Could Cell Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?

Wednesday Oct 10 | BY |
| Comments (26)

Could using your cell phone often increase your risk of brain cancer?

It may be the question of our age—can cell phone radiation cause cancer? So far, the studies have been confusing. Some say yes, others say no.

Here are the data we have so far, and some tips you can use to lower your risk.

What Type of Radiation Are We Talking About?
Some people have been concerned for years about the potential hazards of cell phones. That’s because they all emit some amount of electromagnetic radiation. Since many people hold the phone close to their head when talking, the concern is that the radiation could cause brain cancer, particularly with long-term use.

There are two basic types of electromagnetic radiation:

  • Ionizing radiation: This type contains enough electromagnetic energy to disrupt the activity of atoms and molecules in the body, and also to alter chemical reactions. Gamma rays and x-rays are two forms of ionizing radiation. They can be harmful, which is why lead vests are used during x-rays.
  • Non-ionizing radiation: This type of radiation causes some heating effect, but usually not enough to damage tissues. This is the “safer” kind of radiation, and is the type emitted by radios, visible light and microwaves. This type of radiation is considered too weak to damage DNA.

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation, which is why they are considered safe by most experts to date. According to the FDA, cell phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy (RF), which has shown in numerous studies to have no link to health problems. Though high levels of RF energy can heat biological tissue and potentially cause burns, cell phones operate at power levels well below the point at which such heating effects would take place.

The FDA also notes that the RF cell phones emit while in use are in the microwave frequency range, while emitting RF at “substantially reduced time intervals when in stand-by mode.” These low levels cause no known adverse health effects.

WHO Pronounces Cell Phones as Possibly Carcinogenic
Concerns about a possible connection between cell phone radiation and cancer resurfaced in 2011 when the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that cell phones were “possible carcinogens.” The statement actually came from the International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC), which brought together 31 international experts in Lyon, France, to sort through data on cell phone safety.

These individuals analyzed existing studies, including two that had not yet been published at the time, and concluded that there could be a possible connection between cell phones and two types of brain tumors—glioma, a type of brain cancer, and acoustic neuroma, a noncancerous tumor of the nerve that runs form the ear to the brain. They said there’s not enough evidence to link cell phones to any other type of cancer, and acknowledged that the evidence for classifying cell phones as possible causes of brain tumors is “limited.”

Both of these tumors are rare, but considering millions of people use cell phones, even a rare risk deserves further investigation.

Controversy Surrounding the 13-Country Study
The conclusion of the IARC may have been based partly on a 13-country study published in 2010 in The International Journal of Epidemiology. This study concluded that overall, there was no link between cell phone use and brain tumors, but that study participants with the highest level of cell phone use had a 40 percent higher risk for a type of brain tumor called a “glioma,” which is a malignant tumor of the glial tissue of the nervous system. The authors of the study discounted this risk in the end, however, because of potential biases and errors.

Why would the scientists simply dismiss data that seemed to show an increased risk? According to the New York Times, the study was funded primarily by the European Commission and the cell phone industry. The fact that cell phone companies actually contributed to this study raises questions of conflict of interest.

Researchers apparently also disagreed on how to present the results, however. Publication was reportedly delayed for four years while they debated their conclusions. Apparently some people in the study reported implausibly high cell phone use. The results also indicated that people who used mobile phones the least seemed to have lower incidences of brain tumors than people who used corded landlines, raising some eyebrows.

There were other issues. For instance a person who used a cell phone for 30 minutes a day for more than 10 years was considered to be a subject with heavy exposure, but today that level of cell phone use is average. Elisabeth Cardis, head author of the study, stated, “In my personal opinion, I think we have a number of elements that suggest a possible increased risk among the heaviest users, and because the heaviest users in our study are now considered the low users today, I think that’s something of concern. Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or the other, it may be reasonable to reduce one’s exposure.”

Other errors include the fact that data wasn’t collected in a uniform manner from the 13 countries that participated. Finally, the links between tumors and phone use were all based on individual recollections of how often a cell phone was used, which isn’t always reliable.

In the end, the scientists stated that the data weren’t reliable to conclude that cell phones cause cancer. The IARC, however, took the data from this study and others to conclude that they may. Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., and president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, stated that cancer can take 20 years or longer to develop, much longer than the 10-15 year period included in this study. “If we wait until there are better data 10 to 15 years from now, we could be very sorry.”

Why No Increase in Brain Cancers, Then?
There’s another set of data adding to the confusion. Data from the National Cancer Institute indicates that the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987. This casts doubt on the aforementioned study results.

If, after 13 years, the risk of brain tumors increases by 40 percent, wouldn’t we see many more brain cancers today than we did 20 or 30 years ago? After all, the International Telecommunications Union estimates 5 billion cell phone subscriptions worldwide.

Other Studies That Indicate Some Risk
The Journal of the American Medical Association also reported on research from the National Institutes of Health, which found that less than an hour of cell phone use can speed up brain activity in the area closest to the phone antenna. More specifically, the brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone’s antenna metabolized more glucose (body fuel) than did tissues on the opposite side of the brain.

This was one of the first studies to demonstrate that the weak radio frequency signals from cell phones can have an effect on the brain. The researchers noted that the results were preliminary.

One study from Sweden also found an increased risk of glioma in those participants with the highest use of cell phones with first use before the age of 20, but a second large case-controlled study in the same country did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among people between the ages of 20 and 69.

Most Studies Reveal No Risk
In addition to those studies showing some increased risk, there are others showing the opposite. In July 2011, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published the first study on cell phone use and risk of brain tumors in children and adolescents. The scientists concluded that the data showed no link between cell phone use and brain tumors.

Another study published in the British Medical Journal analyzed data for more than 350,000 cell phone users over 18 years, and no increased risks of tumors of the central nervous system.

“With few exceptions,” said David A. Savitz, a professor in the departments of epidemiology and obstetrics and gynecology at Brown University and a researcher on environmental exposures and health, “the studies directly addressing the issue indicate the lack of association.”

Most experts concede, however, that so far, we have little long-term evidence of how cell phone use from childhood to the age of 60 or 70 or 80 may affect health.

How to Protect Yourself?
Until we have more research, we still don’t know whether or not cell phone radiation may be able to increase risk of brain cancer. Since there is a possibility of risk, however, it’s best to take precautions. Bioengineering professor Henry Lai from the University of Washington told The Seattle Magazine, “Obviously, we don’t know the answer at all. But then, there is a cause for concern. We need to take some kind of precautionary action.”

These tips can help you reduce your exposure, which is valuable, as it is the cumulative effect of years of exposure to the radiation that is of concern.

On the whole, RF drops off quickly, so moving the phone just a bit away from you can reduce your exposure a hundredfold.

  • Use a hands-free headset during a conversation or when communication via text messaging—it lowers radio frequency exposure on the brain.
  • If you don’t have a hands-free device, use the speakerphone function.
  • At it’s most basic—keep the phone away from your head. Most manufacturers recommend keeping the phone at least about an inch away from the body. The further the phone is from the body, the less radiation absorbed.
  • Keep cell phones away from children—there is some evidence that young, developing brains could be more effected by cell phone radiation. “Children’s skulls and scalps are thinner,” said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “So the radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain of children and young adults. Their cells are at a dividing faster rate, so the impact of radiation can be much larger.”
  • Cell phones emit the most radiation when they are trying to connect to cellular towers. A moving phone or one in an area with a weak signal has to work harder, giving off more radiation. Avoid using the phone in areas of weak signals like in elevators, buildings, and rural areas.
  • Don’t carry the cell phone in a shirt or pants pocket near your body. Put it in a leather or other type of container, and put a few layers of clothing between you and the phone. Carry it in the car, in a jacket pocket, or in your purse.
  • If you have the option, use a landline.
  • Minimize the length of your calls when possible.

Do you take precautions when using a cell phone?

* * *

Sources
FDA, “Health Issues: Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116282.htm.

Mary Brophy Marcus and Liz Szabo, “WHO: Cellphones possibly carcinogenic,” USA Today, June 1, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-31-cellular-radiation-cancer_n.htm.

Tara Parker-Pope,” Questions About Cellphones and Brain Tumors,” NY Times, May 18, 2010, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/questions-about-cellphones-and-brain-tumors/.

Danielle Dellorto, “WHO: Cell phone risk can increase possible cancer risk,” CNN, May 31, 2011, http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html.

Patrizia Frei, et al., “Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study,” BMJ, October 20, 2011, http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387.

Shari Roan and Ellen Gabler, “Study links cellphones to possible cancer risk,” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/01/health/la-he-who-cell-phones-20110601-1.

National Cancer Institute, “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk,” http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones.

Hardell L., et al., “Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects,” Int J Oncol 2011 May; 38(5):1465-74, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331446.

Tara Parker-Pope, “Questions About Cellphones and Brain Tumors,” The New York Times, May 18, 2010.

Emily Main, “Mobile Phone Link to Cancer Remains a Concern,” Rodale News, http://www.rodale.com/mobile-phones-cancer.

“UW Scientists Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry,” Seattle Magazine, January 2011, http://www.seattlemag.com/article/nerd-report/nerd-report.

Kevin Gianni

Kevin Gianni is a health author, activist and blogger. He started seriously researching personal and preventative natural health therapies in 2002 when he was struck with the reality that cancer ran deep in his family and if he didn’t change the way he was living — he might go down that same path. Since then, he’s written and edited 6 books on the subject of natural health, diet and fitness. During this time, he’s constantly been humbled by what experts claim they know and what actually is true. This has led him to experiment with many diets and protocols — including vegan, raw food, fasting, medical treatments and more — to find out what is myth and what really works in the real world.

Kevin has also traveled around the world searching for the best protocols, foods, medicines and clinics around and bringing them to the readers of his blog RenegadeHealth.com — which is one of the most widely read natural health blogs in the world with hundreds of thousands of visitors a month from over 150 countries around the world.

26 COMMENTS ON THIS POST

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Carol Self says:

    I work in a University Medical Center and our ENT docs are performing a study of radio frequency or radiation effects on the inner ear. What I am hearing is that the effects on hear are very definitive. Waiting for the study results with interest!!

  2. Brianna says:

    I actually did a similar report on this very subject for one of my grad school classes. This was a great summary of the information out there – really great article (and very accurate, I may add). My report focused more on whether reproductive health was affected by cell phone radiation. Of course, there was controversy, but, I do remember finding out that carrying a cell phone in your pant pocket (if you are a male) reduces sperm mobility. Studies also found some not-so-good affects on metabolism. So I think precaution with cell phone use is a smart move.

    I have been using speaker phone, reducing my time on the phone, and keeping it switched off as much as possible as a preventative measure (just in case). Not only is this smart health-wise, but I think socially, it keeps us more engaged with the people we are with in the moment.

  3. Shira Nahari says:

    I Am not impressed with the sources used. Is that really the best your researcher could do? Newspapers, Big Cancer Business groups? Where are the EXPERTS? (Dr. Jon Mercola, brain specialists like Dr. Daniel Amen,. etc.)
    I have an archive full of reliable, non-vested-interest sources that paint a very different picture.
    And to advise people to use any kind of a head set but a bluetube shielded wire is just plain irresponsible.
    Kev, I would prefer you stick to topics in your expertise. IMHO an article like this can do damage.

    • Jane says:

      It’s a joke that you list those people as “experts” (btw, it is Joseph Mercola, not Jon). If you are going to say something negative, please do your research and give a solid, factually based rebuttal.

  4. lizzy says:

    Yeah, I also thought this article was weird coming from your site, very confusing, the resources don’t seem to me to be the ones, I normally trust.

  5. Jennifer says:

    I knew a guy who got a cancerous tumor on his back at the exact spot where he clipped his cell phone to his belt. Coincidene? I think not… When I got a cell phone I researched exg.org’s site & found the phone with the lowest radiation levels & got one of those.

  6. Ursula says:

    Are wi fi devices less harmful than cellphones?

  7. Lilija says:

    Why weird coming from this site? Renegade Health is about healthy lifestyle, not only nutrition.

  8. kt mm says:

    I think that the point of your article is to err on the side of caution. I do wonder about the affects of blue tooth wireless in my car and the hands free headsets. It’s the same concept, they work on radio frequencies, right?

  9. Deloris says:

    While I agree this isn’t your usual topic of discussion, why not delve into other areas? There is much we need to look at and think about while trying to keep healthy and age well. If anyone is interested in Dr. Mercola’s stance, one need only to go to his site to look for that info. 🙂 I thought this was well-written, and erring (sorry if I spelled that wrong) on the side of caution is always a good idea, especially since we live less and less in a world where cell phones are optional. Many people are required to have one at work, and a personal one too. I have a lawyer friend who has the company cell phone, (on at all times) and her Blackberry (also on at all times) her laptop goes almost everywhere she does and she has a PC in her office. These are what she needs for work, so limiting her exposure is her only option, not eliminating.

    Happy Friday to you all.

    🙂

  10. maya sendall says:

    Here in UK I have twice read on the front page of at least 2 national newspapers, that cell phones, particularly certain makes, have been proven to damage the DNA of children who use them.Most of the children/young adults who use cell phones (which is most children and young adults) are on them CONSTANTLY too. What has become of the research behind those previously unequivocal reports which appeared as front page news? Surely, if that was false information, the phone manufacturers would have at least demanded a retraction if not damages ?

  11. Noor says:

    All very inconclusive, but we need to check who was paying for the research such as it is, and how was it conducted. I have more interest in the Cell phone base stations and the risks involved for those living nearby, and here that probably means all of us in Urban residences. What do you guys think?

  12. Patty Niskey says:

    Thank you Kevin for all this compilation of information. You did a beautiful job! Cell phone dangers and protocols and precautions are not talked about enough. We just love using them. I think it was fantastic to bring this article to your blog to continue to increase awareness of the information that is out there. It is up to the individual to peruse further information. Articles like this can inspire your readers to do just that. Good job! 🙂

  13. I noticed that the article above does not reference the well-researched book “Disconnect” by Dr. Devra Davis. Dr. Davis uncovers some of the ‘junk’ science that detracts from the horrible side-effects of unsafe cell phone use. She simply wants the cell phone industry to wake up and make their products safer!

  14. Donny says:

    According to the FCC, “Recent reports by some health and safety interest groups have suggested that wireless device use can be linked to cancer and other illnesses. These questions have become more pressing as more and younger people are using the devices, and for longer periods of time.”

    They now recommend the following steps:

    Use an earpiece or headset
    If possible, keep wireless devices away from your body when they are on, mainly by not attaching them to belts or carrying them in pockets
    Use the cell phone speaker to reduce exposure to your head
    Consider texting rather than talking
    Buy a wireless device with lower Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/27/fcc-now-recommends-precautions-for-cell-phone-use.aspx

    People who use cell phones for at least 30 minutes a day over the course of 10 years have a greater risk of developing brain cancer, according to a landmark study from the World Health Organization.

    The chance of developing a malignant tumor is increased by more than a third with prolonged use.

    According to the Times Online:

    “The outcome of the 10-year Interphone study —–the largest of its kind, compiling research from 13 countries — has been eagerly anticipated by both the phone industry, which contributed substantially to its funding, and campaigners who warn of radiation risks from handsets.”

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/06/03/new-large-major-study-links-cell-phones-to-brain-cancer.aspx

    Thanks to a multimillion-dollar research study funded by none other than the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA), which certainly didn’t set out to uncover these results, we now have proof of:

    A significant increase in cell phone users’ risk of brain tumors at the brain’s outer edge, on whichever side the cell phone was held most often.
    A 60 percent greater chance of acoustic neuromas, a tumor affecting the nerve that controls hearing, among people who had used cell phones for six years or more.
    A higher rate of brain cancer deaths among handheld mobile phone users than among car phone users (car phones are mounted on the dashboard rather than held next to your head)
    In addition to this research, a review of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies published in the journal Surgical Neurology revealed that using a cell phone for 10 or more years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.

    Australia has seen an increase in pediatric brain cancers of 21 percent in just one decade. This is consistent with studies showing a 40 percent brain tumor increase across the board in Europe and the U.K. over the last 20 years.

    Brain cancer has now surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/02/04/cell-phones-are-the-cigarettes-of-the-21st-century.aspx

    Constant interference with our natural energy fields from external sources of EMFs can eventually damage our own fields resulting in many physiological imbalances, most notable the hardening of the cell membrane. When this happens, waste products can’t get out and nutrients can’t get in. This leads to free radical damage that alters the DNA and causes cell mutation. Such serious imbalances will also adversely impact hormone production and neurological processes.

    This massive infusion of artificial energy overwhelms the system and leads to more rapid aging, elevated blood glucose levels, elevated lipid levels, high blood pressure, increased neuro-regulatory disturbances, and compromises the central nervous, cardiovascular and immune systems.

    http://www.nutriculamagazine.com/hormones-breast-cancer-and-cell-phones/

    and this is just a drop in the bucket, theres thousands of studies about how bad cell phones are for you!
    my mom used to get head aches by just talking on the phone for 3 minutes, that wouldn’t go away for 3 days! or longer, and that was a home wireless phone, but also happened on the cell.But I do disagree with many of these studies for only one reason, they suggest we wear headphones/ ear buds, how is this even going to help, all this is doing is channeling the radiation more directly into your head, the only safe earphones/ head phones are blue tube head phones.

  15. I was diagnosed in July 2012 with a gliomastoma right above my right ear. Without a doubt in my mind I believe it was caused by essessive use of a cell phone. Since I am right handed I always put the phone up to my right ear. I was in perfect health and there is no cancer in my family other than my Grandmother who was diagnosed with breast cancer at 76. Considering my life style I can’t come up with any other cause. Is it coincidence or fact that I would develop a tumor right above my right ear and that’s where I put my cell phone.

  16. Eve says:

    I probably don’t have the luxury of another comment, but having researched the biological effects of electromagnetic field for over 15 years, especially radio frequency/microwaves radiation on the body (wireless) I must respond to another hype of the scientific community that laymen scientists like to parrot. That is the distinction between ionizing and nonionizing radiation. Please, please look at a Spectrum Chart and then use common sense to tell me how you can draw some arbitrary line in the sand to say one frequency breaks DNA and suddenly you pass this magical frequency line and our DNA is suddenly as safe as apple pie. Once again the untrained media does a dumb down act on the American public. I suggest you start by reading the American Academy of Environmental Physicians position on RF/microwave effects on the body and its explanation of Wave physics before you make your final analysis.
    http://aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.html
    I would be happy to provide you lots more 1st hand research and analysis, especially on DNA, so you learn to present the RF/microwave scientific facts in a trully unbiased fashion.

  17. Sharon says:

    Actually some of the information you have given is incorrect. There are many studies which show that prolonged exposure to nn-ionizing radiation can cause damage to DNA. I refer you to studies by Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington and Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University. Their theory, which has been substantiated in recent studies, is that the modulation (pulsing) of RF from wireless devices such as cell phones, WiFi and smart meters stresses the cells, leading to all sorts of damage including cell wall leakage. ‘
    Don’t concentrate on cancer as the only biological problem caused by microwave radiation. Others include reduced sperm count, neurological problems, and electrosensitivity, for example. This is not natural radiation like that from the sun, to which all life evolved. This manmade radiation is completely different and the exposure to it is increasing exponentially. We can no longer escape it by hiding in our homes or turning it off (e.g. sun goes down at night). The radiation from most of the devices is being emitted 24/7. As Dr. Leif Salford of Karolinksa Institute in Sweden said, this is the great biological experiment in the history of mankind, and our children will pay dearly for it.

  18. Nurse Jon says:

    Of all the things that can harm us, the numbers of brain cancer per capita numbers says a lot. In my research, the flat numbers when compared to population growth, looked to be a decrease. Of course, this does not really make any sense as our society is getting more and more toxic. So for now, I am not worried about them.

    Don’t get me wrong. I believe there are numerous health hazards all around.

    The best prevention for cell phone causing brain cancer in us, other than suggested above is to boost the very thing that helps us fight radiation and cancer in our bodies, glutathione. Since we poorly absorb it, the best way to get it is through the cofactors. These can be readily had through a 50% raw food diet.

    So, if in 30 years from now there is a massive outbreak of brain cancers, at least it will not be among those of us who took precautions of simply eating smarter.

    When researching this for my website, one thing that all agreed on…children should not be exposed to cell phones, regardless of which side of the issue studies fell on.

  19. Devi says:

    In understand that cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation, but why then does my cell phone become too hot to even hold? This is a basic observation. I also remember (hopefully correctly) that when you are on a boat not to stand next to the antenna for fear of shock. If the sun can cause damage in 20 minutes or less why would the cell phone be much different? Not sure- just observations. It would seem safer not to use blue tooth and use ear phones instead- that way the interaction between the receiver and transmitter would be farther away from your body—also another observation.

  20. Anne says:

    When are people going to start understanding that electromagnetic energy is all around us, all the time. If it generates heat, it generates electromagnetic energy. Just remember that. Using a cell phone or a land phone poses the same non-risk. So does using a computer or a radio or watching television or walking outside in the sunshine. Why is nobody worried about any of these things? Also, to the person whose phone is too hot, time for a new one. There is something wrong with it.

  21. Dennis Blair says:

    As with anything else, moderation is the way to go. I don’t use my cell phone all the time. I keep my siscussions to a minimum and utilize texts often.

  22. Phil says:

    It all comes doen to who is funding the research.

    Sure that no compnay will pay for research to make them look bad and have a product or service that can harm the end user.
    Like back in the day, their where adverts of doctors smoking and we all where told that it was good for you.
    Drinking soda was fine and the list goes on an on…
    Wonder who was funding that research?

    Bottom line, anything that is un-natrual, then it is not going to be good for you in the long run.
    Forget what all the scientists, FDA, bla bla have to say, they all need to validate things where they can make money. Think of this….they only make money on the sick. I’m sure they will spend loads more money trying to find a cure for cancer, which they will never find it, as if they do, they will make no money.
    They will put this so called cure in a form of a tablet that will cost the earth. Most probaly it will be B17, synthetically produced of course as it is cheaper.
    Did you know that B17 comes right out the pip of an apricot. That is right out the bible.
    went off track…..
    Follow your own intuiton and move on.

    Well, here is a simple way too look at anything.
    If if comes out of a box, it will put you in a box !!

  23. Shan says:

    Well this article seems to think that numbers of credible
    studies make a difference so thought I would give you this to think
    about The US Naval Medical Research Institute and their 2000
    studies showing biological effects from radiofrequency radiation
    REPORT Dr. Zorach Glaser, PhD of the US Navy. US GOVERNMENT REPORTS
    a sampling of biological effects from low-level microwave
    radiation. (US Naval Research Institute) covering more than 2200
    studies, which link weak wireless signals (microwave radiation) to
    more than 122 biological effects. 1953 – 1971 Entitled
    “Bibliography Of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) And
    Clinical Manifestations Attributed To Microwave And Radio-Frequency
    Radiation”, this is a very large (11 MB .pdf) document listing a
    huge repository of studies and papers demonstrating strong evidence
    of the biological impact of radiofrequency electromagnetic
    radiation. The abstract reads as follows: More than 2000 references
    on the biological responses to radiofrequency and microwave
    radiation, published up to June 1971, are included in the
    bibliography. Particular attention has been paid to the effects on
    man of non-ionizing radiation at these frequencies. The citations
    are arranged alphabetically by author, and contain as much
    information as possible so as to assure effective retrieval of the
    original documents. An outline of the effects whicb have been
    attributed to radio frequency and microwave radiation is also part
    of the report.
    http://archive.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20091016_naval_studies.pdf
    This following url just shows a webpage which lists the biological
    effects from the above report by Zory/US Navy Biological Impacts US
    GOVERNMENT REPORTS a sampling of biological effects from low-level
    microwave radiation. (US Naval Research Institute): lists 122
    different biological effects – from the above report by
    http://www.justproveit.net/content/biological-impacts A Very
    Important Symposium! Biological Effects and Health Implications of
    Microwave Radiation 1970 Click here
    http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Biological_Effects_and_Health_Implications_of_Microwave_Radiation.pdf
    to download document as a searchable pdf (7.1 MB). This was a very
    important symposium with more than 30 additional papers presented.
    The panel discussions alone are illuminating.
    http://www.magdahavas.com/2011/02/23/pick-of-the-week-22-a-very-important-symposium/
    And for more recent studies – and I mean as in plural – I would
    give you a breakdown or what is available from the BioInitiative
    Report 2007 [2,000 peer-previewed studies] or the 2012 report
    [1,800 quality studies]. Now I personally prefer the 2007 report
    however it really depends what you are looking for — I just find
    that the chapters in the 2007 report issues that concern me more —
    plus the 2012 report studies are the ones from 2007 to 2012 so it
    is right up to date plus the recommendations are based on the most
    recent studies. However it seems that the 2007 report has moved to
    make way for the 2012 report, so I need to find if the previous
    report is still available on the internet. There are many many
    studies that are amazingly well done but I can’t list them all
    here. The ones that show that the frequencies are more toxic when
    they interact with chemicals too is worth knowing about too
    Juuilainen et al., (2006) reported that the combined effects of
    toxic agents and ELF magnetic fields together enhances damage as
    compared to the toxic exposure alone. In a meta-analysis of 65
    studies; overall results showed 91% of the in vivo studies and 68%
    of the in vitro studies had worse outcomes (were positive for
    changes indicating synergistic damage) with ELF exposure in
    combination with toxic agents. The percentage of the 65 studies
    with positive effects was highest when the EMF exposure preceded
    the other exposure. The radical pair mechanism (oxidative damage
    due to free radicals) is cited as a good candidate to explain these
    results. Reconsideration of exposure limits for ELF is warranted
    based on this evidence Microwaves Imitate Pesticides By Lucinda
    Grant 1997 The importance of this enzyme effect in producing
    ES-type symptoms from chemicals and from chronic, low-level EMF
    exposures leads to a mechanism of action for explaining many
    EMF-related health effects by using conventional medical and
    scientific knowledge of poisons. That radiation exposure at
    non-thermal, non-ionizing doses can produce the same effect as
    chemical poisons such as organophosphate pesticides provides sound
    evidence for a radiation poisoning effect. It also may explain why
    some MCS patients become ES, too, and why some ES patients also
    become MCS. The agents are different (chemical versus physical),
    but the effect is the same – inhibiting cholinesterase.- Symptoms
    of organophosphate poisoning include nausea, muscle weakness,
    memory and concentration problems,chest pain, breathing difficulty,
    headache, blurred vision, increased sweating, etc.2.5.7 A recent ES
    survey reported the five most common ES symptoms as: • confusion,
    poor concentration, and/or memory loss • skin itch, rash, flushing,
    burning and/or tingling • fatigue, weakness • headache • chest pain
    or heart problems.” Of these five symptoms, all except the skin
    problems match the symptoms of cholinesterase inhibition from
    organophosphate pesticide poisoning. *[Same results re
    cholinesterase P 93 “Biological Effects and Health Implications of
    Microwave Radiation” 1969 at A Very Important Symposium ]
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29418176/Microwaves-Imitate-Pesticides
    http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-f03issue.pdf EMFs and
    Chemicals Together Increase Brain Cancer Risk Combined exposures to
    extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMFs) and
    certain types of toxic chemicals can act synergistically to
    increase brain cancer risks, according to a new study of Swedish
    workers led by Dr. Marina Pollán of Spain’s National Center for
    Epidemiology in Madrid. But, interestingly, this finding holds only
    for gliomas tumors that develop in the glial cells, or supportive
    tissue, of the brain and not for meningiomas, which grow in the
    membrane that surrounds the brain. While gliomas are malignant,
    meningiomas are usually benign, “Our study is the first to try to
    assess a possible interactive effect -that is, whether the effects
    of ELF EMFs vary when workers are also exposed to chemicals,”
    Pollán told Microwave News. Pollán’s team, which includes Dr.
    Birgitta Floderus of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm,
    analyzed cancer incidence among Swedish men who had held jobs
    between 1970 and 1989 — a cohort of more than 1.5 million. Their
    results appear in the December 2002 issue of Cancer Epidemiology,
    Biomarkers & Prevention (11, pp.1678-1683). In jobs likely
    to entail exposure to solvents, the glioma risk was more than 50%
    higher among those also exposed to EMFs above 2 mG. For men exposed
    to pesticides or herbicides, the risk was approximately doubled
    when combined with similar ELF EMF exposures, and for lead the
    combined risk was nearly four times greater. All three associations
    are statistically significant. There was a trend of increasing risk
    with higher EMF exposure for both pesticides/herbicides and lead.
    The association for lead is based on only a handful of cases. No
    increase in the risk of glioma or meningioma was seen for EMF
    exposures in the absence of chemical agents. Although very few
    epidemiological studies have looked for synergies between EMFs and
    other agents linked to cancer, Pollán points out that such a
    combined analysis makes sense because **there is consensus** that
    if EMFs do play a role in cancer, they act as a promoter, requiring
    the presence of initiators such as chemical carcinogens. Others,
    for instance, Dr. Susan Preston-Martin of the University of
    Southern California, have previously reported higher risks for
    gliomas than for meningiomas among those exposed to EMFs (see MWN,
    M/A90). And in a 1996 meta-analysis of brain tumors among
    EMF-exposed workers, Dr. Leeka Kheifets, then at EPRI and now at
    the WHO in Geneva, found that the risk increased about 25% when the
    analysis was narrowed from all brain tumors to only gliomas (see
    MWN, J/F96). “You see a clearer picture when you exclude the
    non-gliomas,” said Dr. Samuel Milham, an epidemiologist and
    consultant based in Olympia, WA. “It’s basic epidemiology that
    you’re better off not lumping different types of tumors together if
    there are differences in etiology.” Dr. David Savitz of the
    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who in recent years has
    expressed a great deal of skepticism over the value for continuing
    to do EMF epidemiological studies (see p.14 and MWN, M/J01 and
    S/O01), agreed that distinguishing among cancer types “is a very
    logical thing to do when you have the data to do it.” But he noted
    that the link between brain cancer and chemicals “is just as murky”
    as the link with EMFs. “How promising is it to put together two
    murky areas of research?” he wondered in an interview. In his own
    study of workers at five electric utilities, Savitz was unable to
    look at specific types of brain cancer because he used death
    certificates that lacked such information (see MWN, J/F95).
    MICROWAVE NEWS January/February 2003 Interactive Effect of Chemical
    Substances and Occupational Electromagnetic Field Exposure on the
    Risk of Gliomas and Meningiomas in Swedish Men Ana Navas-Acién,
    Marina Pollán, Per Gustavsson, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
    Prev 2002;11:1678-1683 ABSTRACT:
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/12/1678 Can read full study
    here but I don’t know how to download it today
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/12/1678.full.pdf+html
    BioInitiative Report 2012 WHERE ; WHAT IS IT ; WHAT IT COVERS ;WHAT
    IS NEW *The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29
    authors from ten countries*, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21
    PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former
    presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full
    members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the
    Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a
    Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. Full titles
    and affiliations of authors is in Section 25 – List of Participants
    http://www.bioinitiative.org/media/spread-the-word/
    http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport_PressResources.pdf
    BioInitiative Report 2012 Table of Contents
    http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ SECTION PREFACE
    Preface 2007 Preface 2012 SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of
    Contents 2007 Table of Contents 2012 SECTION 1: SUMMARY FOR THE
    PUBLIC AND CONCLUSIONS 2007 Report: Summary for the Public (Table
    1-1 Conclusions)- Ms. Sage 2012 Supplement: Summary for the Public
    – Ms. Sage Table 1-1 – Conclusions 2012 Table 1-2 Reported
    Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity
    Exposure 2012 SECTION 2: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Statement of the
    Problem – Ms. Sage SECTION 3: THE EXISTING PUBLIC EXPOSURE
    STANDARDS The Existing Public Exposure Standards – Ms. Sage SECTION
    4: EVIDENCE FOR INADEQUACY OF THE STANDARDS 2012: Evidence for
    Inadequacy of the Standards – Ms. Sage SECTION 5: EVIDENCE FOR
    EFFECTS ON GENE AND PROTEIN EXPRESSION 2007: Evidence for Effects
    on Gene and Protein Expression -Dr. Xu and Dr. Chen 2007-2012
    Supplement: EMF Transcriptomics & Proteomics Research – Dr.
    Fragopoulou & Dr. Margaritis SECTION 6: EVIDENCE FOR
    GENOTOXIC EFFECTS – RFR AND ELF DNA DAMAGE 2007: Evidence for
    Genotoxic Effects – Dr. Lai 2012 Supplement: Genetic Effects of
    Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields – Dr. Lai SECTION 7: EVIDENCE
    FOR STRESS RESPONSE (STRESS PROTEINS) 2007: Evidence for Stress
    Response (Stress Proteins) – Dr. Blank 2012 Supplement: Evidence
    for Stress Response: EMF-DNA Interaction – Dr. Blank SECTION 8:
    EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON IMMUNE FUNCTION 2007: Evidence for Effects
    on Immune Function -Dr. Johansson 2012 Supplement: Immune System
    and EMF-RF – Dr. Grigoriev SECTION 9: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON
    NEUROLOGY AND BEHAVIOR 2007: Evidence for Effects on Neurology and
    Behavior – Dr. Lai 2012 Supplement: Evidence for Effects on
    Neurology – Dr. Lai SECTION 10:EFFECTS OF EMF FROM WIRELESS
    COMMUNICATION UPON THE BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER 2012 New Chapter – Dr.
    Salford, Dr. Nittby and Dr. Persson SECTION 11: EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN
    TUMORS AND ACOUSTIC NEUROMAS 2007 Report: Evidence for Brain Tumors
    & Acoustic Neuromas – Dr. Hardell, Dr. Hansson Mild
    & Dr. Kundi 2012 Supplement – Dr. Hardell, Dr. Hansson
    Mild, Mr. Carlberg Use of Wireless Phones and Evidence for
    Increased Risk of Brain Tumors 2012 Supplement – Dr. Kundi Evidence
    for Brain Tumors (Epidemiological) SECTION 12: EVIDENCE FOR
    CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA) 2012 Replacement chapter: Evidence for
    Childhood Cancers (Leukemia) – Dr. Kundi SECTION 13: EVIDENCE FOR
    EFFECTS ON MELATONIN:ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE & BREAST CANCER
    2012 Replacement chapter: Melatonin Production – Alzheimer’s
    Disease and Breast Cancer – Dr. Davanipour and Dr. Sobel (changes
    are in red) SECTION 14: EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCER PROMOTION 2007
    Report: Evidence for Breast Cancer Promotion – Ms. Sage (Melatonin
    links in laboratory and cell studies) SECTION 15: EVIDENCE FOR
    DISRUPTION BY THE MODULATING SIGNAL 2007 Report: Evidence for
    Disruption by the Modulating Signal- Dr. Blackman 2012 Supplement:
    Role of Physical and Biological Variables in Bioeffects of Non-
    Thermal Microwaves for Reproducibility, Cancer Risk Assessment and
    Safety Standards by Dr. Belyaev SECTION 16: PLAUSIBLE GENETIC AND
    METABOLIC MECHANISMS FOR BIOEFFECTS OF VERY WEAK ELF MAGNETIC
    FIELDS ON LIVING TISSUE 2012 New Chapter: Plausible Genetic and
    Metabolic Mechanisms for Bioeffects of Very Weak ELF Magnetic
    Fields on Living Tissue – Dr. Heroux and Dr. Ying Li SECTION 17
    EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF MEDICAL THERAPEUTICS 2007 Report: Evidence
    based on EMF Medical Therapeutics by Ms. Sage 2012 Supplement:
    Electromagnetic Medicine: Non-Inductive, Non-Thermal Modalities by
    Dr. Liboff SECTION 18: FERTILITY AND REPRODUCTION EFFECTS OF EMF
    2012 New Chapter: Fertility and Reproduction Effects on EMF – Dr.
    Behari and Dr. Paulraj Rajamani SECTION 19: FETAL AND NEONATAL
    EFFECTS OF EMF 2012 New Chapter: Fetal and Neonatal Effects on EMF
    – Dr. Bellieni and Dr. Pinto SECTION 20: FINDINGS IN AUTISM
    CONSISTENT WITH EMF AND RFR 2012 New Chapter – Dr. Herbert and Ms.
    Sage SECTION 21: MOBILE PHONE BASE STATIONS: WELL-BEING AND HEALTH
    [not available yet — Dr. Kundi] SECTION 22:PRECAUTION IN
    ACTION-GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH EXAMPLES SINCE BIOINITIATIVE 2007 2012
    New Chapter:Precaution in Action – Global Public Health Examples
    since Bioinitiative 2007 – Dr. Oberfeld SECTION 23: THE
    PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE SECTION 24: KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND
    PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 2007 Report: -Dr. Carpenter
    and Ms. Sage 2012 Supplement – Ms. Sage and Dr. Carpenter [includes
    info smart meters]
    http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec24_2012_Key_Scientific_Studies.pdf
    SECTION 25: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND AFFILIATIONS List of
    Participants SECTION 26: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
    SECTION 27: APPENDIX SECTION 28: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    Comments are closed for this post.