Teen girl holding a phone near her ear

by Paul Fassa
Health Impact News

The results of a 30 million dollar, ten-plus year study on the effects of cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) were published this year, 2018, confirming suspicions that cell phone use is carcinogenic. 

It 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 phone use.

This 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 epidemiological studies. 

But this study was not epidemiological, where surveys are done to determine usage among humans. Michael Wyde, PhD, the study’s lead toxicologist claimed:

“A 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.”

The Conclusions Were Based on the Consensus of an Outside Panel With the Researchers

The report is titled Effect of cell phone radiofrequency radiation on body temperature in rodents: Pilot studies of the National Toxicology Program’s reverberation chamber exposure system, which is a description of how it was conducted. 

The study linked to this article doesn’t declare any conclusions. It merely explains the details involved with its process. 

Evidently, conclusions had to be from a consensus among the researchers and a panel of outside experts who reviewed it.

Here are the agreed upon conclusions regarding cell phone radiation outcomes on rodents:

  • Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
  • Some evidence of 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 as equivocal evidence. [Emphasis added] (Source)

It doesn’t get any clearer than clear evidence, while some evidence is just that, some evidence but not enough to make a conclusive assertion, but without discounting the evidence presented.

Even equivocal evidence is a red flag that shouldn’t be ignored if health risks are involved. 

The Animal Study and It’s Procedure

The 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.

The 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. 

Subject 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 environments.

The 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.

The 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.” 

Since 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.

As 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 tumors while none of the control rodents subjected to RFR developed tumors. 

This outcome, though apparently not the intent of the study, demonstrated there are more dangers from cell phone RFR than simply unwanted thermal effects on tissue. (Source)

An 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.

The study 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.

Earlier International Studies Ignored

Evidently, the HHS ignored the IARC’s critical monograph review of 16 studies on EMF and RFR potential carcinogenicity prior to 2013. Despite contradictions within the studies, the IARC declared that radio frequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).

The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) is the same group within the World Health Organization (WHO) that declared glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). Group 1 is carcinogenic, period, no modifiers or doubts.

Group 1 – Carcinogenic to humans

Group 2A – Probably carcinogenic to humans  

Group 2B – Possibly carcinogenic to humans

Group 3 – Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans            

Group 4 – Probably not carcinogenic to humans (Source)

It 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 living mammals. 

But the microwave communications industry maintains more influence over politicians, the FCC, and our health agencies.

And it’s pushing for a rapid expansion to 5G telecommunication technology.


New 5G Cell Towers and Smart Meters to Increase Microwave Radiation – Invade Privacy

The Study’s Controversial Aftermath

The 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 safe. 

Even 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.  

Not everyone agrees with Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, who declared:

These 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.

Among those who disagree is a former government toxicologist, Ronald Melnick, PhD, who is now an independent consultant.

He wrote in his article There’s a clear cell phone-cancer link, but FDA is downplaying it published by The Hill that:

Simply 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.

Every chemical known to cause cancer in humans is also carcinogenic in animals when adequately tested. 

Melnick 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) 

Another less restrained criticism of the FDA’s stance came from Dr. Robert Rowen, who exclaimed: 

The 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 humans. 

This study was done to show that non-ionizing radiation will not cause cancer or damage other than by thermal effects. It disproved that assumption. 

I 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. 

To 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 establishment. (Source)


5G Technology is Coming – Linked to Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Death

Commentary: Government is not Protecting Us From Radio Frequency Radiation

It’s 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. 

There 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. 

They 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.

We 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.