High exposure to radio frequency radiation associated with cancer in male rats,스마트폰 전자파가 암을 유발한다.

[edwin]

High exposure to radio frequency radiation associated with cancer in male rats

Reports on rat and mouse studies of radio frequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phone technologies

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded there is clear evidence that male rats exposed to high levels of radio frequency radiation (RFR) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones developed cancerous heart tumors, according to final reports released today. There was also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were associated with exposure to RFR. The final reports represent the consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in February.

"The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone," said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. "In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience."

The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted.

"We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed," said Bucher.

The $30 million NTP studies took more than 10 years to complete and are the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of health effects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones. 2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting.

"A major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received -- something that's not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires," said Michael Wyde, Ph.D., lead toxicologist on the studies.

He also noted the unexpected finding of longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. "This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats," Wyde said.

The animals were housed in chambers specifically designed and built for these studies. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5 to 6 weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.

These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.

"5G is an emerging technology that hasn't really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied," said Wyde.

For future studies, NTP is building smaller RFR exposure chambers that will make it easier to eval‎uate newer telecommunications technologies in weeks or months, rather than years. These studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential effects from RFR. These may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated cell phone RFR for study by NTP because of widespread public use of cell phones and limited knowledge about potential health effects from long-term exposure. NTP will provide the results of these studies to FDA and the Federal Communications Commission, who will review the information as they continue to monitor new research on the potential effects of RFR.

NTP uses four categories to summarize the evidence that a substance may cause cancer:

• Clear evidence (highest)
• Some evidence
• Equivocal evidence
• No evidence (lowest)

More information on the categories is available at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/pubs/longterm/defs/index.html.

Editor's Note: In response to the National Toxicology Program's news release, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health on the National Toxicology Program's report on radiofrequency energy exposure (https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm624809.htm). The statement reads, in part:

"We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences within the National Institutes of Health, on radiofrequency energy exposure. After reviewing the study, we disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding 'clear evidence' of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.

"In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones. Doing this was intended to help contribute to what we already understand about the effects of radiofrequency energy on animal tissue. In fact, we only begin to observe effects to animal tissue at exposures that are 50 times higher than the current whole body safety limits set by the FCC for radiofrequency energy exposure.

"Our colleagues at NTP echoed this point in a statement earlier this year about their draft final report, including the important note that 'these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage.'

"We agree that these findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage."