A known carcinogen since 1970

FRANCES LEADER

Below you find selected extracts from a NASA document written in 1981:

ABSTRACT

Mankind has been immersed in electromagnetic (EM) fields since his appearance on the earth. Only relatively recently has his environment included more or less coherent EM fields (from electric power lines, radio and television broadcasting, radar, lasers, etc.).

Most previous studies have involved effects of ionizing radiation on the human body. Significantly less has been done with non-ionizing EM fields.

This report attempts to summarise the state of published knowledge about the effects of non-ionizing EM fields on humans. Information has been collected from a variety of sources. The written sources (over 1000) included a wide variety running from journals to news articles. Other types of sources included in-person meetings, telephone interviews and lecture tapes. Of the reported 5000 pertinent documents and items that exist on the subject, it is believed that the report represents an accurate sampling of existing relevant subject matter. A major purpose of the report is to indicate that there are good, bad and benign effects to be expected from non-ionizing EM fields and much more knowledge appears necessary to properly categorize and qualify EM field characteristics.

Knowledge of the boundary between categories, perhaps largely dependent on field intensity, is vital to proper future use of EM radiation for any purpose and the protection of the individual citizen from hazard.

Electromagnetic field interactions with the human body: Observed effects and theories

The effects of nonionizing electromagnetic (EM) field interactions with the human body were reported and human related studies were collected. Nonionizing EM fields are linked to cancer in humans in three different ways: cause, means of detection, and effective treatment.

The effects listed and/or discussed in this section relate to at least three of the five senses (touch, hearing, and sight) and nearly every system of the human body (including circulatory, digestive, nervous, and muscular). Many of them are temporary; however, some result in death and persistent disease. Some are better understood and more widely accepted than others.

The frequency ranges and exposure levels are not described exactly, though some individual reports mentioned later in this section are more precise about those parameters. This lack of precision, and the subsequent controversy surrounding the results, are chief disadvantages of restricting attention to humans. After an adverse effect is diagnosed, perhaps after years of growing discomfort, it may be difficult to isolate the conditions exclusively responsible from the general complexity of the subject’s occupational and living routines. For example, a “microwave worker” might service a great variety of radars and radio transmitters, each with different frequencies, exposure levels, etc. Without a solid theoretical foundation to use as a guide, the most suspect source of electromagnetic radiation cannot be identified. Of these controversial effects, the ones associated with the central nervous system are collectively termed “neurasthenia“. Some of these are reportedly reversible. That is, when the electromagnetic field vanishes, so do the effects.

Electromagnetic fields may cause death in at least two ways, ventricular fibrillation and sudden infant death syndrome. Both of these occur at power line frequencies; however, one technical newsletter (Bioelectromagnetic Society Newsletter, December, 1980) reported one fatality associated with much higher frequencies. Death followed accelerated aging, and a New York State court was convinced that protracted exposure to microwaves was the cause.

It is also seen from the tables and figures in the document that electromagnetic fields may promote cancer. Holt (Table 18) reported the stimulation of human cancers at VHF (30-300 MHz) frequencies and exposure levels less than 10 mW/cm 2 (milliwatts per square centimeter). Wertheimer and Leeper (Table 19) performed a formal epidemiological study relating childhood cancer to fields at 60 Hz. At least one adverse effect is not included in the tables and figures, and that is cataracts. Over fifty have been attributed to exposure at microwave frequencies (roughly 3-300 GHz). One ophthalmologist claims these cataracts can be uniquely identified by clouding of the posterior part of the lens, in contrast to clouding of the anterior part in other cases. With respect to curious effects, at least two have been included in this section, microwave hearing and visual effects. has already been discussed in connection with Table 22. The former Visual effects include the distortion of thresholds for various colours (Table 15) and magneto phosphenes (Table 18). The latter effect is the perception of light flashes in response to a magnetic field.

Beneficial Effects

Electromagnetic field effects have both established and developing uses in medicine. In addition, some alleged benefits have not been acknowledged in medical circles. Table 23 is a summary of various beneficial effects, at frequencies ranging from 0-434 MHz. Most of these are included in the broad category of electromagnetic diathermy. That is, electromagnetic fields are used to heat various parts of the body. It is generally believed that heat stimulates the natural healing and/or defense mechanisms to relieve or cure the ailment.

Of all known effects, relief by diathermy is probably the oldest, beginning in 1892 when D’Arsonval observed tissue heating due to low frequency electric currents. Comprehensive text books on the technique appeared by the early part of this century (e.g. Danzer et al, 1938). The table also includes two techniques, however, which have been used only recently compared to diathermy. They are: bone healing and hyperthermia. The table shows that Brighton and Friedenberg have used microampere currents to mend stubborn bone fractures. Not shown is similar work by Bassett, who reportedly used 75 Hz pulsed currents of only a few nanoamperes to produce bone healing. Note that in either case, the currents are so small that heating probably is not part of this effect.

With respect to hyperthermia, the table shows that Holt and Nelson reported positive results in the treatment of a great variety of cancers. Briefly, the objective of hyperthermia is to raise the temperature of cancerous tissue to 42- 45 degrees Centigrade. In that range, the cancer cells tend to die, but healthy cells manage to survive as they would during a high fever. The reason for the preferential survival is generally attributed to the relatively poor circulatory system of cancerous tissue. That is, lack of blood prevents the cancer cells from dissipating lethal amounts of heat energy.

Electromagnetic hyperthermia is increasingly used as part of cancer treatment, as indicated by Tables 24 through 26 and Figures 18 and 19. Table 24 shows that three different frequencies (27, 915, and 2450 MHz) are used. The chief reason is that the electro50. magnetic spectrum is regulated, and only certain frequencies have been reserved for such use. These constitute the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical) band and include the frequencies 13, 27, 40, 915, 2450, and 6000 MHz. Note that Holt and Nelson (Table 23) used 434 MHz in Australia, but that frequency is not available in the United States. Of the ISM band, 915 MHz is closest to a physic~l optimum, in the sense that absorbed power is maximum for much bulk tissue. Table 25 shows how hyperthermia is used in conjunction with more traditional forms of cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy and ionizing radiation. The latter seem to be so much more effective when used simultaneously with hypert~ermia that only very small doses (about 10% of the usual amount) are required. Therefore, the toxic side effects are largely avoided and prolonged treatment is feasible. Table 26 shows how hyperthermia is realized at a variety of local sites on or in the body, and some of the associated· problems.

Electromagnetic fields are applied using specialized antennas. In medicine, these have been given a special name, “applicators”. Typically, they couple 1-100 watts into various parts of the body. Figs. 18 and 19 show two different applicators. The bean bag type is suitable for the surface of the body. The coaxial type is designed for use inside the body. The tables and figures do not include a number of both traditional and experimental electromagnetic field effects. The former include: defibrillation; various types of shock treatment; and diagnosis using the body’s own electromagnetic signals, such as the electrocardio- and electroencephalogram. The novel ones include at least two diagnostic techniques, microwave thermography and microwave scanning. Microwave thermography is a passive technique similar to radiometry. The electromagnetic signature of cancerous breast tissue seems to be unique. The advantage over conventional X-rays is the apparent lack of toxic effects. Two different frequencies are presently being used, 3.3 and 1.3 GHz (Barret and Myers, 1979). Microwave scanning is a bistatic radar system. That is, the transmitting and receiving antennas are at different (in this case, opposite) sites. Evidently, microwaves passing through an organ can be used to construct a high resolution image of it, rivaling 51. those obtained using conventional X-rays. This is possible in part due to the high bulk dielectric constant of tissue, so that, at a fixed frequency, a wave length in the organ is about one ninth what it would be in air . For example, at 3 Ghz a wavelength is only 1.1 centimeter. For purposes of radar imaging, the smaller the wave length, the greater the resolution. The advantage over X-rays is apparent lack of toxic effects. Finally, one controversial beneficial effect concerns negative airborne ions. Reportedly, these can impart a feeling of exuberance and general well being. Positive ions reportedly have the opposite effect. This belief supports a world wide ion generator industry.

Physical and Physiological Foundations

A great variety of theories have been developed to help understand the effects described in the preceding sections. In this section, the theories are presented roughly in order of how homogeneous the human body is assumed to be. At one extreme, it may be regarded as a simple shape (e.g. a prolate spheroid) with a single set of electromagnetic constants (permittivity, permeability, and conductivity). In that sense, the body is a simple antenna or probe capable of intercepting a certain amount of electromagnetic energy, which is converted entirely into heat. At the other extreme, the body may be regarded as a collection of countless electronic microcircuits, each one corresponding to an individual cell or part thereof. Electromagnetic energy somehow finds its way to individual microcircuits and influences the electronic functions there. These functions include various communication and control processes essential to life and its activities. Probably neither extreme is a totally correct or incorrect viewpoint, and each provides useful physical insights.

Proteins figure predominantly in at least one theory of cancer, advanced by Nobel laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, which is currently being researched. According to this theory, proteins conduct electrons out of the cell interior. Oxygen molecules at the cell exterior accept the electrons and carry them away. These free electrons are products of some chemical process inside the cell that inhibits reproduction. If the electrons are not conducted away, then the process stops, and the cell divides at an uncontrolled rate. Eventually, there are enough cells to form a tumour, which characteristically has a poor circulatory system. So, little or no oxygen-carrying blood reaches the cells. The continued lack of oxygen exacerbates the situation, and reproduction continues unchecked. This theory is consistent with and, in part, based upon evolution. The earliest living cells were cancerous in nature, reproducing without limit and they developed and thrived in the early atmosphere of this planet, which was oxygen starved. As noted at the beginning of this section, theories exist for every geometric scale within the body. At one extreme, the entire body can be treated at once as a homogeneous object. Other theories focus on the cell. Still others concentrate on but a part of the cell, the membrane. Even the membrane is not homogeneous, and theories were presented based on one type of molecule within the membrane, the protein. Possibly, in an effort to better understand microscopic charge conduction, future theories will be specialized to certain chemical compounds within the protein.

Some Speculation and Areas for Further Research

Based on the exhibits and discussions of the preceding sections, the present state of knowledge would most likely benefit from the following types of efforts:

• Improved observations of effects

• More intensive, quantitative exploitation of existing physiological knowledge and electromagnetic theory.

• Formulation of new physio-electromagnetic theories.

Elaboration on these follows.

Improved Observations of Effects

The need for more uniform and rigorous reporting is especially evident in the section concerning adverse effects. Precise records of frequency, polarization, intensity, and duration of exposure are sometimes lacking. Quantitative measures of the effect (e.g. how severe, how extensive, how persistent) are similarly lacking. A standard procedure for conducting formal epidemiological studies is needed, including precise definitions of the electromagnetic variables and biological endpoints. In contrast, beneficial effects, especially electromagnetic diathermy and hyperthermia, have been exploited in a much more purposeful fashion. The reason is probably that at least the desired biological endpoint (selective, localized heating) was clear. On the other hand, identification and optimization of electromagnetic variables is still in progress. A sound theoretical foundation would certainly clarify the variables and endpoints.

Quantitative Exploitation of Existing Physiological Knowledge

The preceding section indicated that the properties and functions of the human body have been investigated at many levels of detail, ranging from the bulk properties of organs and tissue to the structure of cell membranes and proteins. This knowledge has already been the basis for some rigorous computations, but many more are still waiting to be performed. Among those already demonstrated, the SAR concept, discussed in the preceding section, has been highly refined. Computer models can predict heat dissipation and temperature changes for local regions of the body. On the other hand, no computation has yet been performed to determine the current density incident at the membrane of individual cells in situ for heart muscles or nerves due to external electromagnetic fields. Such a computation might be practical, and it could provide much quantitative information concerning the effects of frequency, polarization, intensity, and other variables on the functioning of these cells. The computation might be further extended to include arrays of cells to determine whether they respond coherently.

New Physio-Electromagnetic Theories

Some novel interactions between electromagnetic fields and the human body have been proposed, and they await further investigation, both theoretically and experimentally. The ones discussed here include: nonionizing single photon interactions, coherent phenomena, coupled oscillators, and the relative importance of different charge species. As noted in the introduction of this report, single photon interactions other than ionization are expected, based on fundamental physics. In principle, external electromagnetic fields can cause an abnormal response if the energy per photon is greater than the background, or thermal, noise due to others encountered randomly within the human body.

After investigating single photon interactions, it would be logical to consider the possibility of multiple photon interactions.

If one photon can alter a protein at 6,000 GHz, then 6,000 photons can do it at 1 GHz. 6,000 I-GHz photons?

But how efficiently can one protein intercept?

What would the corresponding incident field intensity be at the surface of the body?

Would it be so great that thermal injury would overwhelm the interaction?

The answer, that is, the field intensity, might be surprisingly low. The concept of cooperative, or long-range, or coherent, interactions suggests this result. According to the concept, individual microscopic particles, such as proteins, can have very large cross sections (i.e. receiver areas or gain) if they interact with each other. Actually, this is not such a novel idea. High gain antennas and lasers are established examples. In electromagnetic physiology, however, only a few theories based on it have appeared so far. According to one such theory, proposed by Frohlich, the surface charges on a cell membrane are all coherent. Further, they may also be coherent with surface charges on the membranes of other cells. All of these charges, considered collectively, can oscillate between at least two different states. Based on quantum mechanical formulas, Frohlich has estimated the natural frequency of oscillation.

It is in the band 50-3,000 GHz.

Frohlich suggests his theory may lead to a better understanding of cancer. The energy required to sustain the oscillations comes from within the cells. The energy drain inhibits cell reproduction. If the oscillations cease, then the cell divides without bound, ultimately resulting in cancer. This implies that electromagnetic waves in the 50-3,000 GHz band might promote or be used to inhibit the disease. According to another theory, charges and currents in the brain and central nervous system are also coherent. They are, therefore, sensitive to very low level external fields.

Little distinction has so far been made between species of electric currents. In fact, however, it is probably significant. The flow of sodium currents probably has a different effect than the flow of proton currents or calcium currents. What other species of currents are found within the body, and what are their different physiological functions? The answer might be found in the detailed structure and conduction mechanisms of the many different proteins embedded in cell membranes. This level of microscopic detail is now the frontier of understanding for the human body. The frontier awaits exploration.

—0—

Now let’s look at the progress since 1981

Concern about health risks from exposure to non-ionising radiation (NIR) commenced in the 1950s after tracking radars were first introduced during the Second World War. Soon after, research on possible biological effects of microwave radiation in the former Soviet Union and the U.S. led to public and worker exposure limits being much lower in Eastern European than in Western countries, mainly because of different protection philosophies.

I wrote this article to illustrate the gulf between Russian and NASA thresholds:

---

As public concern increased…

National authorities began introducing legislation to limit NIR exposures from domestic microwave ovens and workplace devices such as visual display units. The International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) was formed in 1966 to represent national radiation protection societies.

To address NIR protection issues, IRPA established a Working Group in 1974, then a Study Group in 1975, and finally the International NIR Committee (INIRC) in 1977. INIRC’s publications quickly became accepted worldwide, and it was logical that it should become an independent commission. IRPA finally established the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), chartering its remit in 1992, and defining NIR as electromagnetic radiation (ultraviolet, visible, infrared), electromagnetic waves and fields, and infra- and ultrasound.

ICNIRP’s guidelines have been incorporated into legislation or adopted as standards in many countries. While ICNIRP has been subjected to criticism and close scrutiny by the public, media, and activists, it has continued to issue protection advice.

WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE IN 2025?

THE MAIN goal of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is to provide advice and guidance to protect people and the environment from unfavourable exposure to all forms of non-ionising radiation (NIR). To this end, ICNIRP uses the scientific literature, including reviews of the scientific evidence and health risk assessments from other expert groups and international committees. ICNIRP’s guidance thus incorporates the breadth of scientific outputs and consensus views regarding substantiated and potential health effects and ensures the robustness of its guidelines. The guidelines for the protection of humans exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the range 100 kHz to 300 GHz have been published recently (hereafter “the Guidelines”; ICNIRP 2020a) and they primarily replace the 100 kHz to 300 GHz part of the ICNIRP (1998) radiofrequency EMF guidelines.

A statement from ICNIRP January 2025:

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE RELEVANT TO THE “ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (100 KHZ TO 300 GHZ)”

Abstract

In the last 30 years, observational as well as experimental studies have addressed possible health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) and investigated potential interaction mechanisms.

The main goal of ICNIRP is to protect people and the environment from detrimental exposure to all forms of non-ionizing radiation (NIR), providing advice and guidance by developing and disseminating exposure guidelines based on the available scientific research on specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

During the development of International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP’s) 2020 radiofrequency EMF guidelines some gaps in the available data were identified. To encourage further research into knowledge gaps in research that would, if addressed, assist ICNIRP in further developing guidelines and setting revised recommendations on limiting exposure, data gaps that were identified during the development of the 2020 radiofrequency EMF guidelines, in conjunction with subsequent consideration of the literature, are described in this Statement.

Note that this process and resultant recommendations were not intended to duplicate more traditional research agendas, whose focus is on extending knowledge in this area more generally but was tightly focused on identifying the highest data gap priorities for guidelines development more specifically.

The result of this distinction is that the present data gap recommendations do not include some gaps in the literature that in principle could be relevant to radiofrequency EMF health, but which were excluded because either the link between exposure and endpoint, or the link between endpoint and health, was not supported sufficiently by the literature.

The evaluation of these research areas identified the following data gaps:

(1) Issues concerning relations between radiofrequency EMF exposure and heat-induced pain;

(2) Clarification of the relation between whole-body exposure and core temperature rise from 100 kHz to 300 GHz, as a function of exposure duration and combined EMF exposures;

(3) Adverse effect thresholds and thermal dosimetry for a range of ocular structures;

(4) Pain thresholds for contact currents under a range of exposure scenarios, including associated dosimetry; and

(5) A range of additional dosimetry studies to both support future research, and also to improve the application of radiofrequency EMF exposure restrictions in future guidelines.

Although the Guidelines are based on the best science currently available, during the preparation process ICNIRP identified limitations in the data available from the international scientific literature that are likely to have a tangible impact on future guideline development (using the algorithm described in ICNIRP 2020b).

This algorithm differs from methods used for more typical research agenda in that it only recommends data gaps “in so far as there is appropriate evidence that they are likely to help development needs,” rather than merely being “possibly relevant.” That is, it would not recommend research to determine whether radiofrequency EMF adversely affects an endpoint (e.g., depression) merely because it has not yet been studied but would require appropriate evidence and/or argument in support of its inclusion as a data gap. The principal goal of the present document is to invite the international scientific community to promote research in specific topics where gaps in knowledge were identified during the development of the radiofrequency EMF Guidelines and accordingly to benefit future guideline development.

CONCLUSION

Literature available both in biology and dosimetry has been analysed to set the guidelines for limiting exposure to radiofrequency EMF (100 kHz to 300 GHz) (ICNIRP 2020a).

In terms of biology, although sufficient information was available as the basis for that guideline development, we have identified some gaps in knowledge that, if addressed with the above specified research, would greatly assist ICNIRP and others in the future development of radiofrequency EMF exposure guidelines:

(1) Issues concerning relations between radiofrequency EMF exposure and heat-induced pain;

(2) Clarification of the relation between whole-body exposure and core temperature rise from 100 kHz to 300 GHz, as a function of exposure duration and combined EMF exposures;

(3) Adverse effect thresholds and thermal dosimetry for a range of ocular structures; and

(4) Pain thresholds for contact currents under a range of exposure scenarios, including associated dosimetry.

For biological outcomes where effects have not been substantiated, we did not find sufficient plausible evidence that radiofrequency EMF might cause harm below currently established thresholds. This does not imply that there are no open scientific questions. For instance, studies on oxidative balance and brain physiology repeatedly observed effects (although not consistently). Without knowledge of the underlying mechanism, this is unlikely to influence guidelines development. Similar considerations can be made for other outcomes discussed in this paper. For these reasons, further research is not specified as a data gap for the purposes of future guidelines development. Additionally, a range of dosimetry studies have been recommended to both support future research and to improve the application of radiofrequency EMF restrictions in future guidelines.

A SNAIL MOVES FASTER.

.

Criticism of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) centres around its guidelines and the perceived bias in its assessments. Critics, such as myself, argue that ICNIRP focuses only on thermal effects from radiofrequency and microwave radiation exposure, dismissing non-thermal effects and epidemiological studies that show adverse health impacts.

Neil Cherry (2000) criticizes ICNIRP for playing its own game and setting its own rules, where the first rule is that there is only a tissue heating effect from RF/MW exposure, and any non-thermal effects are not real.

Roger Coghill (2007) also points out that ICNIRP ignores interference effects and all 400 plus studies of non-thermal effects reported in the peer-reviewed literature Gerald Hyland (2002) further criticizes ICNIRP’s response to concerns about health hazards of weak electromagnetic fields as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent and distort the sense of the original text.

Dariusz Leszczynski (2012) argues that claims of scientific consensus by ICNIRP are false, as some expert committees disagree entirely and often end up in the same evaluating body, which is detrimental to fair scientific debate.

ICNIRP is an independent, non-profit scientific organization chartered in Germany, founded in 1992 by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). Its mission is to evaluate scientific knowledge and provide protection guidance on non-ionizing radiation, including radio, microwave, UV, and infrared. However, its guidelines have been criticized for being highly selective, biased, and dismissive of genotoxic evidence and epidemiological evidence of cancer and reproductive effects.

The organization consists of 14 members, including scientists from universities and radiation protection agencies, who do not represent their country of origin or institute and cannot be employed by commercial entities. ICNIRP’s funding comes solely from public bodies and income from publications and scientific congresses and workshops.

To quote Neil Cherry in his conclusions:

When all of the results in the context of a global natural electromagnetic radiation signal, the Schumann Resonance signal, Cherry (2002), the results and the hypothesis make very solid sense. Cherry (2002) shows that there is very strong evidence to support the hypothesis that the Schumann Resonance (SR) Signal is detected by the brain, and the SR signal synchronizes the ELF activity of the brain. Adey (1980,1988) shows that brain tissue responds to external ELF modulated signals by altering the rate of flux of calcium ions through neurons, at extremely low induced issue field intensities down to 10-8V/cm.

The brain’s circadian and ELF activity is synchronized by this signal with a matching frequency range being resonantly absorbed in the brain tissue. Solar and Geomagnetic Activity (S-GMA) induces changes in human health, including cancer, through modulating the SR signal, altering brain activity and altering melatonin production. The SR signal is a mainly tropically sourced radiating ELF signal, that has been chronically globally available. The SR signal has a mean vertical electric field strength in the range 0.22-1.12 mV/m (0.013-0.33pW/cm2 ), averaging about 0.1pW/cm2 . The magnetic field component is typically in the range 1 to 6pT.

The natural electromagnetic sensitivity of the brain gives a strong basis for accepting that electromagnetic field and radiation exposures at thousands to millions of times higher intensity than the natural SR signal, can damage brain tissue and could cause brain cancer if the damage is genetic.

For mobile phones the user’s head is exposed to over a billion times higher intensity than the Schumann Resonance signal.

A second vital factor for brain damage is the primary need for damaged brain cells to be repaired if possible, because of the nearly total lack of replacement. Melatonin plays a vital role in free radical scavenging and in the competence of the immune system, Reiter and Robinson (1995). With S-GMA activity, though the Schumann Resonance signal, altering human melatonin, Cherry (2002), then it is shown to be causally associated with a homeostatic relationship with variations in rates of cancer, cardiac, reproductive and neurological diseases and mortality, though a large body of multiple, independent studies. Cherry also shows that similar effects are identified to be significantly and dose-response elevated in people in electrical occupations.

Recommended Public Exposure Standard:

There is very strong evidence, from multiple, independent studies, many with dose-response relationships, and many with isothermal or non-thermal or very low exposure levels in some studies, that radio frequency and microwave radiation is a genotoxic carcinogen.

Therefore it causes cellular mutations, and increased rates of cancer and Apoptosis in exposed populations, with no safe threshold level. This is backed up by a massive body of epidemiological studies. At least 95 epidemiological studies have found increases in brain tumour in EMF/EMR exposed residents and workers, including military personnel exposed to radio and radar. Over 40 of them are statistically significant and there are over 50 dose-response relationships, and about half of them are significant.

A similar number of occupational studies have found a statistically significant increase in leukaemia. In addition there are 130 many residential and occupational studies showing significantly increased adult and/or childhood leukaemia, over 20 with dose-response relationships and several with significant dose-response relationships.

In addition there are several studies that report significant increases in “all cancer” from RF/MW exposure, some of these are also residential studies, and some have dose response relationships.

This requires major reductions in the allowable public and occupational health protection exposure standards. Their levels should be set at such levels that chronic exposure do not result in detectable elevation of cancer, cardiac, reproductive and neurological health effects, once the ubiquitous exposures have been reduced. Acute and chronic exposure levels or a genotoxic carcinogen has recommended be de minimus, that is, as small as possible.

When there are those response relationships that point down towards zero, and existing levels very great deal, it is recommended that achievable safer guidelines are set and strategies developed and used to achieve it and get well below it. The environmental performance indications of the desired levels can be decided by national or regional standards authorities.

It is simply not scientifically credible to claim that there are no established nonthermal effects and hence it is wrong to adopt a guideline such as the ICNIRP guideline as a public exposure standard.

On the subject of melatonin’s importance

Please listen to Dr Jack Kruse explain during this Rumble channel discussion.

 

What is the relationship between Melatonin and Melanin?

Melatonin, a hormone produced mainly by the pineal gland, plays a role in regulating sleep-wake cycles and biological rhythms. It also modulates and inhibits the synthesis of melanin, a pigment responsible for skin and hair colour, by stopping the secretion of MSH and ACTH hormones and acting as an antioxidant Studies have shown that melatonin can reduce the synthesis of melanin in melanocytes, the cells that produce melanin, by decreasing the activity of tyrosinase, the enzyme that regulates melanin production.

I will let Uncle Jack have the last word. It would be rude not to!

ONWARDS!
xx

If you appreciate my research but cannot commit to a paid subscription you could buy me a coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/FrancesLeader

Please note that all my work is entirely free to read and will never be hidden behind a paywall. My lovely paying subscribers contribute knowing this to be true and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them very much for their ongoing support.

The important thing is sharing this educational information on social media, especially on X and Facebook and Discord where I am permanently excluded because my work upsets the totalitarians.

---

This article (NON-IONISING RADIATION ) was created and published by Frances Leader and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.