seen in human studies.

The NTP said it is important to release these completed findings now given the implications to global health. No cancers occurred in the control group.Prof. Lennart Hardell of Orebro University said: “The animal study confirms our findings in epidemiological studies of an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma among people that use wireless phones, both cell phones and cordless phones (DECT). Acoustic neuroma is a type of Schwannoma, so interestingly this study confirms findings in humans of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. In 2013 we called for upgrading the risk in humans to Group 1, the agent is carcinogenic to humans. It is now time to re-evaluate both the cancer risk and other potential health effects in humans from radiofrequency radiation and also inform the public.”

Hardell added: “This NTP evidence is greatly strengthening the evidence of risk, is sufficient to reclassify cell phone radiation as a known cancer-causing agent, and confirms the inadequacy of existing public safety limits.”

The WHO’s 10-year study of human use of mobile phones concluded there is an increased risk for malignant brain tumours among the heavier mobile phone users, particularly where it is used mostly on one side of the head. The 2010 Interphone mega-study of cancer in humans using mobile phones found higher cancer risk, but at that time there was little animal testing to support the risks identified in humans.

Now, this NTP study has shown statistically significant risks with a dose-response relationship to the amount of exposure. It proves that non-ionizing radiation can plausibly cause cancer, not just ionizing radiation like x-rays and puts to rest the traditional scientific argument that cell phone radiation can’t do harm.Bucher said the animals’ exposure was about the same as for people who are heavy users of cell phones.

He also confirmed that the exposure of 1.5 W/Kg is lower than currently allowed under FCC public safety limits. Testing on rats is standard in predicting human cancers.
The BioInitiative Report (2014) documents nervous system effects in 68 per cent of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies). This has increased from 63 per cent in 2012 (93 of 150 studies). Genetic effects (damage to genetic material/DNA) from radiofrequency radiation are reported in 65 per cent (74 of 114 studies); and 83 per cent (49 of 59 studies) of extremely low frequency studies.

Dr. Christopher Portier, formerly with the NTP commented this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It is (the cancer) because of the exposure. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans.”

In response to public concern, the WHO established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. They have stated that although extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum, all reviews conducted so far have indicated that, as long as exposures are below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, which cover the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, such exposures do not produce any known adverse health effect. Of course, by the very definition of such limits, stronger or more frequent exposures to EMF can be unhealthy, and in fact serve as the basis for electromagnetic weaponry.

International guidelines on exposure levels to microwave frequency EMFs such as ICNIRP limit the power levels of wireless devices and it is uncommon for wireless devices to exceed the guidelines. These guidelines only take into account thermal effects, as non-thermal effects have not been conclusively demonstrated.

In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the WHO, classified wireless radiation as Group 2B – possibly carcinogenic. That means that there “could be some risk” of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of wireless devices needs to be conducted.




The Guardian: Debate on health effects of Internet penetration reignited

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *