Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102)

Miller, Anthony B.; Morgan, L. Lloyd; Udasin, Iris; Davis, Devra Lee

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043

Cited by 63 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The least that can be said about all this is that the existence of two major rodent studies, both of which report clear evidence that RF directly causes malignant cardiac tumors, renders incorrect and misleading the statement "animal studies do not suggest an effect of RF fields on cancer". Indeed, given that a relative lack of animal evidence for carcinogenicity was the main stated reason for the IARC/WHO classification of RF as only a Group 2B ("possible") carcinogen in 2011 [27], the combination of the NTP and Ramanizzi studies must be seen as lending strong support to recent calls [28,29] for the upgrading of the IARC/WHO classification to Grade 1: "carcinogenic to humans".…”

Section: Misleading Statement One (P 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED: Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels

Pockett

2019

Magnetochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Official reports to governments throughout the Western world attempt to allay public concern about the increasing inescapability of the microwaves (also known as radiofrequency radiation or RF) emitted by “smart” technologies, by repeating the dogma that the only proven biological effect of RF is acute tissue heating, and assuring us that the levels of radiation to which the public are exposed are significantly less than those needed to cause acute tissue heating. The present paper first shows the origin of this “thermal-only” dogma in the military paranoia of the 1950s. It then reveals how financial conflict of interest and intentionally misleading statements have been powerful factors in preserving that dogma in the face of now overwhelming evidence that it is false, using one 2018 report to ministers of the New Zealand government as an example. Lastly, some new pilot measurements of ambient RF power densities in Auckland city are reported and compared with levels reported in other cities, various international exposure limits, and levels shown scientifically to cause biological harm. It is concluded that politicians in the Western world should stop accepting soothing reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking the health and safety of their communities seriously.

show abstract

Section: Misleading Statement One (P 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED: Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels

Pockett

2019

Magnetochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bilateral disease accounts for less than 5% of cases and is a hallmark of a hereditary disease related to neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2). Patients typically present between the ages of 20-40; however, those associated with NF2 often manifest earlier [6,7]. The documented incidence of VS is rising, but there is a general consensus that this is a reflection of increased reporting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vestibular Schwannoma: What We Know and Where We are Heading

Gupta

Thakker

Gupta

2020

Head and Neck Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vestibular schwannoma (VS) is a Schwann cell-derived tumour arising from the vestibulocochlear nerve. Although benign, it represents a threat to intracranial structures due to mass effect and carries a small risk of malignant transformation. VS therefore represents an important healthcare burden. We review the literature regarding pathogenesis, risk factors, and diagnosis of VS. The current and future potential management strategies are also discussed. A narrative review of all relevant papers known to the authors was conducted. The majority of VS remain clinically stable and do not require interventional procedures. Nevertheless, various surgical techniques exist for removing VS, the most common of which are translabyrinthine and retrosigmoid approaches. Due to surgical risks such as hearing loss, facial nerve dysfunction, post-operative headache, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage, a "watch and rescan" approach is adopted for most patients. Radiotherapy is a useful alternative and has been shown to have a similar response for growth restriction. Due to the heterogeneous nature of VS, there is a lack of consensus regarding management of tumours that are too large for conservative management but too small to indicate surgery. Emerging biologic therapies, such as Bevacizumab, Everolimus, and Lapatinib, as well as antiinflammatories like aspirin are promising potential treatments; however, long-term evidence of their efficacy is required. The knowledge base regarding VS continues to improve. With increased understanding of the pathogenesis of these tumors, we believe future work should focus on pharmacologic intervention. Biologic therapies aimed toward improved patient outcomes are particularly promising.

show abstract

“…These seem to have had little or no impact on those proposing limits on RF radiation and on the deployment of this technology. On the contrary, ambient RF radiation exposure has increased and is a potential health risk based on the current knowledge of the biological effects of RF radiation (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). There seems to be an 'unholy' alliance between the telecom industry and certain scientists, organizations (even WHO), and some politicians, thus reducing the potential for precautionary actions (9,10).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

[Comment] Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation

Hardell

Nyberg

2020

mol clin onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a 'possible' human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment. the exposure guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) based only on the acute and very short-term thermal (heating) effects of RF radiation. These guidelines are used by the majority of countries worldwide. These guidelines were initially published approximately 20 years ago (18) and were updated in 2009 (19); however, no changes were made to adapt to the

show abstract

Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102)

Cited by 63 publications

References 53 publications

RETRACTED: Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels

RETRACTED: Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels

Vestibular Schwannoma: What We Know and Where We are Heading

[Comment] Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About