Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G - PubMed
- ️Sat Jan 01 2022
Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Environ Health. 2022.
Abstract
In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These 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 limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC's and ICNIRP's exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially 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.
Keywords: 5G; Cell phone*; DNA damage; Exposure assessment; Exposure limits; Federal Communications Commission (FCC); International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP); Mobile phone*; Radiation health effects; Radiofrequency radiation (RFR); Reactive oxygen species (ROS); Scientific integrity.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
IB, EMB, and AM have served as plaintiff’s expert witnesses in cases involving radiofrequency radiation. All other authors declare they have no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
Problems in evaluating the health impacts of radio frequency radiation.
Ben Ishai P, Davis D, Taylor H, Birnbaum L. Ben Ishai P, et al. Environ Res. 2024 Feb 15;243:115038. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.115038. Epub 2023 Feb 28. Environ Res. 2024. PMID: 36863648 Review.
-
Aweda MA, Ajekigbe AT, Ibitoye AZ, Evwhierhurhoma BO, Eletu OB. Aweda MA, et al. Nig Q J Hosp Med. 2009 Jan-Mar;19(1):6-14. doi: 10.4314/nqjhm.v19i1.50201. Nig Q J Hosp Med. 2009. PMID: 20830980
-
Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions.
Héroux P, Belyaev I, Chamberlin K, Dasdag S, De Salles AAA, Rodriguez CEF, Hardell L, Kelley E, Kesari KK, Mallery-Blythe E, Melnick RL, Miller AB, Moskowitz JM, On Behalf Of The International Commission On The Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Fields Icbe-Emf. Héroux P, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Apr 4;20(7):5398. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20075398. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023. PMID: 37048013 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Jooyan N, Goliaei B, Bigdeli B, Faraji-Dana R, Zamani A, Entezami M, Mortazavi SMJ. Jooyan N, et al. Environ Res. 2019 Jul;174:176-187. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.03.063. Epub 2019 Apr 26. Environ Res. 2019. PMID: 31036329
-
Wyde ME, Horn TL, Capstick MH, Ladbury JM, Koepke G, Wilson PF, Kissling GE, Stout MD, Kuster N, Melnick RL, Gauger J, Bucher JR, McCormick DL. Wyde ME, et al. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Apr;39(3):190-199. doi: 10.1002/bem.22116. Epub 2018 Mar 14. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018. PMID: 29537695
Cited by
-
Effects of mobile phone electromagnetic fields on brain waves in healthy volunteers.
van der Meer JN, Eisma YB, Meester R, Jacobs M, Nederveen AJ. van der Meer JN, et al. Sci Rep. 2023 Dec 8;13(1):21758. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-48561-z. Sci Rep. 2023. PMID: 38066035 Free PMC article.
-
Manville AM 2nd, Levitt BB, Lai HC. Manville AM 2nd, et al. Front Vet Sci. 2024 Mar 6;11:1283709. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709. eCollection 2024. Front Vet Sci. 2024. PMID: 38511190 Free PMC article. Review.
-
McCredden JE, Cook N, Weller S, Leach V. McCredden JE, et al. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 20;10:986315. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.986315. eCollection 2022. Front Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36605238 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.
Weller S, McCredden JE. Weller S, et al. Front Public Health. 2024 Jan 12;11:1339513. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1339513. eCollection 2023. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38283297 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The population health effects from 5G: Controlling the narrative.
de Vocht F, Albers P. de Vocht F, et al. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 19;10:1082031. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1082031. eCollection 2022. Front Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36600933 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). “Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment”, EPA/630/P-03/001F. Washington, DC; 2005. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf
-
- US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). “Supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibility for early-life exposure to carcinogens”, EPA/630/R-03/003F. Washington, DC; 2005. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/childrens_s...
-
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC). “Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies”, FCC19–126, 2019. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/06/2020-06966/human-ex...
-
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC). “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”, 1997. OET Bulletin 65. https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bull...
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous