Raise awareness of environmental health issues in order to better protect our children and future generations.

13 February 2024

Experts: Current Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits Based on Inadequate Science—Does 5G Introduce Heightened Health Concerns?

Experts: Current Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits Based on Inadequate Science—Does 5G Introduce Heightened Health Concerns?
Staff, TrialSite News. Feb. 11, 2024

A group of scientific experts touch on a controversial and frankly, disturbing topic involving what are the generally accepted levels of what’s considered unsafe levels of radiofrequency exposure. Members of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), the authors published in 2022, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiations: implications for 5G.” Fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology, is the latest generation of cellular network technology designed to provide faster and more reliable wireless communication. It succeeds 4G LTE technology and offers significantly faster data speeds, lower latency, increased capacity, and support for a massive number of connected devices compared to previous generations. But with overwhelming dependence on our smartphones and various devices powered by standards such as Bluetooth—and all of this exposure to EMFs, how safe are we assuming what appears to be the shoddy evidence backing the safe exposure limits today? The present authors argue herein that those limits were established long ago, based on limited scientific rigor involving both the FCC and ICNIRP. If a group of experts in the field are correct, humanity faces the specter of myriad and potentially severe risks including the prospects of cancer and even sperm damage. Should the ICBE-EMF be correct, why would governments be concerned with Global Warming but not as well the prospect of a heightened risk for human health catastrophe powered by industry in the case of EMFs? Obviously, more research is needed but this group of scientists, highly credentialed, should be taken seriously.

Before delving into the 2022 paper, a brief primer on ICNIRP, an international organization that provides guidelines and recommendations on exposure to non-ionizing radiation, including electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Established in 1992, and recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO)., ICNIRP conducts scientific reviews and assessments of the health effects of non-ionizing radiation, while the group develops exposure guidelines based on the latest scientific evidence. And of course, it’s this last point that the present authors raise with concern.

At least in theory, the ICNIRP guidelines were established to protect individuals from potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to EMFs from various sources, including mobile phones, power lines, and wireless communication devices.

What does the ICNIRP commission consist of?

The ICNIRP consists of independent experts from various scientific disciplines, including biology, physics, epidemiology, and engineering. Its guidelines are widely used by governments, regulatory agencies, and organizations around the world to develop safety standards and regulations related to non-ionizing radiation.

Do other health-focused organizations recognize and use the findings of ICNIRP?

Yes. TrialSite notes that the World Health Organization (WHO) and its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) looking into EMF health effects also provide recommendations based on the findings of ICNIRP.

So, are the ICNIRP parameters and thresholds for what is safe correct?

Well, this is where the 2022 study authored by ICBE-EMF raises some concerns. They do this by challenging the evidence backing the assumptions that EMFs are safe.

What does the ICBE-EMF find problematic with ICNIRP and FCC evidence thresholds for EMF?

The authors review the evidence the FCC and ICNIRP used to adopt radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits for public protection, and workers in the field, from adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation.

The established limits “were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg” the authors elucidate in the journal Environmental Health.

Importantly, the present authors inform us that the FCC and ICNIRP RFR limits deemed supposedly safe were based on two primary assumptions: 1) any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and 2) no effects would occur below the putative threshold-specific absorption rate or “SAR” as well as “twelve assumptions that were not specified by either FCC or ICNIRP.”

What's the key point of the ICBE-EMF paper?

The public is at serious health risk given the explosion in 5G investment! Why? The authors demonstrate that over the past quarter century “extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC's and ICNIRP's exposure limits are invalid.” A bombshell the authors list quite troubling serious adverse effects observed “at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR.”
They include:

  • Non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species
  • DNA damage
  • Cardiomyopathy
  • Carcinogenicity
  • Sperm damage
  • Neurological effects (including electromagnetic hypersensitivity)

Just as disturbingly, if not more, the ICBE-EMF authors found “multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk.”

The expert authors point the reader to what can only be considered a scandalous fact. By 2020, FCC and ICNIRP “experts” reaffirmed the same limits established in the 1990s, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.

What’s the conclusion?

Because the current RFR exposure limits are based completely on “false suppositions,” they cannot “adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures.”

This means that a committee of experts with the necessary scientific disciplines must be organized to adjust the RFR exposure limits based on real-world data, not antiquated materials from over 25 years ago. The limits must be established to protect human safety based on actual scientific evidence as opposed to ones based on erroneous assumptions, especially so, “given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.”

This literally could be a human train wreck unfolding in real-time.

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) was established to make recommendations, based on the best peer-reviewed scientific research publications, which include and go beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines. The group is dedicated to ensuring the protection of humans and other species from the harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation.

ICBE-EMF consists of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors and related professionals who are, or who have been, involved with research related to biological and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies up to and including 300 GHz.

See a list of the Commissioners.
References

-----

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health 21, 92 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

-----

TrialSite News is the only digital media dedicated 100% to transparent, independent and accessible tracking of medical research around the globe. Based on a comprehensive global clinical research site database, real time news feeds a proprietary media and social network platform as well as a network of expert contributors, the company harnesses an intelligent aggregation and curation algorithm for timely, relevant clinical research with a focus on trial sites and investigators. A subscription website, subscribers include health care professionals, biopharma industry, government and regulators, life science investors and everyday people interested in better understanding medical research. Content includes aggregation and analysis, original reporting, video news and features such as Questions/Answers.
Publié par à l'adresse
Libellés : ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)