Physicians for Safe Technology

Wireless Technology and Public Health

Cancer and Radiofrequency Radiation

 

“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 (). As well funding, a strong source of bias in this field of enquiry, was not considered ().”

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 ().”

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 (,)…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 ().”

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:

Reviews on Cancer and RF EMR

Newest Articles

 

Published Articles on Cancer and RF EMR (earlier)

CANCER and RFR -Co-Carcinogenesis

Breast Cancer, Cell Phones, Melatonin and RFR

Related Articles Oxidation/Antioxidants and Co-carcinogenicity

 

Cancer, ROS, Inflammation and the Microenvironment

 

Related Articles on Mechanisms of Injury Ionizing Radiation

 

Cancer Clusters and EMR- Non-Scientific General Articles

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91790-3