“…rather than providing a quantitative risk assessment of the NTP results, the FDA has dismissed the NTP findings, and without assessing human risk,arbitrarily claimed that “current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.”This recommendation by the FDA lacks scientific merit. It is certainly unusual for an agency such as the FDA to claim it is “committed to protecting public health,” when it chooses to ignore adverse health effects data that run counter to their preconceived notions…It is misleading for the FDA document to ignore the local exposure limit of 1.6 W/kg and its importance for assessing organ-specific cancer risk.”
“Thus, while there are reliable animal studies, mechanistic studies, and animal studies showing increased cancer risks associated with exposure to cell phone RFR, the FDA document dismisses nearly the entirety of those studies to enable the agency to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis.”
“The statement in the FDA report that “if any risk does exist, it is extremely low” is very misleading since the FDA has not performed a quantitative risk assessment on any of the available datasets and, because of the widespread use of cell phones in the US and world-wide, even a small increase in cancer risk would have a serious public health impact.”
“Based on the FDA review, which is not a risk analysis as stated in the document, the message for the general public appears to be that precautionary measures for use of cell phones are not necessary in spite of the fact that numerous studies have provided compelling evidence of increased cancer risk associated with exposure to cell phone RFR. This is an irresponsible message for a government agency that claims its mission is to protect consumers and promote the public health.”
“The statement on the FDA website (https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard)that there is a “scientific consensus on cell phone safety” is totally wrong and should be removed since there is no scientific consensus supporting this claim. In contrast, numerous experts in the field have reported evidence that current levels of cell phone radiation can be harmful to human health. In conclusion, the FDA document has serious flaws and inaccuracies, as well as omissions of relevant data. Hence, in consideration of public health, it is important that FDA immediately retract their review on radiofrequency radiation and cancer.”
Ronald Melnick, PhD, Senior Toxicologist,National Toxicology Program,National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
“I led the design of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on cell phone radiation and I strongly believe that the anonymously written FDA document misrepresents the utility of the NTP study for assessing human health risks. In addition, the report’s casual dismissal of both the mechanistic findings and the numerous results from epidemiological studies that have shown increased cancer risks associated with exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) are inconsistent with the FDA’s stated core mission “to protect and promote the public health.”
What did the studies find?
The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with:
- Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
- Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
- Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
Evaluation of the Genotoxicity of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Male and Female Rats and Mice Following Subchronic Exposure
“In conclusion, these results suggest that exposure to RFR is associated with an increase in DNA damage.”
Comments on the US National Toxicology Program Technical Reports on Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Study in Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radiofrequency Radiation at 900 MHz and in Mice Exposed to Whole-Body Radiofrequency Radiation at 1,900 MHz
“We conclude that there is clear evidence that RF radiation is a human carcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma). There is some evidence of an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer, and clear evidence that RF radiation is a multi‑site carcinogen. Based on the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, RF radiation should be classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1.”
The Contribution of In Vivo Mammalian Studies to the Knowledge of Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Health
“As regard cancer risk, two long-term experimental studies have been recently published by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Italian Ramazzini Institute (RI). Despite important experimental differences, both studies found statistically significant increases in the development of the same type of very rare glial malignant tumors. In addition to carcinogenicity, reproductive organs might be particularly exposed, as well as sensitive to RFR. In this work, we reviewed the currently available evidence from in vivo studies on carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity studies in order to summarize the contribution of experimental research to the prevention of the adverse effects of RFR on human health.”
Report of Final Results Regarding Brain and Heart Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats Exposed From Prenatal Life Until Natural Death to Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Field Representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM Base Station Environmental Emission
“Conclusions: The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users. These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.”
Commentary on the Utility of the National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Data for Assessing Human Health Risks Despite Unfounded Criticisms Aimed at Minimizing the Findings of Adverse Health Effects