To the Editor We write with serious concerns about the Review article by Dr Grimes on cancer and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) 1 with respect to basic factual accuracy and misrepresentation. The article contains extensive commentary on ionizing radiation and does not address the substantial body of science on nonionizing RFR effects.The scientific literature published on this subject is voluminous but largely ignored by the author. Based on knowledge of electromagnetic biology and medicine, we and others have demonstrated adverse health effects, including cancer in humans, resulting from chronic exposure to nonthermal levels of RFR.When the cumulative body of evidence is assessed, the overall picture on low-intensity nonthermal levels of RFR shows a clear and consistent pattern of adverse effects that form the basis of the mechanisms whereby RFR can cause the cancers seen in human populations. 2,3 Of 261 studies looking at oxidative effects from RFR exposure, 240 (91%) showed damage. 2 Of 346 studies on effects of RFR on genes, 224 (65%) reported genetic damage. 2 Oxidative stress and genetic damage are the major mechanisms leading to cancer. In addition, RFR exposure causes effects on brain and behavior. Of 336 studies published on RFR neurological effects, 73% reported effects, and only 27% showed no effect. 2 The 650-page BioInitiative Report, which Dr Grimes criticizes but fails to cite as a reference, includes more than 2000 peer-reviewed scientific studies and was subsequently published in condensed form and subjected to extensive peer review in a special issue of the journal Pathophysiology in 2009, 3 showing that the weight of evidence documents that excessive RFR causes cancer and other forms of harm to humans and animals.Conclusions published from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) affirm that "The results from the NTP carcinogenicity studies clearly demonstrate the induction of proliferative lesions (tumors and hyperplasias in the brain and heart) by RFR in conventional animal models." 4 Furthermore, the NTP report concludes that these findings are consistent with human epidemiological studies, in that the same tumor types are elevated in both animals and humans exposed to cell phone radiation (RFR). 4 This gives further support to the BioInitiative Report findings and conclusions on RFR.The author maligns the BioInitiative Report as perpetrating misinformation and a "noxious influence of fringe science on confounding public understanding." However, we believe and have published evidence that the reverse is true. Such biased rhetoric is not acceptable in scientific publishing. 5
To the Editor Epidemiological research and laboratory studies on rodents show an association of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation with harm to fetal growth and development, changes in brain activity, and an increased risk of tumor development. These concerns about potential human health effects should not be discounted, contrary to the argument in the Review by Grimes 1 published recently in JAMA Oncology.Since the 1950s, when the carcinogenic effects of DNA damage were documented, tremendous strides have been made in the early detection and treatment of cancer. Yet the burden of cancer is growing, 2 pointing to the importance of investing in research and policy development for cancer prevention.The safety assessment and identification of potentially carcinogenic exposures form an essential foundation for public health policy. Data suggesting a potential for harm must be taken seriously, even if the mechanism of action is not yet well understood.Grimes 1 focuses on DNA damage as the primary pathway to carcinogenesis, missing the vast literature that demonstrates the carcinogenic effects of agents that are not mutagens. The author devotes more than 2 pages to the plain scientific fact that radiofrequency radiation is nonionizing, then uses this platform to dismiss key scientific studies, including the National Toxicology Study and research by the Ramazzini Institute. 3 Of note, a 2008 report by the US National Research Council 4 listed several pathways for the effects of radiofrequency radiation on organisms, with effects on voltage-gated ion channels and changes in membrane permeability considered the key candidates for potential mechanisms. In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed and remanded the Federal Communications Commission's decision to keep unchanged its 1996 limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation. It is essential to recognize that children and developing organisms absorb more radiofrequency radiation compared with adults, and that both the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation have been reported by the National Toxicology Program study and epidemiological research. 3 Recently, the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens and the Hallmarks of Cancer frameworks brought together a more comprehensive way of understanding cancer initiation and progression and opened a path for moving beyond the focus on genotoxicity. 5 These frameworks can help with the identification of nongenotoxic carcinogenic agents and help advance public health policy toward cancer prevention. For radiofrequency radiation, as for other chemical or physical agents that may affect health, the precautionary principle is the most prudent approach, especially for children's exposures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.