Scientists Recommend Stronger Indications of RF-Caused Tumors in Rats
Friday, July 06, 2018 | Comments

Scientific experts recommended that some National Toxicology Program (NTP) conclusions be changed to indicate stronger levels of evidence that cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) caused tumors in rats. The experts met to review the conclusions of research released in February on the health effect of high RF exposure.

A panel of external scientific experts met March 26 – 28 and agreed with NTP conclusions that there was little indication of RFR-related health problems in mice. The studies, one in rats and one in mice, covered 10 years and $25 million.

The experts recommended that tumors in tissues surrounding nerves in the hearts of male rats, called malignant schwannomas, be reclassified from some evidence to clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. In female rats, they recommended reclassification of malignant schwannomas from no evidence to equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity. The panel agreed that there were unusual patterns of cardiomyopathy, or damage to heart tissue, in exposed male and female rats.

The panel recommended that findings for a type of brain tumor, called malignant glioma, and a tumor in the adrenal gland, called pheochromocytoma, be reclassified as some evidence of carcinogenic activity in male rats. NTP researchers also looked for noncancerous health effects in rats and mice. The panel agreed that there were increases in damage to brain tissue in exposed male and female rats, which further supported the classifications of cancerous effects in the brain.

NTP Senior Scientist John Bucher, Ph.D., said the goal of the study was to establish the potential health hazard of exposure to cellphone RFR. He said that to detect a potential effect, the rodents’ whole bodies were exposed to levels equal to and higher than the highest level permitted for local tissue exposure in current cellphone emissions.

NTP staff will now evaluate each of the recommendations from the panel and prepare a final report, which they expect to complete this fall.

“The director has the authority to accept or reject the advice of the advisory panel,” Bucher said. “Once she has evaluated these recommendations, the changes will be made public.”

The full action report is here.

Would you like to comment on this story? Find our comments system below.




 
 
Post a comment
Name: *
Email: *
Title: *
Comment: *
 

Comments
On 7/11/18, Elizabeth A Jesse said:
Thank you for this clarification. It makes perfect sense now.

On 7/11/18, Radio Randy said:
I'm tired of scientific experts who continually insist upon solutions looking for problems.

The entire RF cancer issue started from a "what if," not from an actual cancer case. These experts will only be satisfied when they feel that their claim has been substantiated. Thank goodness science still requires repeatability in order to confirm ones findings.

On 7/8/18, Elizabeth A Jesse said:
Could you make this article more clear about who is saying what? The second paragraph makes it confusing. You need to clarify the second group of experts more clearly as it looks like the same group is contradicting itself.

Editor's Note: There were two studies, one in rats and one in mice. The group agreed with the mice findings (outlined in second paragraph) but wanted stronger indications in the rat findings (first paragraph). We hope that helps clarify.


Site Navigation

Close