New York Times William J Broad Emails to Theodora Scarato on 5G and Health

Theodora Scarato Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust wrote the New York Times numerous times for corrections to their articles on 5G. Here are the records.

Notably, she sent Broad correspondence confirming that Ziskin’s comments were only about millimeter waves and not the lower frequencies to be used in 5G.

“My comments have addressed only the relative safety of millimeter waves with respect to that of RF emissions at lower frequencies. I have not made any other comments about the safety of the lower frequency RF emissions.” stated Marvin Ziskin, M.D.

Dr. Ziskin, stated in the New York Times article that “Therefore, 5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations.”

Subject: A reply from William J. Broad to your email
To: Theodora Scarato @ehtrust.org>

June 3, 2019

Dear Theodora Scarato:

Thank you for your email of May 27 and your request for corrections. I’ve weighed your points carefully and see them as statements rather than demonstrations of error. Below, I address what you consider to be my primary mistakes.

1)     5G frequencies: You’re right regarding lower-band use. So is The Times. Our graphic showed unmistakably that 5G bands overlap some existing cellphone bands. What you may not realize is that several 5G leaders – China and South Korea among them – have no plans to use the lowest frequencies, according to industry and federal reports. So, too, U.S. carriers have differing approaches. In any case, our graphic would have misled if it had showed all 5G systems as using the lowest cellular bands.
2)     Industry ties: We do point out industry financial support when it seems appropriate. It’s a judgment call.
3)     Cancer evidence:As you know, we reported in our story that the study by the National Toxicology Program “showed that 2G signals could produce brain cancer in male rats.” I’m not sure how “clear evidence” (the language you suggest) would have been more straightforward than simply stating it as a demonstrable fact.
4)     Frequencies in use: I addressed your point in my letter to you last year. It was the second of eleven responses.
5)     RT America’s role:I agree, as did the story. It stated clearly that RT America was not initiating the claims but instead drawing on a body of work going back decades.
6)     Industry-federal ties:Your point may have merit in some cases, but The Times cannot monitor them all. In any case, I would categorize that as a journalistic omission rather than a reporting error.
7)     WHO backstory:I appreciate the research. But postings on the website of the World Health Organization indicate WHO approval, regardless of the origin.

Thank you again for writing. As always, we’re grateful for reader feedback.

Sincerely,

Bill

William J. Broad

Science Department

620 8th Avenue
New York, NY, 10018

My phone: 212-556-7144

My articles:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/william_j_broad/index.html

Here is a response from the NYT accidentally sent to me

Alan Burdick <alan.burdick@nytimes.com>

Mon, May 27, 2019, 8:36 AM

to Theodora

Hi Bill,

We may be obliged to respond to her in some way, if only so we can say we did. I realize that she’s the same person to whom we replied at length after your story on the NTP study, and that no response is likely to satisfy. Celia is back on Wednesday, we can discuss with her then …

On May 23, 2019, 12:38 PM -0400, Theodora Scarato @ehtrust.org>, wrote:

Dear Mr. Broad,

Please update the inaccurate statements in your article on 5G and on the NTP study (as I previously documented).

Please see below my correspondence with Ziskin in regards Ziskin’s quote. He states here that he meant that millimeter waves- would be “safer” as the mmw penetrates less, but he did not mean 5G.

This inaccurate quote by the New York Times has been picked up nationwide.

It is a fact that 5G will utilize frequencies much lower than millimeter waves of course! so this statement by Ziskin cannot be applicable to 5G. 5G will utilize much lower frequencies that do penetrate the brain and body.

Thus the way your article posits his quote is inaccurate and should be corrected. Most unfortunately your article was quoted by a legislative director (see here) as proof of 5g safety so it is critical that you correct the article in regards to this quote and also the list I previously send you of corrections needed.

In addition, Ziskin’s industry affiliations should be vetted and noted if they exist. Did you ask him if industry sponsors his research or if it sponsors his university program ?

I see him on several papers that industry seems to state they financed. Read it here (Search Ziskin)

I asked Ziskin important follow up questions after this exchange and I hope he responds to ensure full clarity on his statement to you. I will send you his response.

Thank you,

Theodora

>

Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:38 PM

to William, alan.burdick, Cc:, rebecca.blumenstein, dbaquet, hilary.stout,

Dear Mr. Broad,

Please update the inaccurate statements in your article on 5G and on the NTP study (as I previously documented).

This inaccurate quote by the New York Times has been picked up nationwide.

In addition, Ziskin’s industry affiliations should be vetted and noted if they exist. Did you ask him if industry sponsors his research or if it sponsors his university program ?

I see him on several papers that industry seems to state they financed. Read it here (Search Ziskin)

I asked Ziskin important follow up questions after this exchange and I hope he responds to ensure full clarity on his statement to you. I will send you his response.

Thank you,

Theodora

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Marvin Ziskin <ziskin@temple.edu>
Date: Sun, May 19, 2019 at 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Follow up questions. on 5G
To: Theodora Scarato @ehtrust.org>

Dear Ms. Scarato:

Here are my responses to your questions:

Of course you are correct. 5G will include RF energies at frequencies below those of millimeter waves. However, the new feature of 5g is the inclusion of millimeter waves. Because the penetration of millimeter waves is limited to the skin and that the skin is a very effective barrier to environmental stresses, I think millimeter waves are inherently less of a threat to human health than lower RF frequencies. The addition of millimeter waves in 5g will not alter any health concerns of the lower RF frequencies.
The overall exposure will be the summation of the amplitude of each of the frequencies contained in the emitted signal. An increase in the amount of high frequencies in a signal, if accompanied by an equal decrease in the lower frequency content, would result in the same overall exposure. I think that an emitted signal containing millimeter waves would be safer than a signal without millimeter wave content if the overall power was the same.
By far, the greatest part of the development a baby’s skin and eyes takes place while in utero. The exposure of the fetus to millimeter waves would be entirely blocked by the mother’s skin. After birth, the infant skin has a greater concentration of water, and the penetration of millimeter waves is less than that of adults. I am not aware of any research on long term exposure of babies.
My comments have addressed only the relative safety of millimeter waves with respect to that of RF emissions at lower frequencies. I have not made any other comments about the safety of the lower frequency RF emissions.

Marvin Ziskin, M.D.

On 5/17/2019 10:02 AM, Theodora Scarato wrote:

Dear Dr. Ziskin,

Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your response. I had some further questions based on your response. Please see my follow up questions to your statements . I think this is a very important discussion to have so we can sort all of this out.

Dr. Ziskin, you said, “Millimeter waves have shorter penetration into the body than the electromagnetic waves used in earlier generations of cell phones. Their penetration is limited to the outer layers of the skin. Excessive skin temperature causing severe pain would occur before any harm would result to deeper structures. Therefore, 5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations.”

Thank you , except that as I understand it 5G will not only utilize millimeter waves, but also LTE frequencies 600 MHz to 6 GHz. I also understand the 5G industry standard works from sub-1GHz to millimeter-wave frequencies. I have also read that the phone will switch to 4G from the 5G standard. So millimeter waves are just a small part of the exposure that “5g phones” will provide.

According to the GSMA white paper here “Regulators should aim to make available 80- 100 MHz of contiguous spectrum per operator in prime 5G mid-bands (e.g. 3.5 GHz) and around 1 GHz per operator in millimetre wave bands (i.e. above 24 GHz). and 5G needs spectrum within three key frequency ranges to deliver widespread coverage and support all use cases. The three ranges are: Sub-1 GHz, 1-6 GHz and above 6 GHz.”

Sources:

Wi-Fi is already using 2.45 and 5 GHZ. Wi-Max often uses 3.3 to 3.5 GHZ so 5G sounds like it will be using these bands as well. Please see an attached study on Wi-Max “Numerical Evaluation of Human Exposure to WiMax Patch Antenna in Table top Laptop”. This study used 3.5 GHZ and shows penetration into the body. It concludes that “From our results, in some worst-case scenarios involving male and female children’s exposure, the maximum radiofrequency energy absorption (hot spots) is located in more sensitive organs such as eye, genitals, and breast.”

Question 1. So my question is, do you only think that 5G is “safer” because of the use of millimeter waves? Do you think millimeter waves specifically are “safer” or 5G in general, even with the other lower frequencies they will use?

Question 2. What about the reality that all the other lower frequencies will be in use with 5G as well and do you think it will be safer to have higher radiation exposures overall in communities of all of these frequencies? According to industry, the levels will be increased near the antennas, so much so that countries with stricter norms need to loosen norms to accommodate 5G. 3.5 GHZ frequencies do penetrate the body so Im interested in what you think about this exposure of a wide range of frequencies – which clearly penetrates the body – increasing.

Question 3. Your research on millimeter waves indicates that the skin of babies and the elderly are different. What research has been done on long term exposure to babies skin and eyes which are developing?

Question 4. Unless I am misreading it (see here https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=5965) it looks like the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G. will have 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G antennas? https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=5965
I will note that this 5g phone Motorola’s 5G Moto Mod toggles between 4G and 5G https://www.techradar.com/news/the-first-5g-phone-hands-on and Motorola’s 5G Moto Mod will have proximity shutoff sensors to limit exposure to millimeter waves and the 5G Moto Mod contains 10 antennas. See Motorola’s 5G Moto Mod has feature to limit radiation exposure, but why?

So it looks like the 5G phones actually just added another antenna but uses a wide range of frequencies. So if only the millimeter are safer in your opinion, then what do you think of these 5g phones that use the lower frequencies as well. and will create higher density of signals of everyone has them? Do you think that if they only use the millimeter waves they are safer, and they should turn off the other antennas?

Thank you for answering these questions. People are very interested in this and getting into the technical details will help clarify the statements and ensure clarity.

Theodora Scarato

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:54 PM Marvin Ziskin <ziskin@temple.edu> wrote:

Dear Dr. Scarato:

There are many reasons why I think 5G emissions should be safer than previous generations. They include the knowledge gained through the use of millimeter waves used in therapeutic applications, the physical properties of millimeter waves, and the biologic response to overexposure to millimeter waves.

Personal Experience with Millimeter Waves

As you may know, I have been the Director of the Temple University Center for Biomedical Physics for the past 25 years. This laboratory was set up to study the biological effects of millimeter waves. It consisted of 8 scientists, of which 4 had been involved with millimeter waves in the Former Soviet Union. This was a very active lab producing over 75 scientific publications on millimeter waves and many presentations at scientific meetings. We were awarded several National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants, including an NIH Specialized Center of Research Award. In 2011, I received the d’Arsonval Medal, the highest award given by the Bioelectromagnetic Society, for my work on millimeter waves.

Some activists have claimed that 5G exposure is new and that there have been no experiments supporting its safety. This is not true. There have been many experiments. As mentioned above, my lab alone has published more than 75 scientific articles in leading journals.

Although we were primarily concerned about the use of millimeter waves for therapeutic applications, we felt that before applying this technique to humans we needed to learn more about the fundamental nature of millimeter waves, how they interact with tissue, and what were the consequences of exposure to millimeter waves. In the process of doing this, we developed a theory of how the millimeter waves were able to accomplish their therapeutic benefit. We learned thresholds for producing harm, what adverse effects could occur, and how these effects could be prevented.

Millimeter Wave Therapy

The use of millimeter waves for treating various medical conditions started in the Former Soviet Union more than 40 years ago. The major impetus there resulted from two factors: 1) the great lack of available effective drugs, and 2) with the lessening tensions of the “cold war”, there was a desire to find a secondary use for the superior millimeter wave technology developed for military applications, such as in short range radar. Many millimeter wave devices were given to physicians and medical clinics for treating various medical conditions. Excellent results have been reported in the treatment of many medical conditions, including pain relief, hypertension, gastrointestinal ulcers, cardiac conditions, skin melanoma, skin ulcers, arthritis, etc. However, these reports are primarily anecdotal. Only appropriate well-controlled double-blind clinical trials can provide a definitive answer regarding the efficacy of millimeter waves for medical purposes, but such studies have yet to be done.

The use of millimeter waves for therapeutic applications is somewhat like that of acupuncture in that the applicator is brought into contact at a small spot on the skin which is usually remote from the site of the abnormality being treated. And like acupuncture, which has many practitioners, millimeter wave therapy has not achieved success in well-controlled clinical trials and has not achieved wide acceptance in traditional medicine. Moreover, with so many very effective drugs available today in the treatment of diseases, there is less need for physicians to seek non-traditional modalities in their practice.

Although the number of patients treated with millimeter waves has been in the millions, adverse side effects have been virtually non-existent. The absence of side effects of this treatment is very significant. Even when new drugs and new devices are shown to be safe in laboratory studies, detection of adverse side effects becomes apparent only when the new drug or device is administered to large numbers of patients.

Typical millimeter wave treatments apply 10 – 20 mW/cm² for periods of up to 20 minutes and are repeated daily for 1-2 weeks. The intensity levels used in therapy are approximately 50 times greater than the maximum values permitted by our national safety standards. Being that millimeter waves have already been administered to large numbers of patients without adverse effects gives one confidence that levels below national standard limits would not cause any harm.

One might argue that millimeter wave therapy is only a short term exposure, and that its record of safety doesn’t imply safety for exposures over long periods of time. However, some medical applications, such as accelerating the healing of skin ulcers, have involved exposures over extended periods of time. Furthermore, millimeter waves are non-ionizing and don’t show cumulative effects. This means that exposures not sufficient to produce any adverse effect will not cause an adverse effect even if the exposure is repeated many times. This is not true for effects arising from exposures to x-rays and other ionizing energies, which are cumulative and where the risk of cancer increases with each exposure to even sub-threshold doses. The bottom line is that millimeter waves at exposures within permissible levels by national standards should be considered safe.

Factors providing confidence that 5G will not be harmful to health

Maximum output of 5G devices will be limited by national standards. These limits are based on established science, known thresholds of adverse health effects and incorporate significant safety factors to provide safe exposure.

There is no known mechanism by which non-ionizing electromagnetic energy could cause cancer. There has been no scientific evidence supporting its production of cancer, and we have shown that millimeter waves were able to destroy malignant melanoma of the skin.

The only established adverse health effect of 5G is excessive tissue heating. Very high intensity millimeter waves have been used by the military as a non-lethal deterrent for crowd control. The intensity is sufficiently high that in just a few seconds the skin surface temperature rises to the point of severe pain causing the exposed person to need to escape from the beam. The effects of this weapon have been thoroughly studied, and the few harmful results found were minor skin burns from excessive exposures. Heating, per se, is not known to cause cancer. In fact, laboratory studies have shown that millimeter waves do not cause initiation nor promotion of cancer.

Millimeter waves have shorter penetration into the body than the electromagnetic waves used in earlier generations of cell phones. Their penetration is limited to the outer layers of the skin. Excessive skin temperature causing severe pain would occur before any harm would result to deeper structures. Therefore, 5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations.

I hope my comments are helpful.

Marvin Ziskin, M.D.

On 5/16/2019 11:39 AM, Theodora Scarato wrote:

Hello Dr. Ziskin,

I saw you were quoted in the NYT as stating that “5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations“.

I am writing for clarity on that statement and to understand what you were referring to.

Are you referring to science on long term effects that indicate lower biological effects or potential health effects?
Are you referring to the penetration into tissues? If so then please clarify technically in terms of modulations and frequencies etc you are referring to as “safer” so there is clarity.

Thanks so much,

Theodora Scarato

Executive Director

Environmental Health Trust

— Marvin Ziskin, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Radiology & Medical Physics Temple University Medical School 3420 N. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19140 Home Phone: 856 428-9866 email: ziskin@temple.edu

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Broad, William <wjb@nytimes.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Corrections to the article on cell phone radiation study
To: Theodora Scarato <Theodora.Scarato@ehtrust.org>
Cc: <nytnews@nytimes.com>, Dean Baquet <dbaquet@nytimes.com>

Dear Theodora Scarato:

Thank you for your letter of Nov. 4 and your request for error correction in the cellphone article that appeared online Nov. 1. We take such requests seriously.

I apologize for not replying sooner, but the considerable length of your letter and its serious accusations called for a thoughtful and thorough response. I’ve numbered my replies in the same order as your 11 assertions, and request that you keep them confidential.

1) The issue of “some evidence” versus “clear evidence.”

The vital context for this discussion is that our article focused on brain tumors because that’s what readers worry about. Naturally, people hold cellphones to their heads, not to their hearts (unlike the rats in the study, which had no choice but to be irradiated over their entire bodies). I see nothing here to correct. We detailed the various findings of the study exactly as you report them: “some evidence” of brain cancer versus “clear evidence” of heart cancer. Again, we gave priority in the article to the brain-tumor issue because that has become a major topic of concern to consumers.

2) What constitutes “radio frequencies long out of routine use.”

You are surely right that millions of people globally use second-generation technologies. But in my judgment, that does not represent “routine use” — by which I mean “regular use” — in an internationalized world where smartphone users, many using advanced models such as 3G and 4G, number in the billions. You note that the press release from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences states that 2G and 3G networks “are still used for phone calls and texting.” This is true. But again, that leaves unaddressed whether the use is narrow or routine. Moreover, the press release is disingenuous in describing the experiment in terms of 2G and 3G exposures. As you surely know, only the mice were exposed to 3G frequencies – not the rats, which were exposed to 2G frequencies and were the only animals to display solid evidence of tumor formation. In short, the press release sought to make the $30 million study appear more relevant to modern life than it actually is. I would emphasize that it was a scientific counselor to the sponsoring agency of the investigation — a knowledgeable insider, not The New York Times — who worried that the overall experiment “will be vulnerable to criticism that it was conducted using outdated technology.”

3) What constitutes “relatively modest evidence” that radio waves can raise the risk of brain cancer in male rats.

As previously noted, our article cited the study as finding “some evidence” of brain tumors in male rats and, additionally, noted that 2 to 3 percent of the male rats developed malignant gliomas. To characterize that as anything more positive than “relatively modest evidence” would be inaccurate, in my judgment. You want us to ascribe “clear evidence” to the brain tumors. Yet, as you noted in your first point, above, that’s not what the final study reported.

4) See my reply to your point 2, above.

5) You contend that we misled readers for reporting that the peer-review panel voted to advise the agency that it should raise the confidence level from “equivocal evidence” to “some evidence” of brain tumors in male rats. As evidence, however, you state only, again, that heart tumors were elevated to “clear evidence.” That does not substantiate your claim, nor do the other peer-review actions that you cite at length.

6) How best to describe that the female rats showed no positive link between cell radiation and brain tumors.

This is a judgment call. I avoided the phrase “equivocal evidence” as reader-unfriendly jargon. The dictionary definition of the word “equivocal” — “open to more than one interpretation; ambiguous” — applies to the word itself. I was concerned that couching the findings in the language of equivocality could have misled some readers.

7) You disagree with our reporting that “many epidemiologists see no overall rise in the incidence of gliomas in the human population.”

Please see a detailed report, “Epidemiology of Glioma,” posted on the National Academy of Sciences website, and viewable here. It analyzes 2017 surveillance data from the National Cancer Institute, one of the most reliable sources for such information. The chart on p. 8 shows a modest glioma rise from 1975 to 2015, which is attributed to “increasing use of new imaging technologies.” In other words, the report sees the surveillance rise as an artifact of better detection by doctors, clinics and hospitals over that time period, not as an increase in cancer incidence.

8) You claim that our article implies that the newer cellphone technologies will be less harmful.

We only reported the facts: that newer phones “employ much higher frequencies, and these radio waves are far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans and rats.” Our story provided a link to a 170-page study, which found that radio-wave penetration of the human body falls off dramatically with rising frequency. The studies you cite on the biological effects of 5G frequencies seem questionable given that the wireless industry so far has defined 5G technology only poorly. In any case, our article left unaddressed the possible health effects of communication devices that have yet to reach market.

9) You raise concerns about regulatory issues, but these would be better directed to the Federal Communications Commission in Washington.

10) You call for additional reporting by The New York Times on the Federal Communications Commission. Whether or not that step is warranted, it does not indicate a need for corrections to our article.

11) You raise issue with my judgment as to what constitutes “radio frequencies long out of routine use,” the phrase that defined 2G usage in our story. Please see my responses to your points 2 and 4, above.

Thank you again for writing. I appreciate the opportunity to review this material but see no errors or need for corrections. I hope you find my responses thorough and serious even if you disagree with them.

In closing, I will say that you’ve made some compelling points that may help us better report on these important issues as we move forward. I’m grateful for your input.

Sincerely,

Bill

William J. Broad

Science Department

620 8th Avenue
New York, NY, 10018

My phone: 212-556-7144

My articles:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/william_j_broad/index.html

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Theodora Scarato <Theodora.Scarato@ehtrust.org> wrote:

Dear NYT and Mr. Broad,

This letter is asking for corrections to the article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/cellphone-radiation-cancer.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fwilliam-j.-broad&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

The reality (as documented) is that the 2G modulaion and frequencies tested by the NTP are used by millions of people in countries in Africa and Asia. The frequencies are of course used in the US as well and worldwide.

I still have not received a response after sending this over the last few days and so I went through the story and took more time to clarify each point. The NYT statement is in bold followed by clarifications needed.

I sincerely hope to receive a response to my detailed clarifications because the article is being picked up by other outlets and the information needs to be updated for accuracy. The New York Times is a well respected paper and I am thankful that the study is being reported on. However this issue is complex.

Thank you for your attention.

“Major Study Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link Between Cellphone Radiation and Brain Cancer”

The schwannomas of the heart were “clear evidence” of cancer. Please see the findings stated at NIEHS herehttps://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html NIEHS clearly states on their webpage that “What did the studies find? The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones was associated with:

Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.

Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.

Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.”

2.“But the results apply only to male rats and involve radio frequencies long out of routine use.”

India, China and Countries in Africa and Asia use 2G technology. These modulations are in use as stated in the NIEHS press release “2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting” Read it here by NIEHS https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm

Millions of people still use this technology. Their health is important.

Please see this article on use in South Africa “2G networks in South Africa aren’t going anywhere” which says “I cannot see us switching off 2G even in the long term,” said Vodacom chief technology officer Andries Delport.He said Vodacom has around 30 million devices active on its network every month, of which 40%-45% are 2G-only. Around 8 million devices on its network are “green screen” phones – low cost or old devices handed down from one person to the next – said Delport. https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/222730-2g-networks-in-south-africa-arent-going-anywhere.html

Please note the following article that shows millions of people are using 2G phones.

India- 844 million 2G users (72 per cent of total),

Hong Kong counts about 3 million 2G subs (23 per cent of total connections),

In China, the largest mobile market in the world, 2G still has a long life despite rapid uptake of 4G. 2G users account for 20 per cent of the country’s mobile connections compared with less than 15 per cent for 3G

https://www.mobileworldlive.com/blog/blog-who-will-be-the-last-to-turn-off-2g-or-3g/

“In certain countries in the region, such as Japan, Macau, Singapore and South Korea, there is no 2G available at all. “ In some European countries it could be the case where 2G may even outlive 3G, UMTS. Norwegian MNO Telenor announced 3G switch-off in 2020 – five years before 2G.

Vodafone has announced it is to phase-out 3G networks across Europe in 2020 and 2021 while Deutsche Telekom plans to continue 3G, UMTS until the end of 2020. However, there are no plans by either Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom or Telefonica for 2G switch off.”

Read it at- https://www.emnify.com/blog/global-2g-phase-out

Exclusive: Vodafone will not switch off 2G until 2025 https://www.capacitymedia.com/articles/3735675/Exclusive-Vodafone-will-not-switch-off-2G-until-2025

Considering the use of 5G by millions of people it cannot be stated that the frequencies tested “involve radio frequencies long out of routine use.” Are these millions of people not using this technology? Do they count?

I also will note that heart damage was found in ALL male and female rat groups and this – according to the reports- indicates the heart is a target organ. (cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats). Why was this not covered by the article? the heart damage was in ALL exposure groups of the rats. In addition the birth weight was lower in some exposed groups.

The article states “The experiment, by the National Toxicology Program, found positive but relatively modest evidence “ that radio waves from some types of cellphones could raise the risk that male rats develop brain cancer.”

“Clear evidence of cancer in a very rare tumor cannot be considered “modest” This adjective should be explained. Did any scientist use such a term? Is a journalist qualified to use such a term when it contrasts with the findings? The fact that nonionizing radiation caused cancer at non thermal levels is major shift because we long assumed that non ionizing radiation simply could not do this. It was a well controlled study, the most well controlled study ever done. Cancer is not an effect from RF , even at higher power levels. Heating causes tissue damage and burns yes- but not cancer. So the fact that cancer was found changes the current understanding of how RF effects biological systems.

“Moreover, the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use years ago.”

“ Any concerns arising from the study thus would seem to apply mainly to early adopters who used those bygone devices, not to users of current models.”

(again, these frequencies in use in the world today. See response to number 2.)

“In March, however, a peer-review panel of 11 experts from industry and academia voted to advise the agency that it should raise the confidence level from “equivocal evidence” to “some evidence” of a link between cellphone radiation and brain tumors in male rats.”

This is misleading and does not capture the key actions of the peer reviewers that elevated the heart tumors to “clear evidence” nor the fact that NIH/NTP accepted the peer review conclusions. The conclusions of the peer review panel and their vote for increases in confidence were for a total of eight tumor types. The NTP accepted these 8 elevated conclusions in their final report.

At the end of the March 26–28, 2018 peer review, the peer reviewers recommended an elevated conclusion for eight cancer endpoints. To be clear- 8 classifications were increased to a higher level of confidence than was concluded in the 2/2018 NTP issued draft reports as to the association between the RFR exposure and cancer.

Elevated NTP Conclusions For The Association Between Cell Phone Radiation and Cancer

The malignant schwannomas found in male rats (in both CDMA and GSM groups) were deemed “clear evidence” of cancer (upgraded from previous 2/2018 grade of “some evidence”).

The malignant gliomas in the brain (in both male rats GSM and CDMA)were deemed “some evidence” of cancer (upgraded from previous 2/2018 grade of “equivocal evidence”).

The pheochromocytoma in the adrenal medulla (GSM only male rats) were deemed “some evidence” of cancer (upgraded from previous 2/2018 grade of “equivocal evidence”) .

The malignant gliomas in the brain (female rats GSM) were deemed “equivocal evidence” of cancer (upgraded from previous 2/2018 grade of “no evidence”).

The malignant schwannomas found in female rats (in CDMA and GSM) were deemed “equivocal evidence” of cancer (upgraded from previous 2/2018 grade of “no evidence”).

THE FULL FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE PEER REVIEWED NIH/NTP REPORT See peer review report at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf

Male Rats GSM RFR at 900 MHz

Clear evidence of carcinogenic activity

Incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW

Were considered to be related to cell phone RFR exposure (some evidence)

Incidences of malignant glioma in the brain *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW

Incidences of pheochromocytoma (benign, malignant, or complex combined) in the adrenal medulla *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW

May have been related to cell phone RFR exposure (equivocal evidence)

Incidences of adenoma or carcinoma (combined) in the prostate gland
Incidences of benign or malignant granular cell tumors in the brain
Incidences of adenoma in the pars distalis of the pituitary gland
Incidences of pancreatic islet cell adenoma or carcinoma (combined)

Female Rats GSM 900 MHz

Equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity

Incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW
Increases in nonneoplastic lesions in the heart, brain, and prostate gland of male rats occurred with exposures to GSM cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.
Increases in nonneoplastic lesions in the heart, thyroid gland, and adrenal gland of female rats occurred with exposures to GSM cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.

Male Rats CDMA RFR at 900 MHz

Clear evidence of carcinogenic activity

Incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW

Were considered to be related to cell phone RFR exposure (some evidence)

Incidences of malignant glioma in the brain *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW

May have been related to cell phone RFR exposure (equivocal evidence)

Incidences of adenoma in the pars distalis of the pituitary gland
Incidences of adenoma or carcinoma (combined) of the liver

Female Rats CDMA RFR at 900 MHz

Equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity

Incidences of malignant glioma in the brain
Incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW
Incidences of pheochromocytoma (benign, malignant, or complex combined) in the adrenal medulla. Increases in nonneoplastic lesions of the heart, brain, and prostate gland in male rats occurred with exposures to CDMA cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.
Increases in nonneoplastic lesions of the brain in female rats occurred with exposures to GSM cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.

In addition- Increased right ventricular cardiomyopathy in the heart was found in the exposed rat groups. In the heart of rats at the end of the 2-year studies, there were also significantly increased incidences of right ventricle cardiomyopathy in 3 and 6 W/kg males and females.

Positive Findings for Genetic Toxicity after 14 Weeks

CDMA Rats: Positive in hippocampus (males); equivocal in frontal cortex (males); page 15 final report

Mice GSM Positive in frontal cortex (males);

Mice CDMA: Positive in frontal cortex (males) and leukocytes (females);

It is also notable that in September 2017 at the annual meeting of the Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society in September 2018, the NTP presented a slightly different picture. They said in a presentation that “DNA damage was significantly increased in the frontal cortex of male mice (both modulations), peripheral leukocytes of female mice (CDMA only), and hippocampus of male rats (CDMA only)” and they conclude that “These results suggest that exposure to RFR has the potential to induce measurable DNA damage under certain exposure conditions.”

This last sentence (“These results suggest that exposure to RFR has the potential to induce measurable DNA damage under certain exposure conditions’) has entirely disappeared from any presentation of the NTP DNA data.

The NTP poster EHT has that has these concluding statements on DNA was retrieved by a FOIA to the NTP.

It is also notable that the mice study found the following: In both studies (GSM and CDMA), there were higher incidences of malignant lymphoma in all groups of female mice exposed to RFR compared to controls. However, the incidences in all of the exposed females were within the range historically observed in this strain of mouse in other NTP studies. There were higher incidences of skin and lung tumors in males exposed to the highest two levels of GSM-modulated RFR (5 and 10 W/kg), and of liver tumors at the mid-dose (5 W/kg) of CDMA-modulated RFR. The Final Mice Report concludes that, “For GSM-modulated RFR, we conclude that exposure to RFR may have caused tumors in the skin and lungs of male mice and malignant lymphomas in female mice. For CDMA-modulated RFR, we conclude that exposure to RFR may have caused tumors in the liver of male mice and malignant lymphomas in female mice.”

“The female rats did not show evidence of a link between the radiation and such tumors.”

It would have been more accurate to state that there were increases but they were considered equivocal meaning “may be linked” to the radiation. Equivocal is the “category for uncertain findings” according to the NTP and it is defined as “Equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity is demonstrated by studies that are interpreted as showing a marginal increase of neoplasms that may be test agent related.”

Female Rats GSM 900 MHz

Equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity

Incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW
Increases in nonneoplastic lesions in the heart, brain, and prostate gland of male rats occurred with exposures to GSM cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.
Increases in nonneoplastic lesions in the heart, thyroid gland, and adrenal gland of female rats occurred with exposures to GSM cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.

Female Rats CDMA RFR at 900 MHz

Equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity

Incidences of malignant glioma in the brain
Incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart *ELEVATED BY PEER REVIEW
Incidences of pheochromocytoma (benign, malignant, or complex combined) in the adrenal medulla. Increases in nonneoplastic lesions of the heart, brain, and prostate gland in male rats occurred with exposures to CDMA cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.
Increases in nonneoplastic lesions of the brain in female rats occurred with exposures to GSM cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.

So there are in fact several endpoints that “may” have been related.

“Many epidemiologists see no overall rise in the incidence of gliomas in the human population.”

That is interesting and it would be important to see what research is being referred to because in fact several research studies are in fact finding increases of glioblastomas (GBMs). Please see a list here where we keep a running list that links to published science.

I am interested in the studies used to underpinn the statement that “Many epidemiologists see no overall rise in the incidence of gliomas in the human population” Please share the research papers that looked at GBMs and DID NOT FIND AN INCREASE.

Furthermore, There is in fact- documentation that brain cancers are increasing in young people. The US CDC presented new findings in 2018 of increasing brain, renal, hepatic, and thyroid cancers among individuals under 20 years old in the USA after analyzing 2001–2014 data from 48 states covering 98% of the US population. Siegel 2018

See recent studies that looked at subgroups of tumors DID find an increase- especially glioblastomas.

- The incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), the deadliest type of brain tumor and linked to cell phone use- more than doubled in England between 1995 and 2015, according to a new analysis of national statistics published in 2018 in the Journal of the Environment and Public Health.

The American Brain Tumor Association’s largest, most comprehensive US analysis to date, found the incidence of anaplastic astrocytoma, tumors of the meninges, tumors of the sellar region and unclassified tumors have increased in young adults 15-35.

A 2015 published analysis that looked at 2000-2010 data from the United States Cancer Statistics publication and the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States found significant increases in malignant and nonmalignant central nervous system tumors among adolescents and and also significant increases in acute lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and malignant central nervous system tumors in children.

…

—–Original Message—–
From: theodorams <theodorams@aol.com>
To: wjb <wjb@nytimes.com>; virginia.guidry <virginia.guidry@nih.gov>; bruskec <bruskec@niehs.nih.gov>; bucher <bucher@niehs.nih.gov>
Sent: Thu, Nov 1, 2018 2:57 pm
Subject: Comments on clarifications for the article on cell phones. New York Times

Dear Mr. Broad,

Thank you for your story on cell phone radiation. I am writing to adress some statements made in the NYT article.

I have pasted in sentences from the article and provided comments in red and links to sources.

I have cced to NIEHS who can offer more elaboration on the study and perhaps correct anything I misunderstood.

Thank you for your attention to this. I look forward to hearing from you.

Theodora Scarato

Major Study Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link Between Cellphone Radiation and Brain Cancer

The schwannomas of the heart were “clear evidence” of cancer. Please see https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm

But the results apply only to male rats and involve radio frequencies long out of routine use.

These modulations are in use actually as stated in the press release https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm “2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting” and in the paper. In several countries people use our old cell phones as well.

I also will note that heart damage was found in ALL male and female rat groups and this – according to the reports- indicates the heart is a target organ. (cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats)

The experiment, by the National Toxicology Program, found positive but relatively modest evidence – “clear evidence of cancer in a very rare tumor cannot be considered “modest” This adjective should be explained. that radio waves from some types of cellphones could raise the risk that male rats develop brain cancer.

Moreover, the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use years ago.(again, these frequencies in use in the world today.) Any concerns arising from the study thus would seem to apply mainly to early adopters who used those bygone devices, not to users of current models.

In March, however, a peer-review panel of 11 experts from industry and academia voted to advise the agency that it should raise the confidence level from “equivocal evidence” to “some evidence” of a link between cellphone radiation and brain tumors in male rats. This is misleading. The increases in confidence were to clear evidence” for heart tumors and to “some evidence for the brain and adrenal medulla in male rats exposed to the GSM. These are the strongest findings i he study and should be notes iin this imporant article. The female rats did not show evidence of a link between the radiation and such tumors. (however increases were found but they were considered equivocal. ) Two panel members, Lydia Andrews-Jones of Allergan and Susan Felter of Procter & Gamble, proposed the risk upgrade.

Many epidemiologists see no overall rise in the incidence of gliomas in the human population. Except several research studies are in fact finding increases of GBMs. Please see a list here where we keep a running list that links to published science.

They employ much higher frequencies, and these radio waves are far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans and rats, scientists say. Actually 5G ready and 5G phones will use both 3 and 4 G as well as a5 G modulation. As I understand it 5G will also employ lower currently used frequencies. For example watch this industry video about 5G phones and they explain how the signal might be blocked by the hand so they will use the other lower frequency. So in fact, multiple frequencies are utilized for this technology, including RF.

During a telephone news briefing on Wednesday, Dr. Bucher, the senior scientist at the toxicology agency, said evidence of DNA damage from the current study needed further examination. And it should be noted hat this is a curious change of tune after DNA damage was presented numerous times (see it here ) and the analysis was that “These results suggest that exposure to RFR has the potential to induce measurable DNA damage under certain exposure conditions.” but this conclusion curiously disappeared from the Feb 2018 and Final reports . We also understand that a paper was drafted but never published. Perhaps NIEHS can comment on why these statements disappeared from the final paper. DNA damage as also significantly increased in both specific tissues of the rats and mice and despite the interesting change in way this is framed and the statement that “more research is needed, it is notable that this would occur in such as well designed study.

The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users. That level of exposure rarely occurs in typical cellphone use, the toxicology agency said. The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum. The French tests found that tissues near the antenna of a phone could exceed FCC limits by over 5 times- when you consider the difference in 1 versus 10 gram averaging. So in fact, people could be getting high SARs from phone use in low signal areas- especially when moving large files. See that here https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-radiation-scandal-french-government-data-indicates-cell-phones-exposeconsumers-radiation-levels-higher-manufacturers-claim/

So for example if the French data shows a SAR measurement of 5 W/kg at 0 mm, the same phone when measured according to US SAR test procedures, would be at 15 W/kg.

Citations that document the 1 gram versus 10 gram SAR:

Gandhi, Om P., and Gang Kang. “Some present problems and a proposed experimental phantom for SAR compliance testing of cellular telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz.” Physics in Medicine and Biology 47.9 (2002): 1501.

Gandhi, Om P., and Gang Kang. “Inaccuracies of a plastic” pinna” SAM for SAR testing of cellular telephones against IEEE and ICNIRP safety guidelines.” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 52.8 (2004).

Kang, Gang, and Om P. Gandhi. “SARs for pocket-mounted mobile telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz.” Physics in Medicine and Biology 47.23 (2002): 4301.

Gandhi, Om P. “Yes the children are more exposed to radiofrequency energy from mobile telephones than adults.” IEEE Access 3 (2015): 985-988.

In a statement, the director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health said it disagreed with agency’s finding of “clear evidence” for heart schwannomas, but raised no questions about its citing “some evidence” for the brain tumors. No where in the FDA statement does it state that they disagree with the NTP conclusions. Please explain where it says this? https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm624809.htm

I do not see it stated that they disagree with the findings. They say a dose response was not clear.

Please note — In 1999, the FDA nominated cell phone radiation to the NTP for large-scale animal studies, stating, “the existing exposure guidelines are based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR exposure, and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures.”

On November 1, 2018 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released their final reports on rats and mice exposed to long term radiofrequency radiation.

The final reports concurred with the March peer review panel that the malignant schwannoma tumors found in the heart of male rats be scientifically categorized as “clear evidence of carcinogenicity” and that the malignant gliomas found in the brain of male rats be categorized as “some evidence of carcinogenicity.” In addition, the increased tumors of the adrenal medulla in male rats exposed to the GSM type of cell phone radiation were categorized as “some evidence of carcinogenicity,” adding a new type of tumor thought to be caused by the exposure. Thus, NIH accepted all of the expert peer reviewer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions regarding several effects from the exposure. The report also documents statistically significant increases in an unusual pattern of cardiomyopathy, or damage to heart tissue, in exposed male and female rats.

In addition to the heart and brain cancers, statistically significant increased numbers of tumors were found in other organs at one or more of the exposure levels studied, including the prostate gland, pituitary gland, adrenal gland, liver and pancreas.”

I am very interested in the prostate and thyroid tumors increases myself. I attached a screenshot of the rat findings from the final report.

Thank you so much, Theodora Scarato

Environmental Health Trust

I put Dr. Melnicks statement below for your information as he provides commentary on the report that is useful as I understand the study was designed to challenge the animals with non thermal doses.

Statement by Ronald Melnick PhD on the National Toxicology Program Final Reports on Cell Phone Radiation

Ronald Melnick PhD, the National Institutes of Health Senior Scientist who led the design of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studies on cell phone radiation released this statement after the NTP released their final reports on rats and mice exposed to long term radiofrequency radiation November 1, 2018. Melnick recently published an article in the journal Environmental Research debunking widely circulated criticisms of the NTP study. He also released a scientific criticism of the way the NTP study was treated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

Statement by Ronald Melnick PhD

November 1, 2018

An important lesson that should be learned from the NTP studies on cell phone radiofrequency radiation is that we cannot assume any current or future wireless technology is safe without adequate testing. In the interest of public health, government agencies must utilize results from these well-conducted health effects studies and issue clear recommendations to the public on how to reduce exposures to agents that are hazardous to our health. The NTP studies clearly shows that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancers and other adverse health effects.

Prior to the start of the NTP studies, it was assumed by the industry and the regulatory agencies that radiofrequency radiation could not cause adverse health effects other than those due to tissue heating. So we designed this study to investigate if non-thermal exposures would cause health effects. In the NTP studies, there was clear evidence of cancer development and other adverse health effects at non thermal exposure levels. In the US, the FCC limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation are based on the assumption that only thermal effects can cause harm. The NTP studies prove this assumption of safety is not valid.

All new wireless technologies, including 5G, should be adequately tested before their implementation leads to unacceptable levels of human exposures and increased health risks.

It has been said that the NTP cell phone exposures were “high” and therefore the findings may not be applicable to humans. No toxicology or carcinogenicity studies mimic exactly human exposure scenarios. Higher levels of exposure than what most people experience are used in experimental studies due to their limited statistical power and their inability to identify risks in the range of one per thousand or one per million. Because of the widespread use of cell phones among the general public, even a small increase in cancer risk would have a serious public health impact.

Results from well-conducted animal studies have been and will continue to be used to quantify the health risks, including cancer risks, under various human exposure conditions. A quantitative risk assessment of the data from the NTP studies on cell phone radiofrequency radiation needs to be performed by the FDA and that information should be used by the FCC to develop health-protective exposure standards. In fact, it was the FDA that nominated cell phone radiofrequency radiation to the NTP, and I quote “to provide the basis to assess the risk to human health of wireless communication devices.” Therefore, I urge the FDA to immediately conduct the risk assessment of the NTP data.

The NTP studies not only found cell phone radiation increased tumors in the heart and brain but also induced heart damage (cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats) and DNA damage in brain cells of rats and mice. Health and regulatory agencies need to warn the public about the health effects of radiofrequency radiation and provide clear information on how to reduce exposures, especially for children and pregnant women.

We also can no longer state that adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation are not replicated. Increases in tumors from cell phone radiation have indeed been replicated in several studies. The Ramazzini Institute large-scale rodent study found increased Schwannomas in the heart at lower radiation levels than in the NTP studies. The Lerchl et al., 2015 study also found radiofrequency radiation (at significantly lower doses than the NTP studies) promoted cancer development, with evidence for a heightened synergistic impact when combined with a known carcinogen. It should also be noted that the adverse health effects caused in rats exposed to GSM-modulated radiofrequency radiation were also observed in rats exposed to CDMA-modulated radiofrequency radiation.

Ronald L Melnick, PhD, was a senior scientist for 28 years with National Institutes of Health leading studies on numerous industrial chemicals and led the design of the National Toxicology Program/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Studies. Melnick was Director of Special Programs in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, USA and is now retired and Senior Advisor to Environmental Health Trust.

Ronald L Melnick, PhD presenting to the National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program Cell Phone Radiation Study Peer Review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfbMrXSKNaM

[Message clipped] View

—

Theodora Scarato

Executive Director

Environmental Health Trust

EHTrust.org

GET INFORMED

Science on 5G

International Action on 5G

National Institutes of Health

University of California, San Francisco

Printable FactSheets