Call on IARC to re-evaluate RF Radiation

































Everyone - not just experts - can nominate an agent for IARC to examine, in order to decide whether it is carcinogenic to humans. Nominations must be received by 15th January 2019, and they will be considered at its meeting  'Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024', which takes place on 25–27 March 2019.


IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation) is holding a meeting in March 2019 in order to decide which agents to study over the next few years. Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation from wireless technologies is an obvious candidate for their consideration. It is emitted by phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, mobile masts (cell towers), etc., it is just about everywhere, and it is currently classified as a Group 2B Possible Carcinogen.

In 2011, IARC determined that there is limited evidence in humans of a link between RF Radiation and glioma and acoustic neuroma. Since then, the non-industry scientific evidence has continued to accumulate, showing that as well as being linked to tumours, RF radiation can also cause many other health effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

Despite IARC's decision, a precautionary approach to the mass deployment of wireless technologies has generally NOT been adopted, and now new 5G millimetre wave frequencies are to be added to the electrosmog to which we are all exposed on a daily basis. Nobody really knows what the total effect of this will be on human, animal and plant life, but many scientific experts are warning that the consequences are likely to be dire.

Major studies carried out by the National Toxicology Program in the US, and the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, have recently found 'clear' and 'statistically significant' evidence respectively of a link between RF radiation and tumours:

NTP
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf

Ramazzini Institute
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367?via%3Dihub



What more evidence do we really need?

Despite this, all warnings and appeals to Governments and other official organisations fall upon deaf ears, no precautions are taken, and we are told that this electrosmog is safe as long as it is kept within 'internationally agreed' guidelines, such as those provided by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation, which is a small, self-appointed organisation based in Germany, with known commercial and military links.

To illustrate the sheer scale of the problem, the GSMA - an industry lobby group - says that 'the number of unique mobile subscribers will reach 5.9 billion by 2025, equivalent to 71% of the world’s population'. It adds that (wireless) Internet of Things connections 'will increase more than threefold worldwide between 2017 and 2025, reaching 25 billion'.

https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Mobile-Economy-Global-2018.pdf

Perhaps one of the few remaining ways in which sanity could be restored, and meaningful action taken, might be if IARC were to reclassify RF radiation as either a Group 2A Probable Carcinogen, or even as a Group 1 Human Carcinogen. Just look what happened with Roundup / Monsanto after Glyphosate was classified as a Group 2A Probable Carcinogen

Everyone is able to nominate an agent for IARC to study; it says this on their website, and I emailed them for verification, which I duly received.

The form itself is a bit fiddly to use. I downloaded the .pdf file of the form, and filled it in on the computer. Even though you may not be an expert who will taking part in the actual deliberations, you will still need to fill in the Conflicts of Interest section of the form. You will also need to create a 'digital signature', and add this at the bottom of the form. Instructions on how to do this are given via the link below, and please note that you will need the free software Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your device to add the digital signature to the form.

https://app.box.com/s/kyhv0wgguqo9k30w40dgmjsamttcx78k

I really believe that if IARC were to re-evaluate RF radiation, taking into account the recent results from the National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute study results, and if the classification was subsequently tightened - even if only to Group 2A Probable Carcinogen - then this would change everything. Just imagine a world where it is officially acknowledged that exposure to radiation from wireless devices and technologies will probably cause cancer.

If you'd like to suggest that IARC re-evaluate RF Radiation (or any other agent, come to that), the link is below. The link below this is to a page with further information about this meeting. Below this is a link to a copy of the form that I submitted, with my email address removed.

It seems to me that if we want things to change for the better, we will need to be instrumental in that change. Nominating RF Radiation as an agent for IARC to study - urgently - would be a good place to start...

FORM: Nomination of Agents for Future IARC Monographs
https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/DOI-and-Nominations.pdf

IARC Monographs - Upcoming Meetings (additional links and information)
https://monographs.iarc.fr/iarc-monographs-meetings/

My agent nomination to IARC
https://app.box.com/s/n5t6h479uzqu9jseyown25htx9091rl8



Image from: https://www.compoundchem.com/2015/10/26/carcinogens/


(Please note that Coffee, shown in the image at the top, is now classified as  Group 3: 'Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans')

Comments

  1. Hi Dave,

    Like the poster, however since its conception IARC classifies coffee as a Group 3 not Group 2B as per press release below.

    https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr244_E.pdf

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Glasses and EMFs

A Story of Ehs, and Accepting Loss

Major EHS tribunal decision in the UK