“Bioelectromagnetic research reveals clear evidence of joint actions at cell membranes of chemical cancer promoters and environmental electromagnetic fields. The union of these two disciplines has resulted in the first major new approach to tumor formation in 75 years, directing attention to dysfunctions in inward and outward streams of signals at cell membranes, rather than to damage DNA in cell nuclei, and to synergic actions of chemical pollutants and environmental electromagnetic fields.” Dr. William Ross Adey (1990)
Updated 1/20/23
Scientific Literature
It is well established that exposure to magnetic fields increases the risk of childhood leukemia. Exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation is classified as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO as of 2011. Many scientists and physicians who work in the field of EMR feel there is clear evidence of harm from long term, low level exposure to this pulsating and penetrating non-ionizing radiation which warrants an IARC upgrade to a Group 1 Known Carcinogen. Hardell and Carlsberg (2018) and.Dr. Anthony Miller.
The creation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) through the process of oxidation is a known mechanisms of tumorogenesis. In 2005 Peter Storz wrote a seminal paper on this subject, Reactive Oxygen Species in Tumor Progression. In it he states, “The generation of reactive oxygen radicals in mammalian cells profoundly affects numerous critical cellular functions, and the absence of efficient cellular detoxification mechanisms which remove these radicals can result in several human diseases. Growing evidence suggests that reactive oxygen species (ROS) within cells act as second messengers in intracellular signaling cascades which induce and maintain the oncogenic phenotype of cancer cells. ROS are tumorigenic by virtue of their ability to increase cell proliferation, survival, cellular migration, and also by inducing DNA damage leading to genetic lesions that initiate tumorigenicity and sustain subsequent tumor progression.” Reuter in 2010 followed with Oxidative stress, inflammation, and cancer: How are they linked? Saha (2017) with Correlation between Oxidative Stress, Nutrition, and Cancer Initiation. Kuo (2022) with Mitochondrial oxidative stress in the tumor microenvironment and cancer immunoescape: foe or friend? https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-022-00859-2.
Former High level Government Official Provides Robust Scientific Testimony That Cell Phones Likely Cause Brain Tumors
Christopher Portier, PhD., former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and currently a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), provided expert scientific testimony in a long standing cell phone court case, Murray vs Motorola. His 176 page research summary includes gliomas, acoustic neuromas, carcinogenicity studies, initiation and promotion studies, oxidative stress, genotoxicity and co-carcinogenesis. He notes, “The evaluation of whether RF exposure can cause brain tumors in humans requires the review and synthesis of scientific evidence from studies of human populations (epidemiology), animal cancer studies, and studies investigating the mechanisms through which chemicals[exposures] cause cancer.” His report provided 441 references with an additional appendix of 291 of his own published peer reviewed references. Dr. Portier concluded, “In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.”
Expert Witnesses Barred
For years industry attorneys have opposed expert witnesses in the long standing 2001 combined Murray vs Mortorola lawsuit from many individuals who have sued the cell phone manufacturer, claiming their brain tumors were due to cell phone use. Judges cite the ” Daubert” clause distinguishing methodology from conclusion for expert witnesses. Despite his glowing credentials and irrefutable research Mr Portier was rewarded for his diligence and honesty by being barred from being an expert witness. Judge Irving stated in a court motion filed 3/31/21. “[A]llowing Dr. Portier’s testimony four months before the Daubert hearing is scheduled to begin would disrupt the existing schedule and detrimentally affect the orderliness and efficiency of any trial,” Dr. Portier thus was prevented from being an expert witness. The Expert Report testimony to the court by Dr. Christopher Portier can be found here-Expert report Christopher J Portier Murray v Motorola 3-1-2021 or at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1we0YEJslnrmQkr2qzSFnQyqdsTqXbqSd/view
ICNIRP with Intrinsic Bias and Flawed Analysis of RF Risks
A new 2021 article in Reviews of Environmental Health highlights both the intrinsic bias and the flawed basis for safety considerations by ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which continue to ignore and dismiss the large body of scientific evidence of harm from non-thermal levels of RF radiation. The science has only strengthened since 2011 for effects from both near and far filed exposures, mechanistic studies of oxidative harm as well as DNA damage. The authors state, “Of course, these well documented health hazards from RF-EMF are not well accepted by the telecom industry and its allied experts. Several methods are used to create doubt. Studies are discredited, only partly cited, or even not cited at all [84], [85], [86]. Thereby the uniformed reader gets the wrong information on actual risks. This includes also regulatory agencies and policy makers. Even agencies aimed at setting exposure guidelines may include pro-industry and biased scientists that obscure the true risks [87], [, 88]. ICNIRP was founded in 1992 as a private non-governmental (NGO) organization registered in Munich, Germany that “appoints its own members and is closed to transparency.” PDF of Open Access paper
Wireless Radiation and Promotion of Cancer Growth
Researchers looking at sperm cells, nerve cells and in vivo rodent studies have found that low power radio frequency (microwave) electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) from wireless devices can alter DNA, promote cancer growth and act as a co-carcinogen. Dr. W Ross Adey (1988 and 1990) and others in the 1980’s were well aware of the non-thermal, non-linear, molecular nature of toxicity for both non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation but also for chemical interactions that cause cellular membrane alterations, leading to cancer and other chronic diseases. Dr. Adey coined the term “biological windows” to highlight specific modulation, frequency and amplitude resonance effects on biological systems see- “Biological Windows”: A Tribute to W. Ross Adey by Markov (2005) Research since then has confirmed and enriched our knowledge of the mechanisms and pathways of biological harm, including complex membrane calcium channel effects. Both chemicals, which are ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin and non-ionizing radio frequency radiation, which passes through organisms, can broadly affect many organ systems through electrical and molecular pathways. These can thus act separately or synergistically as environmental toxins, broadly affecting human and environmental health.
Lurchi in 2015 found an increase in liver tumors, lung tumors and lymphomas in mice at low to moderate exposure at (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), and well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones. The recent NTP study, the new Falcioni study of 2018 and an older study by Chou in 1992 found scientific evidence of carcinogenicity, demonstrating the reproducibility of this effect. There are variable results for some studies, that are felt to be due to stimulation of feedback and repair mechanisms with exposure to radio frequency radiation. Initially, exposure to RFR stimulates DNA repair mechanisms, however, over longer periods of stimulation biochemical systems are overwhelmed, the DNA damage accumulates and the carcinogenic effect becomes evident.
5G Health Impacts Review -European Parliament
In July 2021 The European Parliament published a comprehensive review of 5G Health Effects. The author, Dr Fiorella Belpoggi, BSC, PhD, International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology Fellow (IATPF), Ramazzini Institute in Italy, looked at 1861 studies on cancer ( 950 human and 911 rodent) and 7886 studies on reproduction. There was evidence of cancer and reproductive harm although in some categories it was limited. Dr. Belpoggi notes, “The literature contains no adequate studies that would rule out the risk that tumours and adverse effects on reproduction and development may occur upon exposure to 5G MMW, or to exclude the possibility of some synergistic interactions between 5G and other frequencies that are already being used. This makes the introduction of 5G fraught with uncertainty concerning both health issues and forecasting and or monitoring the actual exposure of the population: these gaps in knowledge justify the call for a moratorium on MMW of 5G, pending completion of adequate research.”
Oxidation, Membrane Disruption and Melatonin Reduction are Mechanisms of Non Thermal DNA Damage
The argument has been made by many physicists that the energy in non ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is too low to knock an electron out of orbit (ionize) and cause DNA damage as ionizing radiation does from X-Rays or Gamma radiation from nuclear weapons or nuclear energy. It was felt radio frequency radiation damaged tissue only through a heating or burning mechanism. That assumption has been challenged for decades and science now has clarified this issue.
We are now learning that microwave radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices acts as an environmental stressor with direct oxidative toxic effects on cellular processes that are not related to heat or ionization. This oxidative stress causes inflammation and damages DNA, proteins and lipids. The effect of radiofrequency RFR is indirect, inducing biochemical changes in cellular structures and their membranes. Guiliani and Soffritti 2010; Pall 2013; Shckorbatov 2014; Yakymenko 2016; Havas 2017; BioInitiative Report Lai 2020. RFR can cause membrane disruption interactions through calcium channels, reactive oxygen species (ROS), indirectly via melatonin reduction through screen time or other direct or indirect mechanisms which promote cellular proliferation, angiogenesis and cancer. These can cause harmful epigenetic changes in DNA and mRNA, as well as alterations of potentially cancer causing stem cells. As noted previously, chemical and heavy metal exposures work in similar non-thermal pathways of harm.
Peter Storz (2005) professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School in his landmark paper, “Reactive Oxygen Species in Tumor Progression” notes, “ROS are implicated in tumor induction mediated by phorbol esters, organic peroxides, heavy metals, asbestos, cigarette smoke and silica (4). In cancer cells, oxidative stress has been linked to the regulation of numerous cellular processes including DNA damage, proliferation, cellular adhesion and migration and the regulation of cell survival or death (5). The paper discusses non specific actions that cause mutations but also activation of intracellular signaling cascades that contribute to tumor development and metastasis. Research since then has only strengthened and confirmed this phenomenon.
Although many physicists argue vehemently that there could not be a biologically toxic effect from electromagnetic radiation, their own publications now explain the non thermal but damaging effects of dielectric permittivity and radical pair mechanisms. Hinrikus 2018: Neilson 2019 Henshaw 2020
Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation
Dr. Anthony Miller published a comprehensive review of RF health effects in 2019 titled Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. With regards to some researchers finding no carcinogenicity in their review he states, ” in grading the evidence, these authors failed to consider baseline DNA status or the fact that genotoxicity has been poorly predicted using tissue culture studies (36). As well funding, a strong source of bias in this field of enquiry, was not considered (37).”
He points to other challenges of performing adequate research on health effects
- There are rapid changes in technology every year thus research in health effects is always behind
- Complex mixes of wavelengths and frequencies is not considered
- Epidemiological studies must have a large number of participants with similar and known exposures
The authors conclude, “a lack of epidemiological evidence does not necessarily indicate an absence of effect, but rather an inability to study an exposure for the length of time necessary, with an adequate sample size and unexposed comparators, to draw clear conclusions. For example, no case-control study has been published on fourth generation (4G; 2–8 GHz) Long-term Evolution (LTE) modulation, even though the modulation was introduced in 2010 and achieved a 39% market share worldwide by 2018 (71).”
Occupational and Military Exposure to RFR and Cancer
A thorough 2018 review of studies by Peleg et al (2018), looking at occupational exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and hematolymphatic (HL) cancers (leukemia, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma and plasma cell tumors) consistently revealed a highly elevated risk of cancer in military and electrical workers exposed to RF. The Israeli study looked at studies from Poland, Belgium, as well as Israel. Overall, hematolymphatic cancers were found in 40% of patients with 23% expected. A small study of employees exposed to RF in the Israeli defense industry showed a 60% frequency of hematolymphatic cancers vs 17% expected. Peleg notes, “Overall, the epidemiological studies on excess risk for HL and other cancers together with brain tumors in cellphone users and experimental studies on RFR and carcinogenicity make a coherent case for a cause-effect relationship and classifying RFR exposure as a human carcinogen (IARC group 1).”
Stem Cell Effects from RFR at Levels Far Below Current Safety Standards
Markova (2010) Looked at effects of low power microwaves from mobile phones on human derived stem cells, which are widely dispersed in the body. He found that DNA repair foci in mesenchymal stem were significantly altered at levels 40 times less than current guidelines. He highlighted that mesenchymal stem cells are at higher risk of malignant transformation than differentiated cells. The author concludes,“Because almost all organs and tissues possess stem cells and because stem cells are more active in children, the possible relationship of chronic MW exposure and various types of tumors and leukemia—especially in children—should be investigated.”
Robust Non-Thermal Radio-frequency Scientific Literature Not Considered in Policy
A 2018 research compendium, 5G- Great Risk for EU, US and International Health by Dr. Martin Pall, highlights the threats of current 2G, 3G and 4G technology as well as proposed massive 5G technology rollout. Dr. Pall underscores how the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), states that the evidence is inconsistent with regards to harm from wireless technology. In a careful and well referenced review of the SCENIHR scientific policy documents, however, Dr Pall reveals that significant number of robust peer reviewed scientific articles were not considered in their deliberations.
More long term studies are needed to uncover adverse latent effects prior to any 5G deployment. Regarding current wireless communication safety, government agencies need to examine all the current scientific literature before proclaiming that no conclusions can be drawn. Disregarding science does not serve the public interest, especially as industry is developing and promoting a much more extensive worldwide wireless telecommunications system broadening the use of all frequency bands.
National Toxicology Program Study Reveals “Clear Evidence” of Carcinogenicity
The 10 year $25 million United States National Toxicology Program (NTP) study (2019) which examined cell phone radiation and cancer, confirmed other epidemiological studies showing an elevation of schwannomas of the heart and gliomas in the brain of mice exposed to radio frequency radiation at non-thermal levels. NTP Study Full Report Feb 2, 2018. This was in addition to an increase in lymphoma and cancer of other organs with whole body exposure to this non-ionizing radiation which passes through the body. Genotoxicity was found found in time exposed to low levels as well as higher levels of RFR in another published report by the NTP. Based on this researchers are asking for radio frequency radiation to be upgraded to a classification as a probable (Group 2A) or known (Group 1) carcinogen, See also Scientific Literature and Links on NTP Study on Cancer 2018.
This new research is supported by a similar long term study of effects of cell phone radiation and carcinogenicity in animals from the famed Ramazanni Institute in Italy as well as basic science research and older studies looking at occupational and military exposures.
Dr. Ron Melnick: Critical Comments on NTP Results
The NTP study had had criticism and dismissal of its’ positive results and implications for current FCC safety guidelines. Dr. Ron Melnick, a key scientist in designing the study, published a peer reviewed report in 2019 to address these unfounded criticisms of the design and results of the NTP study. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. He notes, “This study was designed to test the (null) hypothesis that cell phone radiation at non-thermal exposure intensities could not cause adverse health effects, and to provide dose-response data for any detected toxic or carcinogenic effects.” and that the results “clearly demonstrate that the null hypothesis has been disproved.” He concluded that these criticisms were designed to “minimize the utility of the experimental data on RFR for assessing human health risks.” Another important critique by Dr. Melnick is of the ICNIRP response to the NTP study- Comments on ICNIRP by Dr. Ronald Melnick
He lists findings from the report
- Significantly increased incidences and/or trends for gliomas and glial cell hyperplasias in the brain of exposed male rats
- Significantly increased incidences of schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in the heart of exposed male rats
- Significantly increased DNA damage (strand breaks) in the brains of exposed rats and mice,
- Reduced pup birth weights in exposed pregnant dams
- Induction of cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed radio frequency radiation from cell phones and wireless devices as a Group 2B Possible Carcinogen in 2011. Many researchers currently believe that this type of non-ionizing radiation that we are increasing and unknowingly exposed to should be classified as a Group 2A or probable carcinogen or even a class 1 or known carcinogen.
Scientists Push IARC to Classify as Group 1 or 2A Carcinogen
Dr. Annie Sasco, International Agency for Research on Cancer
Dr. Annie Sasco, former IARC Unit Chief and Emeritus Director of Research and Epidemiology on Cancer Prevention, discusses her reasoning for elevating the IARC classification at a symposium in 2017 sponsored by Environmental Health Trust. Dr. Annie Sasco explains why non-ionizing wireless radiation should be upgraded to a Group 2A carcinogen.
Dr. Ann Sasco presents her findings on childhood cancer prevention at the Childhood Cancer Conference in the UK 2012. Session 12 : What Positive Steps Can be Taken to Reduce the Risk of Childhood Cancer? Alliance for Prevention and Precaution for Childhood Cancer Control
Dr. Anthony Miller, Former WHO Advisor: Upgrade RF to Group 1 Carcinogen
Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto Dali Lama School of Public Health, adviser to the World Health Organization and expert on ionizing and non-ionizing radiation feels the listing to be upgraded to a Class 1 Known Carcinogen. Dr. Miller’s research paper, Cancer Epidemiology Update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, published in Environmental Research (Nov 2018), explains the new evidence. In this video he explains his reasoning. Dr. Anthony Miller on IARC Classification of RF EMR
Dr Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg
Well known researchers on brain tumors and cell phone use, Dr. Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg published a thorough examination of the NTP study results in the October 2018 issue of The International Journal of Oncology. They stated , “We conclude that there is clear evidence that RF radiation is a human carcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma). There is some evidence of an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer, and clear evidence that RF radiation is a multi‑site carcinogen. Based on the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, RF radiation should be classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1.” Their 2018 article is here- Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz ,
Bioinitiative Report Update Supports IARC Classification of RF as Group 1 Known Carcinogen
Dr. Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg have reanalyzed the epidemiological studies on brain tumors and RF EMR from cell phone radiation and they also feel it should be a Group 1 Known Carcinogen. His analysis is found in Section 11 of the BioInitiative Report .
Review of Genetic Effects by Dr. Henry Lai
In a 2021 review of the literature, “Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields”, by Dr. Henry Lai, the author found that approximately 70% of the studies showed effects. Dr. Lai quoted a statement by 2 esteemed researchers in the field of Bioelectromagnetics (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020): “The evidence that weak radiofrequency (RF) and low-frequency fields can modify human health is still less strong, but the experiments supporting both conclusions are too numerous to be uniformly written off as a group due to poor technique, poor dosimetry, or lack of blinding in some cases, or other good laboratory practices.” Dr Lai goes on to note, ” It is also a general criticism that most EMF studies cannot be replicated. I think it is a conceptual and factual mis-statement. Replication is also not a necessary and sufficient condition to believe that certain data are true. Scientific studies are hardly replicated. Rational funders do not generally fund replications. All scientists should know that it is very difficult to replicate exactly an experiment carried out by another lab…not many replication experiments have been carried out in EMF genetic-effect research to justify the statement that “data from EMF are not replicable”. In some cases, the experimenters deliberately changed the procedures of an experiment that they were supposed to be replicating and claimed that their experiment was a replication, for example, compare the experimental procedures of Lai and Singh (1995) and Malyapa et al. (1998).
Cancer Trends
A 2018 CDC Report indicates an increase in pediatric cancers from 2001to 2014. They found “cancer was increasing for lymphoma, thyroid, brain, kidney, and liver cancer and was decreasing for melanoma.” CDC 2018 .
Incidence Rates and Trends of Pediatric Cancer — United States, 2001–2014. Abstract
Authors: David Siegel, J. Li, S.J. Henley, R. Wilson, N. Buchanan Lunsford, E. Tai, E.A. Van Dyne
Background: Cancer is one of the leading disease-related causes of death among individuals aged <20 years in the United States. Recent evaluations of national trends of pediatric cancer used data from before 2010, or covered ≤28% of the US population. is study describes incidence rates and trends using the most recent and comprehensive cancer registry data available in the US.
Methods: 2001–2014 data from US Cancer Statistics were used to evaluate cancer incidence rates and trends among individuals aged <20 years. Data were from 48 states and covered 98% of the US population. We assessed trends by calculating average annual percent change (AAPC) using joinpoint regression (maximum of two joinpoints). Rates and trends were strati ed by sex, age, race/ ethnicity, census region, county-based economic status, rural/ urban status, and cancer type.
Results: We identified 196,200 cases of pediatric cancer during 2001–2014. e overall cancer incidence rate was 173.0 per1 million; incidence rates were highest for leukemia (45.6), brain tumors (30.8), and lymphoma (26.0). Rates were highest among males, aged 0–4 years, non-Hispanic whites, the Northeast US Census region, the top 25% of counties by economic status, and metropolitan counties. Overall pediatric cancer incidence rate increased (AAPC=0.7, 95% CI, 0.5–0.8) during 2001–2014 and contained no joinpoints. Rates increased across sex, age, race/ethnicity, region, economic status, and rural/urban status. Rates of brain, renal, hepatic, and thyroid cancers increased, and rates of melanoma decreased.
Conclusions: This study documents increased rates of pediatric cancer during 2001–2014. Increased overall rates of brain and hepatic cancer and decreased rates of melanoma are novel ndings using data since 2010. Next steps in addressing changing rates could include investigation of diagnostic and reporting standards, host biologic factors, or environmental exposures. Increasing rates may necessitate changes related to treatment and survivorship care capacity. Page 108 of From Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Conference sponsored by the CDC, April 16-19, 2018 (page 108) https://www.cdc.gov/eis/downloads/eis-conference-2018-508.pdf#page=120
Breast Cancer Risk Associated With Cell Phones and Wireless Radiation
A 2021 meta-analysis by Shih et al has revealed a significant increase in the risk of cancer with exposures to devices that emit wireless radiation, especially over the age of 50. The study focused on just breast cancer to uncover this association, rather than just cancer alone. The authors limited the studies to those involving human individuals and were written either in English or Chinese. They eliminated all but those that employed high quality scientific methodology and which were statistically robust. Their findings indicated that, “ Carcinogenic risks following radiation exposure have been revealed to increase with age and enhance the risk of cell inflammation and the loss of oxidant/antioxidant equilibrium (47,48)…and The results of the present study are in accordance with those of a previous study, which reported that radiologic technologists of an older age who worked in an environment with radiation exhibited a higher lifetime attributable risk of breast cancer compared with that in other occupational groups, including radiologists, dentists and nurses (49).”
This study is consistent with a case report by West et al (2013) of four patients that carried their phones in their bra for up to 10 hours a day and developed breast cancer in the same breast and area as the cell phone. In one case several tumors were noted in alignment with the differnt cell antennas around the perimeter of the phone. Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones.
Breast Cancer, Light-At-Night, Melatonin and Tumor Suppression
Breast Cancer and Circadian Disruption from Electric Lighting Another mechanism that could contribute to breast cancer is regular light and blue light from LED’s, which disrupts circadian rhythms via suppression of melatonin levels. In one of many articles on the subject the authors of “Breast Cancer and Circadian Disruption from Electric Lighting in the Modern World” note that studies have “shown that light at night markedly increases growth of human breast cancer xenografts in rats. In humans, the theory that light exposure at night increases breast cancer risk leads to specific predictions that are being tested epidemiologically: evidence has accumulated on risk in shift workers, risk in blind women, and impact of sleep duration on risk. If electric light at night does explain a portion of the breast cancer burden then there are practical interventions that can be implemented, including more selective use of light, and adoption of recent advances in lighting technology and application.” Studies of blind women indicate that they have lower incidence of breast cancer. Glickman et al note in their study that ,“less than 1 lux of monochromatic light elicited a significant suppression of nocturnal melatonin.” Human biology is complex and mechanisms of disease are complex and not easily understood. Synergistic effects of toxins and environmental factors need to be taken into account.
Melatonin is Oncostatic
A 2022 article by Das and Samanta revels the complex oncostatic actions of melatonin to suppress many tumors, including breast cancer. Bonmati-Carrion et al (2020) note, ” Apart from its undisputed chronobiotic function, melatonin exerts antioxidant, immunomodulatory, pro-apoptotic, anti-proliferative, and anti-angiogenic effects, with all these properties making it a powerful anti-tumor agent.” Melatonin, a lipophilic compound, is produced in the pineal gland in response to light/dark cycles. Melatonin is also produced in extra-pineal organs, including the retina, gastrointestinal tract, skin, lymphocytes, and bone marrow . Light in the day or night suppresses melatonin, whereas darkness increases it. Anticancer mechanisms of melatonin include 1) Antioxidant effects. 2) Activation of MT1 receptor which reduces estrogenic stimulation in estrogen receptor-α (ER-α)-positive MCF-7 human breast cancer cells 3) Binding to the calmodulin (CaM) receptor to down regulate transcription factor ER-α and the synthesis of estrogen. These actions, along with other pathways, work to decrease proliferation of breast cancer cells. Research shows a synergistic effect with traditional chemotherapy to increase efficacy as well.
Oxidation as a Mechanism of DNA Damage
Dr. Shih highlights that studies on RFR point to oxidation as a mechanism of damage to DNA and thus mutations leading to carcinogenesis. “Although it has been indicated that non-ionizing radiation exhibits in sufficient energy to cause DNA strand breaks, the primary cause of DNA strand breaks is considered to be a by-product of ROS metabolism and not high-energy radiation.”
This study is consistent with the cases reported by Dr West in his 2013 article “Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones.“ In addition, a meta-analysis by Chen et al (2013) shows evidence that occupational exposure to radiofrequency radiation is associated with development of breast cancer. A Central African study in 2017 revealed that “no habit of keeping cell phones in bras showed a protective effect against BC [breast cancer] “, among other risk factors.
Industry Influence in Science
Dr. Lennart Hardell and colleagues have highlighted the difficulty of promoting RFR precautionary measures for the public as scientists who do the research are not included in committees that have the power to affect public policy. His lates article, Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation. (Hardell 2021) discusses the science of harm from RFR and those who are most influential in decision making.
David Grimes JAMA Review on RFR and Cancer: Scientists Ask to Retract Article
Physicist David Grimes, who is an industry spokesperson, published an article on Radiofrequency and Cancer: A Review in Dec 9, 2021 JAMA Oncology, dismissing the evidence entirely. Scientists including Linda Birnbaum, who was the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) from 2009 to 2019, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and Ronald Melnick, who designed the 10 year NTP RF–cancer study, joined EH Trust in a letter to JAMA Oncology editor, Dr. Disis, asking for retraction of the Grimes article. They have complied a list of inaccuracies, mischaracterizations and critical omissions to the article which highlights industry influence. Dr. Joel Moskowitz commented , Why did JAMA Oncology publish a paper written by a Telecom industry spokesperson? MIcrowave News, a publication known for its integrity in science, published Pressure Mounts To Retract Grimes RF–Cancer Review: Former Director of NIEHS Endorses Removal. January 25, 2022. The article cites scientists who have asked for retraction and notes, “Grimes’s “most damning” offense, according to Portier, is that he left out a potential conflict in his published conflict of statement (CoI). Grimes failed to disclose his full-blown endorsement of the safety of 5G wireless technology in a video made for Vodafone, a giant telecom company.”
Professor Kent Chamberlin, who was member of the New Hampshire 5G Commission to study the health and environmental effects of 5G, also wrote a Letter to Dr. Nora Disis asking for retraction. He stated, “From the perspective of what was observed by the [5G] commission, Dr. Grimes’ viewpoint is aligned with industry and not with most scientists who have investigated these radiation effects.”
Published Literature on Cancer and Radiofrequency Radiation
Below is published scientific literature on cancer and wireless radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) from cell towers and other wireless devices, as well as co-carcinogenic effects. Other brain cancer studies, DNA and RNA damage from RF EMR exposure and reproductive studies can be found on our website at:
- Brain Cancer Studies: Cell Phones and Brain Cancer.
- DNA and RNA Research: DNA and RNA effects of RF EMR
- DNA Human Effects: DNA Human Studies
- Sperm and Ovarian Studies: Reproductive Health Effects
- Mechanisms of Action Research: Cellular Mechanisms EMR: Calcium Channels and Cellular Mechanisms Oxidation
- NTP Study on Cell Phones and Cancer 2018 NTP Study Cell Phones and Cancer-PST
Reviews on Cancer and RF EMR
- Review of Literature and Expert Report of Cancer and Cell Phones . Christopher Portier in Murray vs Motorola. 2021. Expert report Christopher J Portier Murray v Motorola 3-1-2021
- Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Henry Lai. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Published online: 04 Feb 2021. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368378.2021.1881866
- Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. (2018) Peleg M et al. Environmental Research. 163: May 2018, 123-133. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29433020/
- Non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radio frequency electromagnetic fields. WHO IARC. Volume 102. 2011. https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102.pdf
- Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (2011). Baan, R. et al.The Lancet. Oncology 12, 624–626 (2011). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext
Newest Articles
-
Exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Brabant C et al. Rev Environ Health. (2022) 38(2):229–53. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0112/html
-
Carcinogenesis from chronic exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Environmental Research. James C Lin. Frontiers in Public Health. Oct 31, 2022; 10: 1042478. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9660325/
-
RE: Cellular Telephone Use and the Risk of Brain Tumors: Update of the UK Million Women Study. Birnbaum LS et al. Journal National Cancer Institute. Volume 114, Issue 11, November 2022, Pages 1551–1552, https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/114/11/1551/6608698
-
Cellular Telephone Use and the Risk of Brain Tumors: Update of the UK Million Women Study. Schuz J et al. Journal National Cancer Institute. 2022 May 9;114(5):704-711. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35350069/
-
Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. NTP. Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout JW et al. Oct 19, 2021. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/em.22343
- Health Impacts of 5G. European Parliament. Scientific Foresight Unit, Panel for the Future of Science and Technology. July 2021 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf
-
Radiofrequency EMF irradiation effects on pre-B lymphocytes undergoing somatic recombination. (2021)Ionita E et al. Nature. Scientific Reports. 1, Article number: 12651 (2021) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91790-3
-
Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation. (2021) Hardell L et al. J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285. https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/aspects-on-the-international-commission-on-nonionizing-radiation-protection-icnirp-2020-guidelines-on-radiofrequency-radiation.pdf
-
Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation. (2021) Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2021, Feb 15. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2020-0168/pdf or https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33594846/
- Exposure to radiofrequency radiation increases the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) Shih YW et al. Exp Ther med. 2021 Jan; 21(1): 23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7690245/
- Is the Increasing Incidence of Thyroid Cancer in the Nordic Countries Caused by Use of Mobile Phones? (2020) Carlberg M et al. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(23), 9129; https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/9129 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239129
- Central nervous system lymphoma and radiofrequency radiation – A case report and incidence data in the Swedish Cancer Register on non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2020) HArdell L et al. Medical Hypothesis. Nov 2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720309567
- Genetic susceptibility may modify the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut. (2020) Luo J et al. Environmental Research, Volume 182. March 2020. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119308102?via%3Dihub
- Assessment of Genotoxicity in Human Cells Exposed to Modulated Electromagnetic Fields of Wireless Communication Devices.(2020) Schuermann D. Genes (Basel). 2020 Mar 25;11(4). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/11/4/347
- Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results. (2019) Carpenter DO. Environmental Research. 2019 Aug 24;178:108688. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31476684
- Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. (2019) Miller A et al. Front Public Health. 2019; 7: 223. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701402/#B68
- Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. (2019) Melnick RL. Environmental Research. 2019 Jan;168:1-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30243215
- Chromosome Damage in Human Cells Induced by UMTS Mobile Telephony Radiation. (2019) Panagopoulos D. Gen Physiol Biophys. 2019 Sep;38(5):445-454. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31516130/
- Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields. (2019) Dimitri Panagopoulos. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. March 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331661949_Comparing_DNA_Damage_Induced_by_Mobile_Telephony_and_Other_Types_of_Man-Made_Electromagnetic_Fields
- The carcinogenic potential of non‐ionizing radiations: The cases of S‐50 Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation/ (2019) Soffritti, M. and Giuliani, L. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bcpt.13215
- Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. (2019) Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, Winters JW et al. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2019 Oct 21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31633839
- Health effects associated with exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields: Possible association between exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields and the long-term risk of childhood leukaemia. (2019) June 21, 2019. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety. https://www.anses.fr/en/content/health-effects-associated-exposure-low-frequency-electromagnetic-fields
- Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. (2018) Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg. International Journal of Oncology. Oct 24, 2018. Pg 111-127. https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606
- The Contribution of In Vivo Mammalian Studies to the Knowledge of Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Health. (2019) Vornoli A et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 12;16(18):3379. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31547363/
- Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells. (2018) Akdag M et al. Electromagn Biol Med. 2018; 37(2):66-75. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29667447/
- Effect of cell-phone radiofrequency on angiogenesis and cell invasion in human head and neck cancer cells. (2018) Alahmad YM. Head Neck. 2018 May 13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29756334
- Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). (2018) Miller AB et al. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:673-683. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30196934
- Women With Hereditary Breast Cancer Predispositions Should Avoid Using Their Smartphones, Tablets, and Laptops at Night. (2018) Mortazavi SA et al. IJBMS. 2018 Feb;21(2):112-115. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29456806/
- Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. (2018) Peleg M. Environ Res. 2018 May;163:123-133. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29433020
Published Articles on Cancer and RF EMR (earlier)
- TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN Hsd:SPRAGUE DAWLEY SD RATS EXPOSED TO WHOLE-BODY RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION AT A FREQUENCY (900 MHz) AND MODULATIONS (GSM AND CDMA) USED BY CELL PHONES. (2018). National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Health (NIH). March 26-28, 2018. NTP Technical Report- TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES OF GSM- AND CDMA-MODULATED CELL PHONE RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION AT 900 MHz IN Hsd:SPRAGUE DAWLEY SD RATS 2018
- Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. (2018) Ramazzani Institute. Falcioni L, et al.Environmental Research. March 7, 2018/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367?via%3Dihub
- Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: Assessing causation in the occupational/military setting. (2018). Peleg M et al. Environ Research. 2018 May;163:123-133. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29433020 or. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913296696567/Radio%20frequency%20radiation-related%20cancer%3A%20assessing%20causation%20in%20the%20occupational%3Amilitary%20setting.pdf
- Behavioral risk factors of breast cancer in Bangui of Central African Republic: A retrospective case-control study (2017).Balekouzou A et al. Feb 8, 20217. PLOS One. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171154
- When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? (2017) Havas M. Environmental Pollution. Vol 221. Feb 2017. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749116309526?via%3Dihub
- Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure). (2016) Wyde, M. et al.BioRxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699
- National Toxicology Program. Media Telebriefng: NTP Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Study: Partial Release of Findings,(2016) http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2016/may27/
- Some Effects of Weak Magnetic Fields on Biological Systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. (2016) Barnes F. IEEE Power Electronics Magazine. Volume 3. Issue 1. 2016. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7425396/?arnumber=7425396
- Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. (2015) Hardell L, Carlberg M. Pathophysiology. 2015 Mar; 22(1):1-13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25466607/
- Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. (2015) Lerchi et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun.2015 Apr 17;459(4):585-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749340 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X15003988
- Positive correlation between ELF and RF electromagnetic fields on cancer risk. (2015) Mahdavi M et al. J Paramed Sci 6(3), ISSN 2008-4978. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281579026_Positive_correlation_between_ELF_and_RFelectromagnetic_fieldon_cancer_risk
- Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A). (2015) Morgan et al. Int J Oncol 46(5): 1865-1871. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273150433_Mobile_phone_radiation_causes_brain_tumors_and_should_be_classified_as_a_probable_human_carcinogen_2A_Review
- Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. (2015) Pall M. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(2):99-116. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308
- Membrane potential modulates plasma membrane phospholipid dynamics and K-Ras signaling. (2015) Zhou,Y et al. Science August 21, 2015. 2015 Aug 21;349(6250):873-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Membrane+potential+modulates+plasma+membrane+phospholipid+dynamics+and+K-Ras+signaling
- Spin Biochemistry Modulates Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Production by Radio Frequency Magnetic Fields. (2014) Usselman RJ et al. Plos One. March 28, 2014. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0093065
- Breast Cancer and Circadian Disruption from Electric Lighting in the Modern World. Stevens, Brainard, Blask. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014. May; 64(3): 207-218. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038658/
- Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields. (2013) Carpenter DO. Rev Environ Health 2013;28:159-172.gj https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24280284
- A meta-analysis on the relationship between exposure to ELF-EMFs and the risk of female breast cancer. (2013) Chen Q et al. PLoS One. 2013;8(e69272) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23869239/
- Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. (2013) Davis DL et al. Pathophysiology 20:123-129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236690284_Swedish_review_strengthens_grounds_for_concluding_that_radiation_from_cellular_and_cordless_phones_is_a_probable_human_carcinogen
- Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. (2013) Hardell L et al. Pathophysiology 2013;20(2):85-110. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233974476_Use_of_mobile_phones_and_cordless_phones_is_associated_with_increased_risk_for_glioma_and_acoustic_neuroma
- Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones.(2013) Hardell L Int J Oncol. (2013) 43:1036–44. 10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829779/
- Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk: early warnings, early actions? In: Late Lessons From Early Warnings, Part 2. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Denmark: (2013). Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Chapter 21: Available online at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-chapters/late-lessons-ii-chapter-21/view
- Cancer induction molecular pathways and HF-EMF irradiation. (2013) Ledoigt G and Belpomme D. Adv Biol Chem 3:177-186. http://www.ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1368798016_publication_ABC.pdf
- Extra-low-frequency magnetic fields alter cancer cells through metabolic restriction. (2013) Li and Heroux. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine.33(4). August 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255691482_Extra-low-frequency_magnetic_fields_alter_cancer_cells_through_metabolic_restriction
- Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones. (2013) West JG1, Kapoor NS, Liao SY, Chen JW, Bailey L, Nagourney RA. Case Rep Med. 2013;2013:354682 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24151509
- Biointiative Working Group. (2012) David Carpenter and Cindy Sage (eds). 2012 Bioinitiative 2012: A rationale for biologically-based exposure standards for electromagnetic radiation. http://www.bioinitiative.org
- Cellular neoplastic transformation induced by 916 MHz microwave radiation.(2012) Yang L Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2012 Aug;32(6):1039-46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22395787
- Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. (2012) Zimmerman JW et al. Br J Cancer. 2012 Jan 17;106(2):307-13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22134506/
- Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. (2011) Baan R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):624-6. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext
- Non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radio frequency electromagnetic fields. (2011) WHO IARC. Volume 102. 2011. https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102.pdf
- Long Term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidences from Radars and Mobile Communication Systems. (2011) Kyrylenko S et al. Experimental Oncology. March 2011. http://exp-oncology.com.ua/article/1845/long-term-exposure-to-microwave-radiation-provokes-cancer-growth-evidences-from-radars-and-mobile-communication-systems
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans. (2011) May 2011. See Reviews on Cancer above for studies. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
- Electromagnetic fields and cancer: the cost of doing nothing. (2010) Carpenter DO Rev Environ Health 25:75-80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20429163
- NON-THERMAL EFFECTS AND MECHANISMS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND LIVING MATTER. (2010) RAMAZZINI INSTITUTE. Giuliani L and Soffriti M (Eds). J. ONCOL. LIBRARY Volume 5, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases “Bernardino Ramazzini” Bologna, Italy 2010, 400 page monograph. https://www.ramazzini.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Non-thermal-effects-and-mechanisms-of-interaction-between-electromagnetic-fields-and-living-matter_2010.pdf
- Exposure to electromagnetic fields (non-ionizing radiation) and its relationship with childhood leukemia: A systematic review. (2010) Calvente I et al. Science of the Total Environment. 2010 Jul 15;408(16):3062-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20451240/
- A precautionary public health protection strategy for the possible risk of childhood leukaemia from exposure to power frequency magnetic fields. (2010) BMC Public Health. 2010 Nov 5;10:673. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21054823/
- Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. (2010) Khurana VG et al. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16, 263-267. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
- Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk.(2010) Markovà E et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2010. 118:394-399. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854769/
- Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. (2010) Tillmann T. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Jul;86(7):529-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20545575
- Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic radiation and mobile telephony devices. (2010) Yakymenko I and Sidorik E. Exp Oncol 32:729-736. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693976
- Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes. (2009) Belyaev IY et al. 2009 Feb;30(2):129-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839414
- Long-term exposure to magnetic fields and the risks of Alzheimer’s disease and breast cancer: Further biological research. (2009) Davanipour Z and Sobel E. Pathophysiology. 2009, Vol 16:149-156. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278839
- Causes of death among Belgian professional military radar operators: a 37-year retrospective cohort study. (2009) Degrave E et al. Int J Cancer. 2009 Feb 15, 124(4) ):945-51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19035449/
- Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation: oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on the male reproductive system. (2009) Desai NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. Reproduct Biol Endocrinol. 7:114. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-114. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776019/
- Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. (2009)Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928468009000091
- Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. (2009) Khurana VG et al. Surg Neurol 72:205-214. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19328536
- Meta-analysis of long-term mobile phone use and the association with brain tumors. (2008) Hardell et al. Int J Oncol 32:1097-1103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425337
- Study on potential effects of “902-MHz GSM-type Wireless Communication Signals” on DMBA-induced mammary tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats. (2008) Hruby R et al. Mutation Research 649(1-2):34-44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981079
- A new electromagnetic exposure metric: high frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school. (2008) Milham S1, Morgan LL.. Am J Ind Med. 2008 Aug;51(8):579-86. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18512243
- Biomarkers of induced electromagnetic field and cancer. (2007) Behari J and Paulraj R. Indian J Exp Biol 45:77-85. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17249331
- Cell type specific redox status is responsible for diverse electromagnetic field effects. (2007) Simkó M. Curr Med Chem. 2007;14:1141–52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456027
- “Biological Windows”: A Tribute to W. Ross Adey. (2005) Marko Markov. The Environmentalist. 25:67-74, 2005. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-005-4268-8
- Use of cellular or cordless telephones and the risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.(2005) Hardell L. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2005 Sep;78(8):625-32. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16001209
- The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer. (2004) Egger H et al. January 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241473738_The_Influence_of_Being_Physically_Near_to_a_Cell_Phone_Transmission_Mast_on_the_Incidence_of_Cancer
- Mobile telephones and cancer – a review of the epidemiological evidence. (2004) Kundi M et al. J Toxicol Env Health, Part B 7:351-384. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15371240
- Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station. (2004) Wolf and Wolf. Kaplan Medical Center, Israel. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.527.1036&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects. (2002) Leszczynski D. Differentiation. 2002 May;70(2-3):120-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=12076339
- Cancer in radar technicians exposed to radiofrequency/microwave radiation: sentinel episodes. (2000) Richter E. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2000 Jul-Sep;6(3):187-93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722
- The effects of radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are non-thermal. (1999) Velizarov S et al.Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics. Vol.48, issue 1, Feb 199. Pg 177-180. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302459898002384
- Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar (microwave) effects. (1997) Goldsmith JR. Env Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1579-1587. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469943/
- Epidemiological studies of radio-frequency radiation: current status and areas of concern. (1996) Goldsmith JR. Science of the Total Environment. Volume 180, Issue 1,2. February 1996 , Pages 3-8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969795049142
- Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency (radiofrequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation. (1996) Stanislaw Szmigielski. Science of the Total Environment. Volume 180, Issue 1,2. 2 February 1996 , Pages 9-17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048969795049150
- Electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. (1993) Frey AH F FASEB J. 1993 Feb 1;7(2):272-81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8440406
- Long-Term Low-Level Microwave Radiation of Rats. (1992) Bioelectromagnetics. 13:469-496. 1992. C.-K. Chou et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482413 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60002060833.pdf
- Joint actions of environmental nonionizing electromagnetic fields and chemical pollution in cancer promotion. (1990) Adley WR. Environ Health Perspect 86:297-305. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567752/
- Cell membranes: The electromagnetic environment and cancer promotion. (1988) Adey WR. Neurochem Res. July 1988, Vol 13:671-677. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00973286
- A Current Literature Report on the Carcinogenic Properties of Ionizing and Nonionizing Radiation. (1978) Dwyer M J and Leeper D B, Department of Health Education and Welfare (DHEW) Publication (NIOSH) 78-134, March 1978. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/00080942.html
CANCER and RFR -Co-Carcinogenesis
- Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Sage C. Child Dev. 2017 May 15https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28504324
- Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Lerchl A. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015 Apr 17;459(4):585-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749340
- Cellular neoplastic transformation induced by 916 MHz microwave radiation. Yang L1. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2012 Aug;32(6):1039-46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22395787
- Combined Toxic Exposures and Human Health: Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect.(2011) Sillons,I. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011 Mar; 8(3): 629–647 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083662/
- Indication of co-carcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. Tillmann T. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Jul;86(7):529-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20545575
Breast Cancer, Cell Phones, Melatonin and RFR
- The potential anti-cancer effects of melatonin on breast cancer (2022) Das NK and Samanta S. Explor Med. 2022;3:112–127. https://www.explorationpub.com/Journals/em/Article/100178
- Melatonin and Cancer: A Polyhedral Network Where the Source Matters. Bonmati-Carrion MA et al. Antioxidants 2021, 10(2), 210. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/10/2/210
- Exposure to radiofrequency radiation increases the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) Shih YW et al.Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Oct 29;12:10799-10807. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33149685/
- The Association Between Smartphone Use and Breast Cancer Risk Among Taiwanese Women: A Case-Control Study. (2020) Shih YW et al. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:10799–807. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33149685/
- Breast Cancer and Circadian Disruption from Electric Lighting in the Modern World. Stevens, Brainard, Blask. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014. May; 64(3): 207-218. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038658/
- Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones. (2013) West JG et al. Case Rep Med. 2013;2013:354682 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24151509
- Ocular input for human melatonin regulation: relevance to breast cancer. (2002) Glickman et al. Neuro Endicrinol Lett.2002 Jul;23 Suppl 2:17-22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12163843/
Related Articles Oxidation/Antioxidants and Co-carcinogenicity
- Combined Toxic Exposures and Human Health: Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect. (2011) Sillons I, Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011 Mar; 8(3): 629–647. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083662/
- Free Radicals, Antioxidants in Disease and Health. (2008) Lien Ai Pham-Huy et al.. Int J Biomed Sci. 2008 Jun; 4(2): 89–96. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3614697/
Cancer, ROS, Inflammation and the Microenvironment
- (2020) Biological mechanisms linked to inflammation in cancer: Discovery of tumor microenvironment-related biomarkers and their clinical application in solid tumors. (2020) International Journal of Biological Markers. Nistico P and Ciliberto G. February 20, 2020. Sage Publishing. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1724600820906155
-
(2005)Reactive oxygen species in tumor progression. Peter Storz. Front Biosci. 2005 May 1;10:1881-96. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15769673/#:~:text=ROS%20are%20tumorigenic%20by%20virtue,and%20sustain%20subsequent%20tumor%20progression
Related Articles on Mechanisms of Injury Ionizing Radiation
- Radiation interactions with biological systems. (2017) Islam MT. Int J Radiat Biol. 2017 May;93(5):487-493. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28117624
- Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Biological Molecules—Mechanisms of Damage and Emerging Methods of Detection. Antioxid Redox Signal. (2014) Reisz JA et al. 2014 Jul 10; 21(2): 260–292. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060780/
- Plasma membrane signaling induced by ionizing radiation. (2010) Corre I et al. Mutat Res. 2010 Apr-Jun;704(1-3):61-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20117234
- Molecular Mechanisms of Ultraviolet Radiation-Induced DNA Damage and Repair. (2010) Rastogi RP et al. J Nucleic Acids. 2010; 2010: 592980. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010660/
Cancer Clusters and EMR- Non-Scientific General Articles
- Cancer Cluster at UCSD: Elevator in literature building cited as potential cause; faculty wants more action from administration. City Beat. OB Rag. Feb 23, 2009. Amanda Ripely. https://obrag.org/2009/02/cancer-cluster-at-ucsd/