EMFs A Possible Human Carcinogen

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Aug 15, 2023 - 03:00 AM

Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Many people know ultraviolet rays and X-rays can cause cancer.

These are high-frequency, ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Ionizing EMFs are considered carcinogenic, while nonionizing EMFs, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth signals, and fields from electronic devices, are generally not. This perception has prevailed in the public mindset for decades.


However, there’s limited awareness that certain nonionizing EMFs are also classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as class 2B carcinogens—a category indicating potential human carcinogenicity.

Dr. David Carpenter, an environmental health professor at the University of Albany who received his medical doctorate from Havard Medical School, noted that radiofrequency, a type of nonionizing radiation used in telecommunications, might eventually fall under class 2A classification, denoting a probable human carcinogen.

Oxidation, DNA Changes, and Cancer

Cancer is usually caused by mutation or changes to DNA. Factors like viral infections, radiation, and environmental toxins can alter DNA sequences.

Ionizing EMFs directly damage DNA. Ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays remove electrons from DNA, causing mutations. Accumulated mutations lead to cell malignancy.

Nonionizing radiation doesn’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Yet various studies have linked exposure to nonionizing EMFs with DNA breakage. Cells from EMF-exposed animals and phone users have shown genetic damage.

Cancer can also be induced through stress alone. Examples of this include asbestos and arsenic, which cause cancer in the absence of DNA damage. 

For this reason, Dr. Carpenter suggests EMFs may be carcinogenic just by inducing “reactive oxygen species” that stress the cell environment through oxidation. Oxidation generated by EMFs have been shown to break DNA in human sperm and fibroblast cells, indicating potentially carcinogenic risks. 

Professor Emeritus Martin Pall, specializing in biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, explained that EMFs are complicated in that stronger EMFs don’t necessarily mean more DNA damage. Instead, only specific frequencies and intensities cause an effect.

This has been shown in a recent University of Colorado study, finding that at a 4.2 MHz frequency, human fibroblast and fibrosarcoma mitochondria increased in mass, inducing cell stress. This effect was absent at higher and lower frequencies.

According to IARC, possibly carcinogenic nonionizing EMFs include:

  1. Extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs commonly found at frequencies of 50 to 60 Hz emitted by power lines, electronic wires, and virtually all electrically powered devices.
  2. Radiofrequency EMFs emitted by wireless devices such as phones, Wi-Fi modems, TVs, and cellphone towers used in telecommunications. These are also utilized in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Research indicates chromosomal breakage after MRI sessions.

IARC rated radiofrequency as class 2B rather than 2A, with one of the reasons being the lack of evidence linking it to cancer in animal studies.

Contrastingly, the 2018 U.S. National Toxicology Program study from the 1990s presented “clear evidence” of radiofrequency-induced heart tumors in rats, along with “some evidence” of brain and adrenal cancers.

The Ramazani Institute’s 2018 study also discovered heart and brain tumors in rats, aligning with these findings.

EMFs and Brain Cancer

Senior consultant in radiation sciences Kjell Hansson Mild from Umeå University in Sweden told The Epoch Times that the link between EMF exposure and brain cancer and tumors is well-established.

A study from the 1980s revealed a 39 percent higher risk of brain cancer among amateur radio operators due to EMFs.

“Brain gliomas associated with cellphones have the most research. The gliomas appear after 10 years of moderate cellphone use, primarily ipsilateral cancers (cancer on the same side of head where you hold the cellphone),” Professor Emerita Magda Havas told The Epoch Times over email. 

Glioma are malignant brain cancers.

A 2017 study linked long-term ipsilateral use of mobile phones with an over 40 percent increased risk of slow-growing glioma. A large French study conducted between 2004 to 2006 found that people with “heavy mobile phone use” had increased folds in glioma risk after years of use. 

(The Epoch Times)

In 2004, oncologist and professor Lennart Hardell from Örebro University in Sweden published a study involving over 1,600 patients with benign brain tumors. His research found a 30 percent higher likelihood of brain tumors in wireless phone users. These tumors primarily developed on the side of the head in contact with the phone, with an over 60 percent higher risk after 10 years of phone use.

Benign tumors typically do not become cancerous; they grow slower and do not invade nearby tissues or other areas of the body.

Another Swedish study in 2004 indicated no initial risk increase of acoustic neuroma (benign brain tumor) associated with phone use within the first year. However, by the 10th year, the risk surged to 90 percent.

Other research on brain tumors emerged from occupational exposure studies.

EMF exposures and their link with brain tumors. (The Epoch Times)

During the late 1990s, a study examined approximately 880,000 U.S. Air Force personnel with at least one year of service. This study detected 230 cases of brain cancer potentially linked to radiofrequency exposure, revealing a 39 percent heightened risk through occupational exposure. In 2001, a review (pdf) demonstrated that those working with electricity faced an up to 20 percent greater risk of developing brain cancer than the general public. Still, researchers concluded the risk was too low to warrant a discussion on causality.

Despite increased environmental radiofrequency exposures among the public, Mr. Hansson Mild’s primary concerns are power lines and occupational exposures.

He noted that phones used in previous studies emitted stronger signals than today’s phones.

“Today, you only need to reach 200 meters to the next base station. But yesterday, you needed to reach 35 kilometers to reach the base station,” Mr. Hansson Mild explained.

Read more here...