ORSAA is approached by European Media to give opinion on current RF Standard in the current 5G Media Hype
Press enquiry: Computer Weekly | Investigate Europe.
We were asked specify questions (see below) and this was followed up with a Skype interview from the UK. The final press release is by Investigate Europe.
The dubious handling of the radiation
The translation of this page is attached from German radio broadcast. Google Chrome will automatically translate this German Page into English but there are some sentences that don’t translate well. I have attached a more accurate translation of this page below.
Professor Emeritus Martin Pall has devoted his working lifetime to understanding the biochemistry behind many diseases that are not well understood by medicine but have a common aetiology, being chronic inflammatory conditions as a result of cells of the body being unable to deal with oxidative stress.
His feedback to a letter from ARPANSA sent to a member of the public in response to concerns around 5G safety is very technical in many places but is also very critical of ARPANSA’s lack of understanding of the science underlying the bio-effects of RF-EMF radiation and its relationship with many adverse health effects.
His conclusions is as follows:
ORSAA members have been very critical of the ARPANSA TRS-164 report. ARPANSA had assembled a large number of papers (1354) but then failed to use them in their review of the science from 2000-2012.
At the Wollongong NSW ARPS conference in 2017, two papers were presented:
In response, ARPANSA justified their position with a letter to the editor of the ARPS Journal (the journal of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society):
Karipidis, K. and Tinker, R. (2018). Letter to the Editor, Radiation Protection in Australasia, 35(1), 29-30, download below.
ORSAA authors have since responded with a letter to the Journal Editor. Download the full letter below.
Bandara, P, Weller, S. and Leach, V. (2018). Health Risks of Wireless Technologies, Radiation Protection in Australasia, 35(2), 22-26, download below.
Conclusion (from the Bandara and Leach response):
ARPANSA has ignored a large evidence base that challenges their position. The scientific evidence we have collated, presented and made publicly available demonstrates that there are biological/health effects occurring at exposures well below the ARPANSA standard. Therefore, ARPANSA’s claim that there is “no substantiated evidence that RF exposure at levels below the limits of the ARPANSA Standard causes harm to humans” is misleading. A risk management approach should be adopted urgently for RF-EMR with ALARA as the mainstay of this plan. Wireless technology is not risk-free as implied by ARPANSA’s claim of “no established evidence of harm”. Australians need to be informed of the risks so that they can make informed decisions when it comes to the use of wireless technology, particularly with regards to more vulnerable groups such as children.
We would like to inform you that ORSAA has submitted formal comments to International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) on the draft “GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (100 kHz TO 300 GHz)”. Please refer to ORSAA comments at the bottom of page.
The draft RF Guideline documents were released on the 11 July 2018 and public consultation ended on the 9 October 2018. We understand that ICNIRP had received over 100 responses. ICNIRP also indicated that they will not generate individual replies so we anticipate the whole exercise will be a “whitewash” without any substantial changes to the proposed limits. We made extensive use of the ORSAA database in formulating our response.
After publishing a recent paper entitled “A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation” the EMF portal research group sent a letter to the editor critically reviewing the ORSAA database on 16 Oct 2018. We have added this letter to the editor to the ORSSA database as NESS Paper ID: 3228 and cross-linked to our paper ID: 3088
ORSAA authors will be responding with our own letter to the editor shortly. Our papers were placed in a peer-reviewed journal of Reviews on Environmental Health (REVEH).
USA Federal agencies clash on what the NTP study outcome means.
Prof. Lennart Hardell (ORSAA advisor) and Michael Carlberg have also made comments on the US NTP report
From the above report:“In conclusion, we believe there is clear evidence that RF-EMF radiation is a multi-site carcinogen. The epidemiological and animal experiments show sufficient agreement (converging evidence) that based on the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, RF radiation should be classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1.”
(It is official - Australia is now in the Gold Medal position for cancer according to the World Cancer Research Fund (Source: GLOBOCAN 2018 database is accessible at http://gco.iarc.fr/, as part of IARC’s WHO Global Cancer Observatory.)
These are age-standardized mortality rates. This is a weighted average of the age-specific mortality rates per 100,000 persons, where the weights are the proportions of persons in the corresponding age groups.
It’s not all about skin cancer as Ireland is in third place. True Australia has one of the highest rates of longevity but other factors are also important. The recent UK conference on child cancer discussed other important long-term exposure factors. Available are live streaming video for each day so you can listen to the talks if you did not attend. This excellent conference talked a lot about environmental factors and prevention being important. Dietary factors have a major part to play in prevention and cure. The talk by Prof Thomas Seyfried (Boston College) on treating cancer primarily as a metabolic disease was a highlight. Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe one of our ORSAA advisors gave an interesting talk also available on the live steaming video for Day 2, fast forward to 7 hours, 6 minutes
There used to be just one mobile tower in every suburb, now with the advent of 5G there could be one on every street lamp post as shown in a recent media report.
Council rejects construction of telecommunication tower at Wilson Creek, Mullumbimby, NSW on the basis of siting, environmental impacts, health and amenity impacts, electro magnetic radiation, visual impacts, proximity to power lines and surrounding residential properties. For more detail visit Environment and Community Safe From Radiation ( ECSFR) web site
From Dr. Priyanka (Pri) Bandara who is on our ORSAA Executive Management Committee and is well published in this research area. She states:
"The only independent scientific organisation investigating the health risks of wireless radiation (microwave radiofrequency EMR) in our region, www.orsaa.org has presented the empirical scientific evidence showing harm at currently permitted levels of exposure. Scientists at ORSAA have built the world's largest categorised database of peer-reviewed scientific publications on RF-EMR. A snapshot of our database (12 February 2018), showed that most studies (n=1283, 67.1%) out of 1913 studies (in vitro/in vivo experimental studies on human/animal/plant systems and population studies) reported statistically significant biological effects while 24.4% reported no effect and 8.5% uncertain effects. I have personally presented the irrefutable evidence that currently permitted level RF exposure causes oxidative stress in living cells and would contribute to chronic diseases such as cancer. These findings are published: Bandara P, Weller S. Biological Effects of Low-intensity Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation – Time for a Paradigm Shift in Regulation of Public Exposure. Radiation Protection in Australasia 2017; 34: 2-6. This evidence indicates that ARPANSA judgement is flawed on RF-EMR and the health of Australians is at risk. In the meantime, the latest data from the WHO shows that Australia has the world's highest cancer rate - yes, Gold medal out of 185 countries - What a shame! As a society, we have to move towards safer wired technology reducing our wireless use if we want to be serious about chronic disease prevention. Some countries have banned WiFi in schools, yet, we're pushing it more and more on vulnerable children. I have highlighted some of the concerning evidence related to WiFi in a scientific letter.
A study with a long observation period (1996-2006) in Brazil found a marked increase in cancer death rate near mobile phone base stations (MPBS). University academics and local government authorities studied 7191 cancer deaths. It took 1 km for the observed cancer death rate to come down to the expected cancer death rate. Based on their findings, the investigators claimed current ICNIRP public exposure guidelines that Australian ARPANSA standards are based on, are not protective and urged immediate changes. The EMR levels varied between 0.4 – 12.4 V/m (4.2 x 10-4 – 0.4 W/m2) in this study, only a small fraction of the allowed levels by the ARPANSA standards and very common in Australian locations and Australian homes/schools near wireless transmitters. (Dode A.C. et al., Science of the Total Environment 2011; 409:3649–3665). There are similar studies from elsewhere showing increased cancer near these RF transmitters. Indian academic researchers recently reported increased DNA damage and oxidative stress in healthy young people living near mobile towers ( Zothansiama et al. Electromagnetic biology and medicine. 2017;36(3):295-305.; Gulati S, et al., Mol Cell Biochem. 2018;440(1-2):1-9).
Australia has not conducted a single study like this to investigate if there is a problem. And the latest data from the WHO shows that Australia has the world's highest cancer rate - out of 185 countries. This is a serious public health issue. See what a senior oncologist (who has done extensive research on mobile phone use and brain cancer) from Sweden has to say about the questionable way the WHO is handling this issue"
News Items on attached documents below are as follows:
1. Mullumbimby NSW Australia Community Event;
2. Hobart’s Smart City Strategy perhaps not too Smart;
3. ORSAA letter to the editor on a recent Guardian newspaper article.
I hope you will find the talks at the Mullumbimby event interesting and we owe a special thanks to the community group “Environment and Communities Safe from Radiation” for getting this event up and running. A great team of people who organised this event at short notice.
We also owe a thanks to Mr Steven Lyons (filmmaker & volunteer) on making the two 35 minute talks watchable
Talk : Mr Victor Leach’s
Talk : Dr Russell Cooper’s
The talk by lawyer Mr Raymond Brromhall was very long and a shorten production was not produced but you can watch the full live streaming video at the at the “Environment and Communities Safe from Radiation” website
It has been a while since our last newsletter but do not take this as an indicator that we have been sitting back taking a break! Apart from keeping our database up-to-date with the latest research, which is a job in itself, we have been very busy writing papers, preparing and giving presentations. Mr Victor (Vic) Leach (ORSAA and ARPS Member) recently attended and presented a paper at the 5th Asian & Oceanic IRPA Regional Congress on Radiation Protection (AOCRP-5). The title of the paper was: “Why the Precautionary Approach is needed for Non-Ionising Radiation Devices”
Vic co-authored the paper with Adjunct Associate Professor David Bromwich who has had a background in assisting organisations and industry in risk managing new technologies, especially where there is a level of uncertainty in the science in relation to adverse health effects. David’s research into the use, and often misuse, of gloves for protection against handling hazardous materials sees him as one of a few world experts in this area and has been used as a legal expert on a number of occasions. David also has a background in radiation protection where he worked as regulator of the uranium mining industry during the 1980’s and was a past active ARPS member helping organize the first NT ARPS conference in 1982.
The presentation, notes and paper, in advance of publication, are attached for your interest.
Our presentation, together with the presentation delivered by Adjunct Prof Dariusz Leszczynski, were the only conference papers that urged caution with respect to new emerging RF-EMF technologies. Precaution is recommended particularly with the advent of the new higher frequency 5G technologies, as this is likely to mean a substantial increase in RF-EMF environmental background levels. There is a need for more research on non-thermal biological effects, particularly in relation to human hematological and immune responses, as the largest organ of the body, namely skin will be the target organ along with its extensive vascular network.
Mr Steven (Steve) Weller (ORSAA Treasurer) attended an Electromagnetic Energy Reference Group (EMERG) Meeting hosted by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). EMERG convenes bi-annually and Steve participates in these meetings as a community representative. In the most recent EMERG meeting held in May, Steve presented to a mixed audience of government and industry representatives on two very important topics that focused on the need for a robust EMF risk management philosophy and also future research needs. The two presentations along with an informative preamble were published as a blog on Dariusz’s website Between a Rock and a Hard Place (BRHP).
All authors urge, in the interim, a precautionary approach should be adopted and the public to be advised of the potential risks identified in the scientific literature as they are being exposed to this pervasive form of unseen radiation, 24/7.
We are also proud to announce the recent acceptance for publication a paper detailing the ORSAA database in the scientific journal, De Gruyter, entitled “ A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation”.
We need your help. ORSAA has recently kicked of a campaign to raise funds with the goal to raise awareness of the science and the implications of man-made Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) on human health.
The next stage of development planned for the ORSAA database, which will include easy to use reporting functions, requires a skilled database programmer. The funds raised in this campaign will be used to fund this major upgrade. The goal is to make the database easier to use and to facilitate deeper insights into the large volumes of research data contained therein.
You can help us by making a donation to this fund raising campaign
We thank you for your generosity.
The ORSAA team
In this newsletter installment we look at two important topics. The regulation of health and safety protection with respect to radio transmitters in Australia and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study.
1. Health and safety regulation of radio transmitters in Australia
Background: For those not familiar with Australian regulations, the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) are the radio communications regulator. The Radiocommunications Act 1992. Section 162 imposes upon ACMA regulatory responsibility to provide health and safety protection to persons who operate, work with or use wireless equipment via the establishment of standards.
Currently, the ACMA collects revenue on behalf of the Australian Government through broadcasting, radio communications and telecommunications taxes, charges and licence fees. It also collects revenue from price-based allocation of the RF spectrum to industry and government bodies . When taking into consideration the health and safety protection responsibilities, this raises serious concerns about conflict of interest.
Another major problem which is often overlooked is that ACMA chose only certain subsections of the ARPANSA RPS3 (based on ICNIRP 1998 RF Guidelines) as the "standard” to provide health and safety protection. Specifically, the ACMA excluded 5.7 (e) covering precautionary measures because “Inclusion of the precautionary principle in the ACMA regulatory instruments would place a regulatory burden on industry which would require strong justification. Down load outcomes paper : The ACMA does not discern that justification.”
ACMA typically refers those with health complaints associated with RF exposure/overexposure to ARPANSA, justifying this denial of responsibility on the basis of ACMA not being a health authority. In fact, neither ARPANSA nor ACMA are health authorities because both organisations lack the necessary requisite medical and biological science expertise.
The majority of the research on EMR bioeffects in Australia is performed by ACEBR in Wollongong which is classified as a Centre of Excellence (CoE) for RF bioeffect research. However, ACEBR is dominated by psychologists with industry connections (Telstra, AMTA and EPRI) and ACBEBR is suggesting that those who claim to be injured by microwaves are most likely suffering from a psychologically based communicated disorder based on the ‘nocebo effect’.
More recently, the ACMA has sought public comment on the 5G spectrum planning to which ORSAA has made a submission (see attached).
2. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Animal Studies.
You can listen to the NTP animal studies briefing that occurred on May 2016 .
You can also download the audio file and the text transcript associated with the recording. We recommend readers of this news item take the time to listen to the briefing.
These rats were exposed to whole body doses of SDMA and GSM modulated waves at exposures, which would allow their body organs to experience EMF levels similar to those at which human’s brains are currently subject to when using mobile phones. A small but staistically significant number of rats produced hyperplastic legions and glial cell neoplasms of heart nerves and brain.
These very rare tumours have also been found in humans and have been shown in a number of studies to be associated with heavy cell phone usage. For example, IARC’s 2011 classification of radio frequency radiation as a possible carcinogen was substantially based on brain cancers (gliomas) and hearing nerve tumors (vestibular Schwannomas or acoustic neuroma). There was a dose response observed for the Schwannomas.
What do the NTP results mean for humans?
There have been many questions about what these results mean for human cellphone usage. The authors of the NTP report have speculated about this meaning, and in fact, the links to human responses motivated an early release of the report.
From the transcript:
John Bucher: "We’ve brought these findings to the attention of the scientific community and the public for the reasons that I indicated earlier that we do have a suspicion that in the human studies, there are increases in gliomas and schwannomas. The fact that these are the same tumors sites that we’re seeing these small increases is of interest to us and we feel that it contributes to the conversation. That’s basically our position at this point."
John Bucher: "So this is a study that is looking at the plausibility, biological plausibility of carcinogenic effect due to cell phone radiation. The direct translation of these findings to the way humans are using cell telephones is not currently completely worked out and that’s part of the evaluation that’s going forward. This may have relevance, it may have no relevance. “
More than 70% of the researchers that looked at this study (e.g. outside pathologists experienced in brain tumours) suggested that that there is a significant association between radio frequency (RFR) glioma and Schwannomas.
The rare tumour types found in the NTP study; i.e. vestibular Schwannoma and glioma have been seen in human epidemiological studies; see Hardell and Carlberg whose 2015 study reports cellphone use up to >25 years . The link between the NTP animal studies and the epidemiological studies are these rare tumour types.
Looking at this purely from the risk of developing a tumour in animals (rats) it was found to be roughly 3% in the NTP study. When we look at human epidemiological studies such as the CERENAT case-control study these same tumours are found amongst those classified as heavy users. An important aspect of this paper relates to heavy users - “Among heaviest users (cumulative duration ≥896 h), time since first use was occasionally less than 5 years (11%) but mostly 5– 9 years (49%) and 10 years and more (40%) (table 5). The highest risk of brain cancer among heavy users (8.2-fold) were from urban use only.
Thirty-three per cent of the cell phone users were commercial agents or sales people, and 22% were chief operating officers or production and operation managers. Sixty-two per cent of them reported occupational mobile phone use. Their median cumulative duration of calls was 1925 h, corresponding to 54 min/day (IQR: 30, 96 min), with a maximum of 6.6 h/day.” So within the “heavy user” category a median rate of use is someone who uses a phone to their head for an hour a day. The highest user in this category is 6.6 hrs per day. Coincidently this report shows a person who used a phone in close proximity to his head for 6 hrs per day.
You might ask the question: Why would anyone hold a mobile phone to their ear for 6 hours per day? The answer is simple; they believed it to be totally safe. One could also say it demonstrates authorities are failing to provide adequate risk advice to the general public.
You might like to contrast ORSAA’s summary with the ACEBR take on the preliminary NTP study findings. The ACEBR suggests, "That it does not contribute to the mobile telecommunications health debate; we are left with the current consensus that there is no evidence that mobile telecommunications-related RF causes cancer.”
With respect to ionising radiation (X-ray and Gamma rays) there is a precedent in radiation protection in using animal risk factors in lieu of not having human data. Following the atomic bomb test in WWII, the ICRP decided to use genetic risk factors derived from mice experiments (see picture below) as a precautionary approach.
Picture above : Circa 1956 Dr Liane Russell studying effects of radiation on mouse genetics at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Note the tails visible from the irradiation chambers.
The human data of the bomb survivors was followed some 40 years later and so we were able to establish the data on genetic risk factors, which were found to be much lower. Of course, we need to be cautious in our interpretation of the results of animal experiments and the translation to humans as biological differences exist. However, animal experiments are used, as surrogates in the absence of any data on humans and any positive data must be seriously taken into consideration as possibly relevant and plausible to humans. This precedent has already been used many times in radiation protection. So, we should accept the risk factor of 3% from NTP as our best guess of the risk factor for heavy users getting a brain tumour. We can correct this when we have the data 30 years from now when the data on humans becomes available. This is the application of the precautionary approach.
So, you may ask: why is this not being done now for non-ionizing radiation exposure? A good question to be asked of our radiation protection authorities.
Given all the uncertainties, even a small risk factor would mean a large cost burden to society over the next few decades and as such we recommend the implementation of the precautionary approach immediately, along with educating the community on the safe practices with these radiation devices.
PS. Lloyd Morgan (one of our trusted advisors) radio program went to air. In case you missed it archived recording: <https://kpfa.org/program/project-censored> and then click on Oct. 20, 2017
Dr. Priyanka (Pri) Bandara and Mr Steven Weller make commentary on the risk of wireless radiation in cardiovascular disease in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. This highlights the importance in developing measures to reduce public exposure to microwave electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and infrastructure.