INSIGHT

01/06/2020

In a new paper published in Health Physics, Ronald Melnick PhD, a toxicologist, for 28+ years at the United States government’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and lead designer of the NTP study on cell phone radiation, analyzed criticisms made by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) of the National Toxicology Program Study on cell phone radiation. Melnick’s analysis concluded that ICNIRP “misrepresented” the study and should not have dismissed the carcinogenic effects found in experimental animals exposed to RF-EMF. 

Melnick reviews the ICNIRP criticism point by point with scientific documentation related to the methodology, interpretation, and relevance of the National Toxicology Program studies on cell phone RF radiation. Topics that he covers in this paper include pathology review procedures, rat survival rates, significance levels, and the need to establish a verified mechanism. Melnick explains how criticisms that the exposures were too high are unfounded, as when you consider the exposure in the brain, those were similar to or only slightly higher than the localized exposure limits (FCC ICNIRP) for the general population and lower than the localized limits for occupational exposures. The NTP study was designed to investigate effects from non-thermal chronic RF-EMF non-ionizing radiation exposures. 

Melnick also pointed out that ICNIRP focused on only the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF from animal studies, “but neglected to point out that other adverse effects were observed in the NTP studies, including reduced birth weights, DNA strand breaks in brain cells (which is supportive of the cancer findings), increased incidences of proliferative lesions (tumors and hyperplasia) in the prostate gland, and exposure-related increases in the incidence of cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats. In addition, other studies have reported adverse effects on male and female reproduction and neurobehavioral effects resulting from exposure to low-intensity non-ionizing radiation.”

Melnick concludes the paper, “The NTP studies show that the assumption that RF radiation is incapable of causing cancer or other adverse health effects other than by tissue heating is wrong. If ICNIRP’s goal is truly aimed at protecting the public from potential harm, then it would be appropriate for this group to quantify the health risks associated with exposure to RF-EMFs and then develop health-protective guidelines for chronic exposures, especially for children, who are likely to be more susceptible than adults to adverse effects of RF radiation.” 

“At the very least, ICNIRP should promote precautionary advice for the general public rather than trying to justify their decision to dismiss findings of adverse health effects caused by RF-EMFs and thereby retain their 20+ year-old exposure guidelines that are based on protection against thermal effects from acute exposures.” 

Melnick, Ronald Regarding ICNIRP’S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Health Physics: June 2020 – Volume 118 – Issue 6 – p 678-682 doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001268

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345908/

Click here fore more...