A preliminary report from the U.S. National Toxicology Program has found that male rats exposed to high levels of the type of radiation cellphone’s emit developed tumors.
A new report from the U.S. government is likely to create further debate regarding whether or not cellphones and other mobile devices pose a cancer risk to humans. According to a draft report from researchers the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP), male rats exposed to high levels of radiation similar to that emitted by cellphones developed tumors in the tissue surrounding their hearts. The report also found that female rats and mice exposed to the same amount of radiation did not develop tumors. Reuters first reported on the release of the preliminary report.
Reuters reports:
However, NTP scientists and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were quick to say the findings could not be extrapolated to humans and that current safety limits on cellphone radiation are protective.
The 10-year, $25 million studies – the most comprehensive assessments of health effects and exposure to radiofrequency radiation in rats and mice to date – do raise new questions about exposure to the ubiquitous devices.
The NTP study involved exposing rats and mice to higher levels of radiation for longer periods than is typically experienced by the average cellphone user. Researchers also exposed the entire body of the rats and mice to this high dose of radiation. The report concluded that cellphones typically emit lower levels of radiation than the maximum allowable level. Interestingly, John Bucher, a senior scientist with NTP, told Reuters that the tumors seen in the studies are “similar to tumors previously reported in some studies of frequent cellphone users.”
A statement from the American Cancer Society said the findings of the studies are inconclusive. “For example, the newly released results show little indication of an increased risk of tumors or any other health problems in mice exposed to RFR,” the ACS wrote. “Also, the male rats exposed to RFR in the study lived, on average, significantly longer than the male rats who were not exposed. The reasons for this are not clear.”
The ACS also noted that the study has not yet been peer reviewed by outside experts. Peer review is expected in March. Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, called the evidence for association between cell phones and cancer “weak”, pointing to an apparent lack of higher cancer risk in humans. “But if you’re concerned about this animal data, wear an earpiece,” Brawley stated.
The US Food and Drug Administration released a statement affirming their support of the current safety limits as “acceptable for protecting the public health.”
To be clear, this is not the first time studies examining the dangers of radiofrequency devices such as cellphones and microwaves have caused controversy. Studies in both Australia and India have found that men who use their cellphones most often had lower sperm counts than those who used cellphones less often. In addition, in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
There are also studies which have concluded there is no risk of cancer or other illnesses from the radiation released by cellphones. An 18-month study from Denmark compared cancer rates in 360,000 cell phone users to adults without cellphone subscriptions and found no connection to brain or spinal cord tumors.
More recently, in late 2017 it was revealed that the California Department of Public Health had issued internal guidelines on how to reduce exposure to cellphone radiation. The guidelines included keeping the phone away from bed at night, removing headsets when not on a call, and reducing streaming of audio or video on cellphones. The guidelines were released to the public as the result of a lawsuit filed by Dr. Joel Moskowitz of UC Berkeley. Moskowitz sued the California Department of Public Health after they failed to release information about potential dangers of cellphones back in 2009. “Currently we’re not doing a good job in regulating radiation from these devices. In fact, we’re doing an abysmal job,” Moskowitz told CBS San Francisco.
In response to the release of the guidelines Dr. Karen Smith of the California Department of Public Health recommended users keep the cellphone “at least arm’s length away from your body” and not carrying the phone in your pockets. Smith said the CDPH does not believe cell phones are carcinogens, but rather, “that the science is evolving.”
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
I am an investigative journalist and liberty activist; a Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com & The Houston Free Thinkers. I have also co-authored three books with @johnvibes: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2
Donate via:
- Bitcoin: 16fDdrZvt9XUv7TyboSYtaHfcxMb22Yiew
- Ethereum: 0x8d20b442de44C28467b3d66939ff3077F9CfCb24
- DASH: XbPpwz1ZvtkTeik1y3wDgrHRJTEst564XH
I am always available for interviews, Please contact [email protected]
I greatly appreciate any support here or on my other social media:
It says in ALL directions, under health and safety, to keep your cellphone at least 3/8 of an inch away from your body AT ALL TIMES for a reason....that's why i use speakerphone. Sick fucks they are....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great point, and yet how often do you see someone with their phone pressed up against their heads?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We now have over 20 years of data and over that time phones have reduced the power of the radio transmissions they use (mostly because people demand the batteries last longer)
Even with 20 years of data (of people using phones and living near towers) there has been no correlation or statistical increase in cancer or other maladies. The problem here is you can't prove a negative and so people use that to try and muddy the waters. Nobody can prove that electromagnetic non-ionising radiation don't cause any maladies to living beings, but we sure do have a lot of data that suggests it's highly unlikely that they do. If you believe that's not reasonable for you then you can choose to reduce your exposure but please don't try and force that belief onto the rest of the population.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
whose forcing anyone here? Just some nerds on the internet sharing ideas!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure here, meanwhile in the real world I have had a neighbour point to stories like this to oppose our town getting a phone tower. Maybe I took it more personally due to my circumstances but when you really do have someone who believes mobile phones give you cancer trying to force that belief onto you and your an entire community you can get a bit touchy and it makes you want to offer an alternate view point 🙂
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I see. I have seen a lot of "good" data on both sides. What made up my mind is the simple fact that the FCC isn't in the business of providing contradictory data to those who wish to make large sums of money. What the CDC is for, in this case, is to provide plausible deniability to those who will reap tons of cash from adoptive use of this technology and keep the money flowing. 15-20 years down the road the CDC's research will provide cover to those who we might or might not find responsible for what I see is a pretty obvious increase of unexplained diseases/ailments among every age group in world population. You don't have to believe me or anyone, but we can see many gov't agencies becoming more a watchdog for large multi-nationals and lobbyist, much like the rest of gov't. Ever heard of the CDC and the FDA? Pretty dodgy fellas these days if you ask me! I especially love the class-action lawsuit commercials blasted on countless TV networks asking if this or that drug hurt you. They are becoming so commonplace now, and these agencies only allow for class-action suits instead of civil suits. Why? Because that's their real job. Not so much protecting the public. But to feign protection while building a case against why their clients, which is what they really are, should be held to more account. No one is forcing you to click on anything bro. Get over yerself
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sounds like you are also 'forcing' your opinions on others by being so hysterical about it. Just a note for you....The author of this article is not forcing anything on you, he is publishing an opinion piece based on a scientific study published by another organisation. So if you want to attack anyone, how about you attack them instead.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Oh so pointing out contrary inconvenient science is an attack?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Dave Asprey has pointed this out, that the frequency that has been chosen for all of our wireless and cell phone products is a frequency that is damaging to the human biosystem. They just as easily could have chosen a frequency that is beneficial to the human biosystem.
In fact, it's low hanging fruit right now for a company to switch to a frequency that benefits the human biosystem and market it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Didn't Jill Stein get a bunch of slack for entertaining this idea? Full circle!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
high levels of radiation similar to that emitted by cellphones
conclusion:
Bogus.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You read it wrong, apparently. The rats were hit with high level of the type of radiation emitted by cellphones. The study is not the only one either. Yes, the science is still coming in, but I think we are vastly unprepared for the dangers of constant cellphone use.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
the point I'm making is that they used HIGH levels.
if you are exposed to HIGH levels of sunlight you'll burn to a crisp.
If you are exposed to normal levels of sunlight...not so much.
same with anything else.
the dose determines the toxicity.
in fact some(low) levels of radiation are good for you...
In addittion to which..there is IONIZING radiation.
and the other type.
like...the type that is emitted from the wires inside the wall of your house from the electricity that runs thru them.
danger danger..there's radiation everywhere....
EVERYWHER...Including deep, deep in the damp dank earth...
RADIUM!
so skeery...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
yes, there is radiation everywhere and it's not good in doses. The truth is we don't really know the affects of humans being surrounded by phones, computer, laptops, bluetooth, etc over long periods of time because it is new tech that hasn't been tested over a lifetime.
So you can make jokes and be dismissive if you like, but there is no conclusive evidence stating that cell phones cause no harm throughout an entire life of use.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
high doses*
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit