The time is right for the IARC to upgrade its previous epidemiology-based classification of RF exposure to higher levels in terms of the carcinogenicity of RF radiation for humans.
— Dr. James C. Lin
Following the National Toxicology Program study release in 2018, electrical engineer, researcher, and IEEE Fellow Dr. James Lin’s paper “Clear Evidence of Cell-Phone RF Radiation Cancer Risk” was published in the IEEE Microwave Magazine (Sept./Oct 2018). Dr. Lin is Professor of Electrical Engineering, Professor of Bioengineering, and Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, at the University of Illinois at Chicago
Recently, IEEE published another article by Dr. Lin — – “The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation“. (November 2019 IEEE Microwave Magazine) In it, Dr. Lin calls for an upward carcinogenicity reclassification of RF EMF – radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation — by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
Lin JC. The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine. 20(11):18-21. Nov 2019. DOI:10.1109/MMM.2019.2935361.
Most media accounts of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) final report have understandably focused on the statistically significant finding of “clear evidence” that both GSM and code-division multiple access (CDMA)-modulated 900-MHz wireless RF radiation led to the development of malignant schwannoma, a rare form of tumor, in the hearts of male rats. In addition to this, unusual patterns of cardiomyopathy, i.e., damage to heart tissue, were observed in both RF-exposed male and female Sprague-Dawley rats compared with concurrent control animals, although the findings for female rats were deemed as providing only uncertain or “equivocal” evidence for schwannomas and malignant gliomas, compared to concurrent controls.
Excerpts (emphasis added):
“In all fairness, the primary cancer or overall cancer rates detected in any organ or tissue inside the animal body do not appear to have been purposefully overlooked or unnoticed. Indeed, the results for total primary cancer or tumor occurrences in NTP animal studies can be found in the appendices of its final reports . However, although the data may not have been purposefully disregarded or ignored, the NTP excluded them from its publicized report summaries. An independent analysis of the data showed that rats exposed to GSM and CDMA RF radiation had significantly higher overall or total primary tumor rates than did the concurrent control rats .
In particular, the highest overall cancer (or malignant tumors) rates were found in male rats exposed to whole-body SARs of 3 W/kg from 900-MHz cell phone RF radiation (42 and 46% for GSM and CDMA, respectively), and the lowest rate was found in the concurrent control group (27%). Thus, the RF-exposed groups had significantly higher overall or total primary cancer rates than did the concurrent control rats. Moreover, the highest overall tumor rates (either a benign or malignant tumor in any organ or tissue) were observed in male rats exposed to SARs of 3-W/kg (87 and 84% for GSM and CDMA, respectively) cell phone RF radiation. As stated previously, the lowest rate was seen in the concurrent control group (63%). The RF-exposed groups had significantly higher overall tumor rates than did the concurrent control rats. Male rats in the lowest RF-exposed groups (whole-body SARs of 1.5 W/kg) had significantly higher rates of benign primary tumors (76 and 73% for GSM and CDMA, respectively) than did concurrent or sham control groups (54%).
…A particular perspective to keep in mind is that, with the induction of cancer by a carcinogen, an agent is typically considered carcinogenic if it induces a significant response in a specific tissue.”
Journalist Davis Wedege reports:
The ICNIRP veteran will sharpen the suspicion of cancer against mobile telephony
6 November, 2019
For 12 years, US electrical engineer James Lin was part of the closed lodge-like science committee ICNIRP, which Denmark supports with its limit value for radio waves in the environment.
ICNIRP is notoriously known in science circles for its rejection of stricter limit values, but James Lin, who left ICNIRP in 2016, has now twice in a short time advocated for a tighter view of radiation.
In a recently published article in the industry magazine IEEE Microwave Magazine , he estimates that it is now time for the WHO Cancer Agency to raise its classification of mobile radiation from ” possibly carcinogenic ” (2B) to a higher class.
The classification alone indicates the degree of cancer knowledge that science can point to. None of the suspicion classes indicate a level of danger expressed by many media in error.
– Recently, we have seen two relatively well-executed radio and microwave studies with Sprague Dawley rats, which, without cancer-promoting agents, showed consistent results with significant increases in cancer in animals exposed to radiation, writes James Lin in IEEE Microwave Magazine.
James Lin does not write how high the rating should be raised.
Experienced cancer epidemiologist over decades, Anthony B. Miller, who has contested a wealth of top posts, has estimated that WHO should raise to Class 1, which means carcinogen with certainty.
Polish-Finnish biochemist Dariusz Leszczynski has advocated for 2A – probably carcinogenic.
Other researchers want to go the opposite way. This was expressed in January this year in a report by a research group with Danish Joachim Schüz and the Swedish Maria Feychting. In the report, they stated that positive cancer outcomes in patient studies did not follow the trend in cancer rates. Maria Feychting is the Vice Chairman of the ICNIRP Committee.
Joachim Schüz is the lead author of the telephone-financed Danish major survey.
In 2018, James Lin noted in a memo that the time had come to revise the limit value .
Link to the article in IEEE Microwave Magazine (requires subscription).
For Dr. Joel Moskowitz’ extensive coverage of the National Toxicology Program research:
Posted under Fair Use Rules.