cancer: Microwave News Article Archive (2004 - )

We’re all frazzled and anxious. The world has changed, seemingly overnight, and we don’t know when and how we will ever go back to normal —whatever that means. One thing we don’t have to worry about is whether 5G radiation is responsible for COVID-19. It’s not. There’s no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

Yet, there is at least one important parallel between how we’ve been struggling with COVID-19 over the last few months and how we have been dealing with electromagnetic radiation for the last few decades. In each case, science has taken a back seat to politics.

An advisory committee has recommended that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reassess the cancer risks associated with RF radiation. This should be a “high priority,” according to the panel’s report, which was issued last week.

The group, with 29 members from 18 countries, suggests that the new evaluation take place between 2022 and 2024.

In May 2011, an IARC expert committee classified RF radiation...

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) will release the “complete results” of its $25 million project on cell phone cancer risks early next year, according to a statement posted on its Web site yesterday.

“The complete results from all the rats and mice studies will be available for peer review and public comment by early 2018,” the NTP states. The animals were exposed to GSM or CDMA radiation for two years before they were sacrificed and...

“Inhibition of Cancer Cell Growth by Exposure to a Specific Time-Varying EMF Involves T-Type Calcium Channels,” PLOS One, posted online April 14, 2015.

“These observations are consistent with the idea that exposure to specific EMF patterns can affect biological systems by a mechanism consistent with molecular resonance. In this case, … to allow an inappropriate influx of Ca2+ which was able to disrupt proliferation of malignant cells.” From Sudbury, Canada. Open access.

“Occupational ELF Magnetic Field Exposure and Selected Cancer Outcomes in a Prospective Dutch Cohort,” Cancer Causes and Control, posted online November 16, 2013.

“For lung, breast and brain cancer, we found no evidence of an association.…We did observe associations between ELF-EMF exposure and follicular lymphoma and acute myeloid leukemia in men although AML did not show clear exposure-response relationship.” From the Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences at Utrecht University.

“Transmembrane Voltage Potential Is an Essential Cellular Parameter for the Detection and Control of Tumor Development in a Xenopus Model,” by Brook Chernet and Michael Levin of Tufts University, Disease Models & Mechanisms, posted online February 1, 2013:

“These data implicate bioelectric signaling in the induction of tumors by oncogenes, revealing a new layer of regulation in cancer biology.” (Open access)

A couple of months ago, the British Journal of Cancer published a paper detailing some extraordinary results: very specific types of weak electromagnetic (EM) fields were able to stabilize and shrink liver tumors in advanced cancer patients who had exhausted other treatment options. A press release was issued describing how the EM treatment was far more effective than the only available FDA-approved drug. It was pretty much ignored. No one believed it.

At the end of last month, the French National Cancer Institute updated its advisory on "Mobile Phones and Cancer Risks." The istitute's Web site on "Electromagnetic Waves" has links to numerous government reports and other documents.

The battle over Interphone continues. This time it's in full public view as key players publish papers detailing where they stand on cell phone tumor risks. There haven't been any big surprises since their opinions have long been known. Yet, the diametrically opposing views have led to conflicting stories in the media as each new study is released.