wireless_devices-potential_cancer_risk_says_world health organization .pdf

EMF Safety Network

Wireless devices-potential cancer risk saysWorld Health Organization

Cell phones, cell towers, wi-fi, smart meters, DECT phones, cordless phones,baby monitors and other wireless devices all emit non ionizing radio frequen-cies, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has just classified as a poten-tial carcinogen. This is big news from the WHO and governments and decisionmakers can no longer hide behind the “no RF health effects” industry mantra.

Cindy Sage, co-editor of the Bioinitiative Report writes, ” The WHO Interna-tional Agency for Research on Cancer has just issued it’s decision that non-ion-izing radiofrequency radiation is classified as a 2B (Possible) Carcinogen. This

Wireless devices-potential cancer risk says World Health Organi... http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wireless-devices-potential-cancer-ri...

1 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

is the same category as DDT, lead, and engine exhaust. This mirrors the 2001IARC finding that extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) that classified as a 2B(Possible) Carcinogen. This pertained to power frequency (power line and ap-pliance) non-ionizing radiation. These two findings confirm that non-ionizingradiation should be considered as a possible risk factor for cancers; and thatnew, biologically-based public safety standards are urgently needed. ”

Dr. Louis Slesin has been reporting on this issue for decades. See MicrowaveNews, for further commentary.

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POS-SIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 --

“The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classifiedradiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans(Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of braincancer1, associated with wireless phone use.

BackgroundOver the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibilityof adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electro-magnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. Thenumber of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally.From May 24–31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries hasbeen meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic haz-ards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These assess-ments will be published as Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs, which will bethe fifth volume in this series to focus on physical agents, after Volume 55 (So-lar Radiation), Volume 75 and Volume 78 on ionizing radiation (X-rays,gamma-rays, neutrons, radio-nuclides), and Volume 80 on non-ionizing radia-tion (extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields).The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these expo-sures might induce long-term health effects, in particular an increased risk forcancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile


2 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among youngadults and children.The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available lit-erature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electro-magnetic fields:␣ occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves; ␣ environmental expo-sures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wirelesstelecommunication; and ␣ personal exposures associated with the use of wire-less telephones.International experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data,the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals,and the mechanistic and other relevant data.

1 237 913 new cases of brain cancers (all types combined) occurred around theworld in 2008 (gliomas represent 2/3 of these). Source: Globocan 2008

ResultsThe evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited2among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and in-adequate3 to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence fromthe occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarlyjudged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however,one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increasedrisk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30minutes per day over a 10-year period).

ConclusionsDr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairmanof the Working Group, indicated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, isstrong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusionmeans that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a closewatch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification andfindings,” said IARC Director Christopher Wild, “it is important that additionalresearch be conducted into the long- term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pend-ing the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic mea-


3 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

28 thoughts on “Wireless devices-potential cancer risk says

sures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting. ”The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete listwill be published in the Monograph. It is noteworthy to mention that severalrecent in-press scientific articles4 resulting from the Interphone study weremade available to the working group shortly before it was due to convene, re-flecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in theevaluation.A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC WorkingGroup and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequencyelectromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be pub-lished in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online.

2 ‘Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': A positive association has been ob-served between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpre-tation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias orconfounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.3 ‘Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity': The available studies are of insuffi-cient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regardingthe presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer,or no data on cancer in humans are available.4 a. ‘Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of theINTERPHONE international case- control study’ (the Interphone Study Group,in Cancer Epidemiology, in press) b. ‘Estimation of RF energy absorbed in thebrain from mobile phones in the Interphone study’ (Cardis et al., Occupationaland Environmental Medicine, in press)c. ‘Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones –results from five Interphone countries’ (Cardis et al., Occupational and Envi-ronmental Medicine, in press) ”

May 31, 2011 Sandi Maurer Government, Public Health, Science cell phoneradiation, science


4 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

World Health Organization”

Pingback: Smart Meters: they AREN’T compulsory … learn why they’re risky inmore ways than one | Rangitikei Enviromental Health Watch

Pingback: What Your Electric Company Doesn’t Want You to Know – SmartMeters EXPOSED!! | Stop Washington Smart Meters

Thomas J Hourigan

September 24, 2014 at 6:47 am

thank you!

Pingback: What Your Electric Company Won't Tell You - Smart MetersEXPOSED!

sergio

January 24, 2014 at 2:26 am

I’d love to see a series of polls, surveys, asking cancer patients to go aroundtheir house and find the smart meters around, and track how close they are tothe metters, how long they lived there, and cross their location with the map ofcell towers.

I’m a webmaster, and I wonder how feasible you see it without being harassedby men in black! (I think some org like yours should do it)

Pingback: Celulares: Um problema social do século XXI? | OMEdI


5 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

veronica

August 26, 2013 at 11:58 am

Taxie driver,The meters transmit every 28-30 seconds. They emit radiofrequency radiation86,400 times per month–not one time per month likethe utility claims. Stop lis-tening to propaganda and do your own homework dude! A nuclear policy ex-pert gives the real info–smart meters expose us to 50-160 times the radiofre-quency radiation when you correct the industry info for the duty cycle and forthe fact that a smart meter gicves full body radiation–not just to the head.Thousands of people are sick from this. My children have a smart meter rightin the space next to the family/play room. They get blasted 86,000 times permonth from that nad we have one right outside our sitting room. So they getexposure from that also. Not tot mention when the mesh network goes up. Getyourself educated so that you can protect tyourself and yuour kids. Wake upAmerica!!!

Pingback: May 13/13 Operations Policy and Planning Committee: The Record,Off the Record: If We Don’t Measure It, It’s Not There | Lined Paper

Pingback: Reject President Obama’s nomination of Thomas Wheeler to headthe FCC | The PPJ Gazette

Pingback: Reject President Obama’s nomination of Thomas Wheeler to headthe FCC | Stop "Smart" Meters, Florida!

Pingback: Stop Smart Meters in New Jersey | theevolutionofosiris

Pingback: Smart meter dangers – theevolutionofosiris


6 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

Pingback: Why the BC Liberal Government Doesn’t Value Your Life | CommonSense Canadian

RGW

August 3, 2012 at 10:10 am

Reply to Taxi Driver:What you wrote MAY apply to a specific type of smart meter, however the in-formation does NOT apply to millions of meters being installed around thecountry. How often they are transmitting is highly dependent on the density ofbuildings/units AND your position within the WAN (wide area network). Thinkof it like a funnel effect. The closer your meter is to the WAN devices, the moresignals it will be funneling. Wireless smart meters do not just send YOUR data,but act as random relays for all the other units in your area. People have testedthe number of power spikes coming from these devices and have measured inhundreds to even thousands of spikes per hour in densely populated areas.This is ongoing – 24/7.

The effect of these particular devices were NOT tested in a network environ-ment on any test animals. We are the test animals. And some percentage of thepopulation IS biologically sensitive to this type of signalling. You can read abouttheir symptoms onemfsafetynetwork.com go to “most popular” heading and top heading is called“smart meter health complaints”. It does not pass the straight face test that allthese people would manifest identical symptoms after the installation of thesedevices. Some suggest that individuals with mercury or other heavy metal toxi-city may be the more susceptible to these health effects.

In some places this potential effect is recognized and following the precaution-ary principle WIRED SMART METERS have been installed instead. WIREDSmart Meters provide most of the same benefits of wireless meters – but whichsend the meter information over the existing wired infrastructure without theuse of microwave/RF radiation.


7 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

Below are a few excerpts that are worth considering. I realize that the powerfulcommunications industry has funded their own studies which largely shapepopular opinion at the moment. But, if I have to put a group with a huge finan-cial interest at stake, next to scientists who specialize in Cellular Biophysics andNeuroscience, I will not argue with the conclusions of Nobel Prize nomineesworking in their field of expertise:

Robert Becker, Ph.D Nobel Prize nominee noted for decades of research on theeffects of electromagnetic radiation says:“I have no doubt in my mind that, at present time, the greatest polluting ele-ment in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.”

William Rea, MD Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dal-las Past President,American Academy of Environmental Medicine:“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the21st century. It isimperative health practitioners, governments, schools andparents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant”.

Martin Blank, Ph.D Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and CellularBiophysics,Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Re-searcher in Bioelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section onStress Proteins.“Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other envi-ronmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in liv-ing cells recognizes electromagneticfields at very low levels of exposure; andproduces a biochemical stress response. The scientificevidence tells us that oursafety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from ex-posure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like, or risk the knownconsequences.The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.”

Olle Johansson, Ph.D. Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit,Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Authorof the BioInitiative Report’s section on the Immune System.“It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system mod-ulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons. There must be an end to


8 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for theplight of these persons. It is clear something serious has happened and is hap-pening. Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives, including theabil-ity to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe, perma-nent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessi-ble to a growing percentage of theworld’s population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of elec-tromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time.There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communicationstechnologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their ex-ponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisivelytoprotect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic andaggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical condi-tions.”

David Carpenter, MD Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, and Director,Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University ofAlbany, SUNY Co-Editor, the BioInitiative Report (www.BioInitiative.org).:“Electromagnetic fields are packets of energy that does not have any mass, andvisible light is what we know best. X-rays are also electromagnetic fields, butthey are more energetic than visible light. Our concern is for those electromag-netic fields that are less energetic than visible light, including those that are as-sociated with electricity and those used for communications and in microwaveovens. The fields associated with electricity are commonly called “extremelylow frequency” fields (ELF),while those used in communication and microwave ovens are called “radiofre-quency” (RF) fields. Studies of people have shown that both ELF and RF expo-sures result in an increased risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensitiesthat are too low to cause tissue heating. Unfortunately, all of our exposure stan-dards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects atintensities that do not cause tissue heating. Based on the existing science, manypublic health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancersin the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased pop-ulation exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices.


9 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use ofcell phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that governmentand industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices withoutsuch elevated risk of serious disease. We need to educate decision-makers that‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issuecan not be underestimated.”

Eric Braverman, MD Brain researcher, Author of The Edge Effect, and Directorof Path Medical in New York City and The PATH Foundation. Expert in thebrain’s global impact on illness andhealth.“There is no question EMFs have a major effect on neurological functioning.They slow our brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity. We shouldminimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levelsand prevent deterioration of health”.

TaxiDriver

July 28, 2012 at 5:15 am

A little info about smart meters:

1. Smart meters use the Zigbee protocol, operating on either 900 MHz or 2.4GHz, the same frequency bands as baby monitors and WiFi, respectively.

2. These frequency bands are extremely remote from the ELF band.

3. The radio frequency transmissions are at miniscule power levels even com-pared WiFi and Cell phones. Whatever danger the Zigbee meter radio inter-faces provide, they are tiny compared to such higher powered devices as cellphones and AC power lines.

4. The transmitters in the smart meters are active only when the meter readingperson activates the meter with a radio wake-up call, and the transmissionwould last for a small fraction of a second per reading (nominally once amonth). The rest of the time, they remain in “sleep mode,” listening, but nottransmitting (and thus not emitting any “non-ionizing” radiation). FYI visible


10 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

light and ripples in a pot are also examples of non-ionizing radiation.

5. Ionizing radiation is the type that is carcinogenic per se.

In light of the above, I would worry more about WiFi, Baby Monitors, RF televi-sion remotes, Microwave ovens, and cell phones long before I would worryabout this scantily powered, near non-existent transmiter.

admin

March 5, 2012 at 8:46 am

Most Smart meters are digital meters, without a spinning disc- and there willbe a FCC ID number on it. Should say: FCC______….

jennyfer

March 5, 2012 at 12:10 am

what does this smart meter look like if i were to check my meter outside?

admin

November 21, 2011 at 10:00 am

keep refusing, and file complaints. See http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=649 for more info

Marian J O Connor

November 21, 2011 at 7:35 am

I am trying to stop the Gas Co from installing a radio frequency device on mymeter.They are pressing me thru phone, e-mail, letters to allow a device to be put onthe meter. I asked the city for help and now they are pressing them to get per-mission to come into my home. They have said they will turn off my gas. I have


11 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

leukemia and congestive heart failure and the stress has caused my to have myblood pressure to go to extreme highs and now I am taking medicine. I havetrouble with meds so I am on the third kind, and not doing any good. Any helpor advice. Thank you.

Pingback: Wireless microwaves made visible | EMF Safety Network

chris porro

September 28, 2011 at 9:00 pm

hi jeff, i don’t know if your strategy will work but i am adding it to my arsenal. ijust called pg&e and told them no thanks. from what i knew at the time wecould postpone the install. i’m seeing some of our neighbors have the metersinstalled. as a last resort you should be able to stop transmission with some foil.

i think the key is getting people informed. people just don’t know and they havebecome lulled into a false sense of safety.

Pingback: CA utilities to microwave 5000 homes | EMF Safety Network

Pingback: World Health Organization says Wireless Devices May Cause Cancer» Naperville Smart Meter Awareness

Jeff Bell

June 13, 2011 at 5:49 am

I am doing what I can to resist the installation of “SmartMeters” and to assistothers in doing so. They are murderously dangerous devices that no one shouldbe forced to aloow anywhere near their property. So here is a possible strategyI thought of. I would love some feedback on it:


12 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

If your property has a fire insurance policy, get a letter from your insurer stat-ing that installation of any non U.L. approved device voids the coverage. Lami-nate and post that letter, along with a statement to the effect that if any in-staller installed any device that is not U.L approved, that you will hold the in-staller liable for fire liability since their actions will have voided the insurancepolicy on which you are paying premiums. Of course, post this right on thepower panel, or as close to it as you can get it so that any installer has to see it.

If you do not own the property and are a renter, you may still have renter’s in-surance, in which case you should be able to get such a letter from your in-surer.

mimi stevens

June 7, 2011 at 1:52 pm

Don’t cochlear implants for the deaf also create radiofrequency electromag-netic fields? Have any studies been done to track cancer (or other disease inci-dence other than meningitis) in users of cochlear implants?

April

June 7, 2011 at 9:11 am

Hello,Thank you for all your helpful information. I really appreciate it. We as health-conscious individuals have known there was harm in these wireless devices fora while.

My question is: What exactly should we do about it? I saw a couple of devicesthat attach to the cell phone and even bought one in the past. I can’t tell a dif-ference myself with or without it, so I know it will be hard for people to makethe investment. It’s a real dilemma to me.Thanks again!

Monica McGuire


13 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

May 31, 2011 at 3:17 pm

Yes, let’s take this as an honest and helpful step towards true independent, or atleast honestly funded studies where ALL people involved operate honestly andin their full integrity. May everyone involved, from the highest-paid executivesTO seemingly-powerless employees concerned about keeping their jobs, re-member that ANY immune system compromise from ANY technology can beredesigned for safety. When we all act honestly this way, we help the WHO andIARC to fulfill their missions of assisting ALL of us to be healthier over longerperiods of time, WHILE watching the technology of conveniences flourish.

AplJaks

May 31, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Thank you for posting this news. I am so glad to see that the WHO is realizingthe need for this classification. Perhaps our American Government will finallysee that we need more stringent guidelines for our wireless devices here.

Proudly powered by WordPress


14 of 14 6/28/15, 10:05 AM

wireless_devices-potential_cancer_risk_says_world health organization .pdf

Documents