Dr. James C. Lin, Front. Public Health, Sec. Radiation and Health. 31 October 2022.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478
Open access paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478/full
Open access paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478/full
Dr. James C. Lin, one of the world's most renowned scientists who has studied the effects of radio frequency (RF) radiation, and a distinguished former member of the two organizations that created the RF exposure limits, the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), challenges the validity of these safety limits.
He concludes in his latest peer-reviewed paper:
"The simple and effective public health notion of 'An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure' may conjure up old fashioned. It may arouse intense reactions, with enormous defiance especially from individuals who may be beneficiary of modern promotions. The cellphone and allied wireless communication technologies have shown their direct benefit to people in modern society. However, as for their impact on the radiation health and safety of humans who are subjected unnecessarily to various levels of RF exposure over prolonged durations or even over their lifetime, the jury is still out. Furthermore, there are consistent indications from epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure is, at least, probably carcinogenic to humans. The principle of ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—ought to be adopted as a strategy for RF health and safety protection."
ALARA (CDC) = The guiding principle of radiation safety is “ALARA”. ALARA stands for “as low as reasonably achievable”. ALARA means avoiding exposure to radiation that does not have a direct benefit to you, even if the dose is small. To do this, you can use three basic protective measures in radiation safety: time, distance, and shielding.
-
James C. Lin. Carcinogenesis from chronic exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Front. Public Health, Sec. Radiation and Health. 31 October 2022. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478.
Abstract
The past two decades have seen exponential growth in demand for wireless access that has been projected to continue for years to come. Meeting the demand would necessarily bring about greater human exposure to microwave and radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Our knowledge regarding its health effects has increased. Nevertheless, they have become a focal point of current interest and concern. The cellphone and allied wireless communication technologies have demonstrated their direct benefit to people in modern society. However, as for their impact on the radiation health and safety of humans who are unnecessarily subjected to various levels of RF exposure over prolonged durations or even over their lifetime, the jury is still out. Furthermore, there are consistent indications from epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure is probably carcinogenic to humans. The principle of ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—ought to be adopted as a strategy for RF health and safety protection.
Excerpts
"Recently, two commonly distributed RF health protection recommendations revised their guidelines and standards. The updated International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection guidelines (5) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety standards (6) are strongly connected to acute temperature rises induced by RF heating inside the human body. The updated safety guidelines and standards showed without any question the groups' staunch convictions of nothing but heat to worry about with microwave and RF radiation.
A persistent and vexing question lingers concerning these guidelines and standards for safe long-term exposure to RF radiation (in contrast to exposures shorter than 6 or 30 min). A general sense on the absence of appreciation of scientific evidence regarding long-term exposure below the basic restrictions continues with these safety guidelines and standards.
There is also the question of how there can be such divergent evaluations and inferences of the identical scientific findings by WHO's IARC, ICES, and ICNIRP. To be fair, scientists are not impervious to conflicts of interest such as conflicting financial interests or personal relations which could affect the deliberations and reporting through such experiences as groupthink. Also, in some ways, it may parallel the compulsion by big business to choose profit over societal concerns—big businesses often use a range of organized and refined tactics to enhance and protect their commercial interests, and regrettably in some cases these tactics come at the expense of public health.
Human beings repeatedly render decisions and select choices that challenge principled logic. Indeed, science has not been devoid of politics—weird as that may sound. Various biases can impair sensible reasoning and result in bad judgments. Groupthink can mislead human beings and inhibit scientists from making understandable inferences. Regrettably, groupthink or herd mentality is as rampant today as ever. Has science become partisan? And if science becomes partisan, is it science or politics, or would it be political science? At times, science gets wrapped up in politics and politics intervenes with science. It may simply turn out to be a matter of guilelessly being politically correct of the willing. Less than rigorous enforcement of policies in research conduct or full disclosure of financial conflicts can lead to failures in guiding and informing the development of transparent and trustworthy evaluations of scientific evidence for safety protection. Scientists may not always be consistent, coherent, or as transparent as promoted."
"The fact is that the missing pieces according to IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] (4), or the previously coveted experimental animal data (7) as currently provided by NTP/NIEHS (10) and Ramazzini Institute (12) complement IARC's evaluation of human epidemiological studies in support of its classification of RF radiation as a possible carcinogen. It gives rise to the plausibility for IARC to enhance its previous, mostly epidemiology-based classification to the higher level of “probably cancer causing” for RF exposure.
Furthermore, more recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the case-control research on mobile phone use have reported statistically significant increases in brain tumor risk associated with 1,000 or more hours of cellphone use, or about 17 min per day over 10 years (13, 14)."
"The simple and effective public health notion of 'An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure' may conjure up old fashioned. It may arouse intense reactions, with enormous defiance especially from individuals who may be beneficiary of modern promotions. The cellphone and allied wireless communication technologies have shown their direct benefit to people in modern society. However, as for their impact on the radiation health and safety of humans who are subjected unnecessarily to various levels of RF exposure over prolonged durations or even over their lifetime, the jury is still out. Furthermore, there are consistent indications from epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure is, at least, probably carcinogenic to humans. The principle of ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—ought to be adopted as a strategy for RF health and safety protection."
He concludes in his latest peer-reviewed paper:
"The simple and effective public health notion of 'An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure' may conjure up old fashioned. It may arouse intense reactions, with enormous defiance especially from individuals who may be beneficiary of modern promotions. The cellphone and allied wireless communication technologies have shown their direct benefit to people in modern society. However, as for their impact on the radiation health and safety of humans who are subjected unnecessarily to various levels of RF exposure over prolonged durations or even over their lifetime, the jury is still out. Furthermore, there are consistent indications from epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure is, at least, probably carcinogenic to humans. The principle of ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—ought to be adopted as a strategy for RF health and safety protection."
ALARA (CDC) = The guiding principle of radiation safety is “ALARA”. ALARA stands for “as low as reasonably achievable”. ALARA means avoiding exposure to radiation that does not have a direct benefit to you, even if the dose is small. To do this, you can use three basic protective measures in radiation safety: time, distance, and shielding.
-
James C. Lin. Carcinogenesis from chronic exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Front. Public Health, Sec. Radiation and Health. 31 October 2022. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478.
Abstract
The past two decades have seen exponential growth in demand for wireless access that has been projected to continue for years to come. Meeting the demand would necessarily bring about greater human exposure to microwave and radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Our knowledge regarding its health effects has increased. Nevertheless, they have become a focal point of current interest and concern. The cellphone and allied wireless communication technologies have demonstrated their direct benefit to people in modern society. However, as for their impact on the radiation health and safety of humans who are unnecessarily subjected to various levels of RF exposure over prolonged durations or even over their lifetime, the jury is still out. Furthermore, there are consistent indications from epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure is probably carcinogenic to humans. The principle of ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—ought to be adopted as a strategy for RF health and safety protection.
Excerpts
"Recently, two commonly distributed RF health protection recommendations revised their guidelines and standards. The updated International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection guidelines (5) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety standards (6) are strongly connected to acute temperature rises induced by RF heating inside the human body. The updated safety guidelines and standards showed without any question the groups' staunch convictions of nothing but heat to worry about with microwave and RF radiation.
A persistent and vexing question lingers concerning these guidelines and standards for safe long-term exposure to RF radiation (in contrast to exposures shorter than 6 or 30 min). A general sense on the absence of appreciation of scientific evidence regarding long-term exposure below the basic restrictions continues with these safety guidelines and standards.
There is also the question of how there can be such divergent evaluations and inferences of the identical scientific findings by WHO's IARC, ICES, and ICNIRP. To be fair, scientists are not impervious to conflicts of interest such as conflicting financial interests or personal relations which could affect the deliberations and reporting through such experiences as groupthink. Also, in some ways, it may parallel the compulsion by big business to choose profit over societal concerns—big businesses often use a range of organized and refined tactics to enhance and protect their commercial interests, and regrettably in some cases these tactics come at the expense of public health.
Human beings repeatedly render decisions and select choices that challenge principled logic. Indeed, science has not been devoid of politics—weird as that may sound. Various biases can impair sensible reasoning and result in bad judgments. Groupthink can mislead human beings and inhibit scientists from making understandable inferences. Regrettably, groupthink or herd mentality is as rampant today as ever. Has science become partisan? And if science becomes partisan, is it science or politics, or would it be political science? At times, science gets wrapped up in politics and politics intervenes with science. It may simply turn out to be a matter of guilelessly being politically correct of the willing. Less than rigorous enforcement of policies in research conduct or full disclosure of financial conflicts can lead to failures in guiding and informing the development of transparent and trustworthy evaluations of scientific evidence for safety protection. Scientists may not always be consistent, coherent, or as transparent as promoted."
"The fact is that the missing pieces according to IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] (4), or the previously coveted experimental animal data (7) as currently provided by NTP/NIEHS (10) and Ramazzini Institute (12) complement IARC's evaluation of human epidemiological studies in support of its classification of RF radiation as a possible carcinogen. It gives rise to the plausibility for IARC to enhance its previous, mostly epidemiology-based classification to the higher level of “probably cancer causing” for RF exposure.
Furthermore, more recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the case-control research on mobile phone use have reported statistically significant increases in brain tumor risk associated with 1,000 or more hours of cellphone use, or about 17 min per day over 10 years (13, 14)."
"The simple and effective public health notion of 'An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure' may conjure up old fashioned. It may arouse intense reactions, with enormous defiance especially from individuals who may be beneficiary of modern promotions. The cellphone and allied wireless communication technologies have shown their direct benefit to people in modern society. However, as for their impact on the radiation health and safety of humans who are subjected unnecessarily to various levels of RF exposure over prolonged durations or even over their lifetime, the jury is still out. Furthermore, there are consistent indications from epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure is, at least, probably carcinogenic to humans. The principle of ALARA—as low as reasonably achievable—ought to be adopted as a strategy for RF health and safety protection."
Open access paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478/full
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.