From 2006 to 2014 the EPA website on wireless technology text stated:
“Wireless technology is still relatively new, and world-wide, researchers continue to study the effects of long-term exposure. To date, the scientific evidence linking long-term use of cell phones to cancer or other health effects is not conclusive. More research is needed to clarify the question of safety. “
See the 2006 to 2014 EPA website here.
See PDF of the 2006 though 2014 EPA Website on wireless Radiation here
Then from 2014 to 2019 the EPA Webpage was changed to say…..
“Some people are concerned about potential health effects, especially on the developing brains and bodies of children. Some studies suggest that heavy long-term use of cellphones could have health effects. Other studies don’t find any health effects from cellphone use. Long-term studies on animals exposed to the RF found in wireless networks (Wi-Fi) have, so far, found no health effects. Scientists continue to study the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of RF.”
“Scientists continue to study the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of RF. If you are concerned, you can take these simple steps to reduce exposure to RF radiation:
Then in 2019, the EPA website pages were completely redone and the end result is a complete whitewash. A downplaying of all health issues. There is no mention of the National Toxicology Program study nor the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer classification of radiofrequency as a Class 2B carcinogen.
Instead all the post 2019 EPA webpages refer to the FCC, the Industry tied EMF Project of the WHO and outdated resoureces from industry consultants.
New EPA Website pages updated in 2019.
EHT wrote a letter in April 2020 asking the following questions:
1.Why doesn’t the EPA clarify on their website that they have not done a review of the health or environmental impacts?
2.Why doesn’t the EPA clarify that the current FCC regulations are not based on a review of impacts to birds, bees and trees? This seems to be quite important clarification as FCC limits are not applicable to wildlife, birds, bees and trees?
See the page missing this https://www.epa.gov/radiation/where-can-i-find-information-about-cell-phone-safety-concerns which does not mention this
3.Why doesn’t the EPA websites link to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences website and to the National Toxicology Program webpage on cell phone radiation, both of which host information on the cell phone radiation studies? Does the EPA not link to these websites for a reason?
As you are aware, the National Toxicology Program (NTP)/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) released their final reports on their $30 million animal study on long-term exposure to wireless radiofrequency electromagnetic (RF-EMF) radiation. They found “clear evidence of carcinogenicity due to the increased malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats. In addition, the study found statistically significant increases in DNA damage, heart damage, malignant glioma tumors of the brain. The NTP was nominated to perform these carefully controlled large scale animal studies to provide information on health effects from long term exposures. All exposures were at non heating, non thermal levels and yet increased tumors were found, thus the NTP studies provide documentation of a carcinogenic effect at non thermal levels. Similarly, studies by the Ramazzini Institute of RF-EMF at levels below FCC limits found increases in malignant schwannomas of the heart in exposed rats, corroborating the NTP results (Falcioni, 2018).
Importantly, these animal study findings corroborate published case-control studies in humans which found increases in tumors of the same types—schwannomas and gliomas in people who use cell phones. Several scientists have concluded that there is now sufficient evidence to classify RF-EMF as a human carcinogen (Hardell and Carlberg, 2017, Miller et al., 2018). In addition, a recently published study that finds the ANFR cell phone tests of the French government indicate cell phone radiation can exceed limits up to 11 times when tested in accordance with FCC standards in positions mimicking a phone touching the body. Two published research reviews are calling for caution with 5G as it is “a new form of environmental pollution” which “will contribute to a negative public health outcome” (Di Ciaula 2018, Russell 2018).
Is the EPA aware that the Health Physics Society factsheet posted on their site is from 2010? Why did the EPA choose this factsheet to reference?
The EPA page https://www.epa.gov/radtown/non-ionizing-radiation-wireless-technology directly links to an outdated factsheet written by an individual known to be an industry consultant. Review his papers to see that he has repeatedly written papers funded by wireless companies. Perhaps most importantly, this is a well outdated page so I am interested as to how it was chosen.
Both magnetic field (2002) and radiofrequency radiation (2011) were classified, as a Group 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Since that date, the published peer-reviewed scientific evidence has significantly increased, clearly showing these types of electromagnetic radiation have adverse effects at emissions levels governments currently allow
Lastly, the EPA website text itself has inaccurate information. For example it states that there are not replication studies showing harm when in fact there are replication studies such as a study out of Jacobs University that found a tumor promotion effect Lerchl 2015 and the study out of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute that found memory impairments in teenagers (Foerster 2018). Equally important, the webpage on powerlines was edited to now state that the research has not been repeated when in fact the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia has been repeatedly replicated, so much so that several countries limit new buildings on area with magnetic fields over 3 to 4 milligauss and/or within 50 feet of high voltage power lines.
Appendix I: Documentation of inaccurate and misleading information on the EPA website
False/Misleading #1 “ While some studies have shown a correlation between the occurrence of certain adverse health effects and long-term use, a definitive cause and effect relationship has not been established.” (Found in Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)
Fact: The US National Toxicology Program studies on radiofrequency radiation found increased cancers and their conclusions in regards to the confidence of the association were as follows:
False/Misleading statement #2 “Most studies haven’t found any health effects from cell phone use.” (Found in Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)
This statement is made based on no references. In fact, several reviews have found that the majority of research studies have found an effect. For example,
Priyanka Bandara, David O Carpenter, Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact, The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 2, Issue 12, 2018, Pages e512-e514,ISSN 2542-5196, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3.
Cucurachi, C., et al. “A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).” Environment International, vol. 51, 2013, pp. 116–40.
Yakymenko, Igor, et al. “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 35, no. 2, 2016, pp. 186-202.
Anthony B. Miller, L. Lloyd Morgan, Iris Udasin and Devra Lee Davis. “Cancer Epidemiology Update, following the 2011 IARC Evaluation of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (Monograph 102)” Environmental Research, September 6, 2018.
Pall M., Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health, Environmental Research Volume 164, July 2018, Pages 405-416
There are more studies found in the attached list.
False/Misleading statement #3 “A few studies have connected RF and health effects, but scientists have not been able to repeat the outcomes. This means that they are inconclusive.” (Found in Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)
“Few” is an inaccurate description of the amount of studies showing adverse effects.
First, the adjective “few” to describe studies is inaccurate as shown by the research cited earlier such as Bandara 2018 published in The Lancet which states, “A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.”
.
Second, there are replication studies with radiofrequency radiation and with other non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation frequencies that have found adverse effects.
Please see these examples:
https://ehtrust.org/the-epa-website-changes-emf-safety-issues-removed/ Source: Environmental Health Trust
APR 27, 2024 By Helena Hjalmarsson, M.A., C.S.W., L.P., Special to The Kennedy Beacon “The cost…
On April 15, 2024 a team affiliated with the National Institute for Science, Law and…
According to Star News group, “With tensions rising over Verizon’s plan to install 20, 30-foot…
Link to submissions: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/64593/individual-sensitivity-to-wireless-radiation For additional details see also: ‘Research Topic’ on individual sensitivity to…
EHT Blasts FCC Timing in Disclosing Cellphone RF Exposure Test Results Paul Kirby, TR Daily,…
The formal announcement will appear on journal website on April 30, 2024. ******************** Journal: Frontiers…