The Research Studies Showing Links To Health Effects
From Mobile Phones and other Radio-Frequency devices
For those of you who are curious about the oft-repeated party line of "There is no evidence of harm to health from mobile phones" ........
Following is a brief list of just some of the research studies showing effects on health from the radiation coming from mobile phones, and other devices emitting high frequency radiation. They are listed alphabetically, by the health effect/symptom that's been linked to exposure.
Following is a brief list of just some of the research studies showing effects on health from the radiation coming from mobile phones, and other devices emitting high frequency radiation. They are listed alphabetically, by the health effect/symptom that's been linked to exposure.
|
Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.
Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." "Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐ term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. WHO / IARC (2011) (World Health Organisation / International Agency for Research on Cancer) "In the end of May 2011…. IARC of the WHO in Lyon classified RF electromagnetic fields, to which wireless radiation belongs, as "possibly carcinogenic". Results from basic research with proven changes in structure and functions of genes after the exposure of isolated human and animal cells, but also from exposed animals itself, that would have lent weight to the epidemiological observations were, however, not all considered. Had these results been taken into account according to their significance, the classification would not have been "possibly carcinogenic" but rather "probably carcinogenic". Franz Adlkofer (2011) Lead Scientist of the EU-funded REFLEX research programme (204-2009) “What is adequate evidence for decision-making? Now, under the Californation Enrvironmental Quality Act, all we have to have is the potential for a significant impact. Any time you see an environmental impact report, we’re not looking for certainty of effect. 10-30% of certainty is enough to take an action that is protective of public health.
Do we have enough scientific evidence to be 10-30% certain that we may have an effect, and should we be careful? And do we do that for every other environmental constraint? You bet we do.” Cindy Sage Environmental Policy Consultant, Founder Bio-Initiative Working Group, Co-Editor The Bio-Initiative Report |