Syndication

Visualizzazione post con etichetta Limiti di Esposizione. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta Limiti di Esposizione. Mostra tutti i post

giovedì 29 agosto 2019

Chicago Reporter: i telefoni hanno radiazioni ben oltre i limiti US

Ha avuto una certo eco nella stampa americana e così in diversi giornali nel mondo una sperimentazione eseguita da un giornalista investigativo di questo giornale con un gruppo di tecnici che hanno dimostrato come telefoni popolari come iPhone 7 determinano valori di emissione almeno doppi di quei limiti per i quali la FCC aveva dato l'autorizzazione alla vendita.

Ricordo che tutto parte dalla sperimentazione fatta in Francia che ha portato ad una presa di posizione delle autorità governative che stanno 'studiando' la problematica ...



E' stata qui contestata la metodologia di misurazione (che aggiungo parte da una visione MINIMALISTA secondo la quale gli unici problemi sono il riscaldamento del corpo, quindì attenzione  solo gli effetti termici) che ad es. prevede la misurazione a 25 mm dal corpo (cosa che normalmente è al 99% fittizia e non risponde alla realtà) e che il test è fatto su un manichino di dimensioni di un Marines americano (un bel bestione,  praticamente) ben diverso dalla corporatura di una fetta notevole degli utilizzatori attuali, continuativi degli smartphone !

Un commento successivo di Devra Davis mi è piaciuto molto: 
questo metodo di misurazione è datato 1996, quando un gallone di benzina costava 1,25 $ ed un telefono cellulare 2.000 $ pari agli ordierni 3200 $!   Quindi era utilizzato da business man, militari e per telefonate in media di 6 min, visti i costi di connessione telefonica ...     Situazione molto molto diversa dall'attuale !!! 

Vediamo cosa partorirà l'ente federale americano.




vedere news video https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/video/chicago-tribune-fcc-investigating-phone-radiation-findings/vp-AAGeXBW



We tested popular cellphones for radiofrequency radiation. Now the FCC is investigating.
By SAM ROE
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
AUG 21, 2019 | 12:27 PM
  
The Apple iPhone 7 was set to operate at full power and secured below a tub of clear liquid, specially formulated to simulate human tissue.
With the push of a button, a robotic arm swung into action, sending a pencil-thin probe dipping into the tub. For 18 minutes, it repeatedly measured the amount of radiofrequency radiation the liquid was absorbing from the cellphone.

This test, which was paid for by the Tribune and conducted according to federal guidelines at an accredited lab, produced a surprising result: Radiofrequency radiation exposure from the iPhone 7 — one of the most popular smartphones ever sold — measured over the legal safety limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators from its own testing.

The Federal Communications Commission, which is responsible for regulating phones, states on its website that if a cellphone has been approved for sale, the device “will never exceed” the maximum allowable exposure limit. But this phone, in an independent lab inspection, had done exactly that.

The Tribune tested three more brand-new iPhone 7s at full power, and these phones also measured over the exposure limit. In all, 11 models from four companies were tested, with varying results.

The Tribune’s testing, though limited, represents one of the most comprehensive independent investigations of its kind, and the results raise questions about whether cellphones always meet safety standards set up to protect the public.

After reviewing the lab reports from the Tribune’s tests, the FCC said it would take the rare step of conducting its own testing over the next couple of months.

“We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules,” agency spokesman Neil Grace said.

The Tribune set out a year ago to explore an important question: Are cellphones as safe as manufacturers and government regulators say?

Though it’s unclear whether radiofrequency radiation from cellphones can increase cancer risk or lead to other harm, that question is increasingly pressing given the widespread use of cellphones today. Many children and teenagers may face years of exposure.

The newspaper’s testing was not meant to rank phone models for safety – only 11 models were examined, and in most cases just one device was tested. Nor is it possible to know whether any of the cellphones that tested above limits could cause harm. Two of the phone manufacturers, including Apple, disputed the Tribune’s results, saying the lab used by the newspaper had not tested the phones the same way they do.

But the results of the Tribune’s investigation contribute to an ongoing debate about the possible risks posed by radiofrequency radiation from cellphones, and they offer evidence that existing federal standards may not be adequate to protect the public.

Industry officials and manufacturers emphasize that before a new model can be brought to market, a sample phone must be tested and comply with an exposure standard for radiofrequency radiation. But manufacturers are allowed to select the testing lab — and only a single phone needs to pass in order for millions of others to be sold.

Companies testing a new phone for compliance with the safety limit also are permitted to position the phone up to 25 millimeters away from the body — nearly an inch — depending on how the device is used. That’s because the testing standards were adopted in the 1990s, when people frequently carried cellphones on belt clips.

In one phase of the Tribune testing, all phones were positioned at the same distance from the simulated body tissue that the manufacturers chose for their own tests — from 5 to 15 millimeters, depending on the model. Apple, for instance, tests at 5 millimeters.

But people now often carry phones closer to the body, in their pockets, which increases their potential exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
To assess this kind of exposure, the Tribune asked its lab to conduct a second phase of testing, placing the phones 2 millimeters away from the simulated body — closer than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and far less than the maximum distance allowed by the FCC.

The 2-millimeter distance was chosen to estimate the potential exposure for an owner carrying the phone in a pants or shirt pocket. Under those conditions, most of the models tested yielded results that were over the exposure limit, sometimes far exceeding it.

At 2 millimeters, the results from a Samsung Galaxy S8 were more than five times the standard.

The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ research arm, recommended in 2012 that the FCC reassess the exposure limit and its testing requirements, saying that because phones weren’t measured while against the body, authorities could not ensure exposures were under the standard.

Seven years later — after a lengthy period of public comment — the FCC came to its conclusion. The agency announced this month that the existing standard sufficiently protects the public and should remain in place.

Few other government officials have acted in recent years to address the possible risks of radiofrequency radiation from cellphones. But in California, the state Public Health Department in 2017 issued rare guidance on how concerned consumers could reduce exposure.

Among the advice: Don’t carry cellphones in pockets.




Apple, Samsung respond
When informed of the Tribune’s test results and provided with the laboratory’s 100-page lab report, Apple disputed the findings, saying they were not performed in a way that properly assesses iPhones.

The Tribune’s tests were conducted by RF Exposure Lab, a facility in San Marcos, Calif., that is recognized by the FCC as accredited to test for radiofrequency radiation from electronic devices. For 15 years, the lab has done radiation testing for wireless companies seeking government approval for new products.

Lab owner Jay Moulton said all the Tribune’s tests were done in accordance with detailed FCC rules and guidelines.
“We’re not doing anything extraordinary or different here,” Moulton said. Any qualified lab "should be able to grab a phone off the shelf and test it to see if it meets requirements.”

Apple, one of the world’s most iconic brands, would not say specifically what it thought was wrong with the Tribune’s tests or reveal how the company measures its phones for potential radiofrequency radiation exposure.
Still, based on Apple’s feedback, the Tribune retested the iPhones in the investigation as well as an additional iPhone 7, making a change aimed at activating sensors that would reduce power.

Once again, the iPhone 7s produced results over the safety limit, while an iPhone 8 that previously measured over the standard came in under.
When informed of the new results, Apple officials declined to be interviewed and requested the Tribune put its questions in writing. The newspaper did, submitting three dozen, but Apple did not answer any of them.

Apple then issued a statement, repeating that the Tribune test results for the iPhone 7s “were inaccurate due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models.”

“All iPhone models, including iPhone 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where iPhone is sold,” the statement said. “After careful review and subsequent validation of all iPhone models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable … exposure guidelines and limits.”

Apple did not explain what it meant by “careful review and subsequent validation.”

The three Samsung phones tested by the Tribune — the Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9 and Galaxy J3 — were positioned at 10 or 15 millimeters from the body, the distances chosen by the company in accordance with FCC guidelines. In these tests, the devices measured under the safety limit.
But when the phones were tested at 2 millimeters from the simulated body — to represent a device being used while in a pocket — the exposures measured well over the standard.

Samsung, based in South Korea and one of the world’s top smartphone makers, said in a statement: “Samsung devices sold in the United States comply with FCC regulations. Our devices are tested according to the same test protocols that are used across the industry.”

FCC officials would not comment on individual results from phones tested by the Tribune. They said that although the Tribune testing was not as comprehensive as what would be required for an official compliance report, they would examine some of the phone models in the newspaper’s investigation.

Assessing the risk
Around-the-clock cellphone use represents one of the most dramatic cultural shifts in decades. In 2009, an estimated 50 million smartphones were in active use in America, according to the wireless industry association CTIA. Today, there are 285 million. Twenty-nine percent of U.S. teens sleep with their cellphones in bed with them, according to a 2019 report by the nonprofit organization Common Sense Media.

Some researchers say safety efforts have not kept pace. “These days,” said Om Gandhi, an early researcher of cellphone radiation at the University of Utah, “exposure is from cradle to grave.”

Cellphones use radio waves to communicate with a vast network of fixed installations called base stations or cell towers. These radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation, in the same frequency range used by TVs and microwave ovens.

This kind of radiation, also known as radiofrequency energy, shouldn’t be confused with ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, which can strip electrons from atoms and cause serious biological harm, including cancer.

Radiofrequency energy from cellphones isn’t powerful enough to cause ionization, but at high levels it can heat biological tissue and cause harm. Eyes and testes are especially vulnerable because they do not dispel heat rapidly.
Less understood is whether people, especially children, are at risk for other health effects, including cancer, from exposure to low-level cellphone radiation over many years — potentially decades.

When cellphones hit the market in the 1980s, authorities focused on setting an exposure limit to address only the heating risks of cellphones. Scientists found that animals showed adverse effects when exposed to enough radiofrequency radiation to raise their body temperature by 1 degree Celsius. Authorities used this finding to help calculate a safety limit for humans, building in a 50-fold safety factor.

The final rule, adopted by the FCC in 1996, stated that cellphone users cannot potentially absorb more than 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over one gram of tissue. To demonstrate compliance, phone makers were told to conduct two tests: when the devices were held against the head and when held up to an inch from the body.
A woman uses a cellphone at Lollapalooza this summer. New phone models must be tested for radiofrequency radiation before coming to market.
These testing methods didn’t address the anatomy of children and that of other vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, said Joel Moskowitz, a cellphone expert at the University of California at Berkeley.

“It was like one-size-fits-all.” Plus, he said, “I don’t think anyone anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives.”
The devices became ubiquitous and were increasingly slipped into pockets rather than carried on belt clips. The number of scientific studies related to cellphone radiofrequency radiation soared.

Last fall, in one of the largest studies to date, the National Toxicology Program, a research group within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that high exposure to the kind of radiofrequency radiation used by cellphones was associated with “clear evidence” of cancerous heart tumors in male rats.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibilities for cellphones with the FCC, responded to the study by assuring the public there was no danger to humans at “exposures at or under” safety limits. But the Tribune’s testing, disputed by manufacturers, found results from some cellphones over the exposure standard, particularly when tested close to the body.
Despite the changing ways people use phones, both the FCC and FDA said the current exposure limit protects the public. The agencies cite the 50-fold safety margin incorporated into the standard, as does CTIA, the industry association.

Over the limit
A half-hour drive north of San Diego, in the city of San Marcos, is RF Exposure Lab, a low-slung beige and white building that has the look and layout of a dentist’s office. Down the main hallway, past several doors, is a room with dozens of large containers labeled “Head Tissue” and “Body Tissue.”

Moulton, the lab owner, recalled how an intern once spilled some “body tissue” on himself and “freaked out because he thought it was real human tissue.” But it was just a mixture of mostly water, sugar and salt that simulates the electrical properties of the body. The liquid is used frequently at the lab, one of the few facilities in the U.S. that is accredited to test phones and other devices for radiofrequency radiation.
Different liquid mixtures are used to simulate the electrical properties of human tissue in radiofrequency radiation testing at RF Exposure Lab.
Moulton founded the lab in 2004 after serving as engineering director for chip-making giant Qualcomm. There, he said, he often wrestled with the radiation issue while helping design phones for Verizon.

The Tribune hired Moulton to conduct tests on 11 different models of cellphones, all purchased new by the newspaper. The tests took place in a 10-foot-by-10-foot room outfitted with copper screen windows to reduce electrical interference. In the middle of the room was a “phantom body,” an oval-shaped tub the size of a kitchen sink. Inside the tub was a body tissue mixture.

Moulton carefully positioned the first phone to be tested — an Apple iPhone 8 — under the phantom body so that it was 5 millimeters from the outside of the tub. This separation distance was the same gap selected by Apple in its tests and was in accordance with federal guidelines.

Using a base station simulator outside the room, Moulton placed a call to the iPhone 8 and adjusted the settings so the device was operating in the same band, frequency and channel that yielded the highest radiofrequency radiation reading reported by Apple to the FCC during the regulatory approval process — data that is available on the agency website.

The phone was now operating at full power, creating what was essentially a worst-case scenario in terms of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Typically, Moulton said, consumers do not experience exposure like this. But it could happen, he said, in limited situations, such as someone talking continuously in an area with a weak connection.
Jay Moulton preps equipment for cellphone testing at RF Exposure Lab.
A probe attached to a robotic arm moved up and down, and back and forth, in the fluid, taking 276 measurements of the radiation absorbed. After a few minutes, the probe stopped, and the results appeared on a nearby computer screen: The radiofrequency radiation level for the iPhone 8 measured 2.64 W/kg — more than double the highest value Apple reported to the FCC and well over the 1.6 safety limit.

Moulton said he was surprised. “Maybe the phone’s power sensor isn’t working,” he said. “It’s supposed to be on."

Almost all smartphones, he said, have power sensors — also known as proximity sensors — designed to detect when the device is touching or extremely close to a person. When that occurs, the phone is supposed to reduce power, decreasing radiofrequency radiation.

“Let’s see how this iPhone 7 does,” he said, picking up the next phone to be tested. He secured it 5 millimeters under the phantom body, placed a call to the phone and activated the probe.
Minutes later, the results were in: 2.81 W/kg, again over the limit. He tested another iPhone 7, getting a similar result: 2.50 W/kg.
“Still high,” Moulton said.
A probe attached to a robotic arm measures how much radiofrequency radiation from a cellphone is being absorbed by the simulated body tissue.
As more phones were tested, some results came in low. For instance, Samsung’s Galaxy S9, S8 and J3 phones measured under the standard.
But the lab had tested the Samsung phones relatively far away from the simulated body, because that’s how the manufacturer had tested the devices when seeking FCC approval.

Two Samsung phones were tested at 10 millimeters away and one at 15 millimeters — still within federal guidelines but much greater than the 5-millimeter gap chosen by Apple for its tests.
So how would the Samsung devices and other models fare when tested at a consistent distance, one even closer to the body?

The ‘pocket test'
To help answer this question, the Tribune cut out pieces of dress shirts, T-shirts, jeans, track pants and underwear and sent them to Moulton. His measurements indicated that phones carried in pants or shirt pockets typically would be no more than 2 millimeters from the body.

Moulton then conducted the same radiation tests, using the same methods and equipment. The only difference was that the phones were placed 2 millimeters from the phantom body — closer than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and much closer than the maximum distance allowed by the FCC.
Maybe, he said, the phones’ proximity sensors would kick in at this closer distance, and the radiofrequency radiation levels would drop accordingly.
But most phones still showed high levels. The four iPhone 7s tested at 2 millimeters produced results twice the safety standard. The iPhone 8 measured three times over; the Moto e5 Play from Motorola measured quadruple the standard.

And the Samsung Galaxy phones?

All three measured at more than twice the standard, with the Galaxy S8 registering 8.22 W/kg — five times the standard and the highest exposure level seen in any of the Tribune tests.

Only two phones came in under the standard in the 2-millimeter “pocket test": an iPhone 8 Plus and a BLU Vivo 5 Mini.

Moulton said he couldn’t be certain why any of the phones in the Tribune tests scored as they did.

Only the manufacturers, he said, could say for sure.
A visitor to Millennium Park in Chicago talks on a cellphone. “I don’t think anyone anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives,” said California cellphone expert Joel Moskowitz.
A visitor to Millennium Park in Chicago talks on a cellphone. “I don’t think anyone anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives,” said California cellphone expert Joel Moskowitz.

Seeking an explanation
Apple and Motorola disputed the Tribune’s testing protocol but declined to answer written questions.

Motorola officials did say one thing about the high exposure measurement for their Moto e5 Play, which came in nearly three times the safety limit in a 5-millimeter test at the Tribune lab: They speculated the test did not trigger the proximity sensors in that phone.

Though the Tribune’s lab had followed all FCC testing methods, the newspaper subsequently retested the Moto e5 Play, slightly altering the previous testing method to reflect Motorola’s input. The Tribune also retested a Moto g6 Play, which had scored right at the safety limit in the first test, as well as an additional model, a Moto e5.

When tested with these modified methods, the exposure results for all three phones were under the limit at the 5-millimeter distance.
Moulton said the two test results for the e5 Play indicate that its sensors may not work under certain conditions.

Motorola, which is based in Chicago, said in a statement that “all Motorola devices meet or exceed FCC requirements" but would not answer questions about its power sensors.

“Our power management techniques and expertise provide Motorola with a significant competitive advantage in the marketplace, and are therefore highly confidential,” the company’s statement said. “The Chicago Tribune’s third-party lab was not privy to the proprietary techniques from Motorola necessary to elicit accurate results.”

Rules set by the FCC require that radiofrequency radiation testing be done “in a manner that permits independent assessment.”

Motorola said that after receiving the Tribune’s test results, it had the models in question tested at its outside lab, which “found results were within the appropriate limits.” When the Tribune asked Motorola to explain how it tests its phones, the company declined. It also would not share its lab reports.
The Tribune also retested several iPhones based on Apple’s feedback. A reporter touched or grasped the phones for the duration of the tests, actions intended to activate sensors that are designed to reduce the devices’ power.
Tribune reporter Sam Roe grasps an iPhone during retesting at RF Exposure Lab in March. Apple had disputed the results of earlier tests, saying they were not conducted in a way that properly assesses iPhones.
In these tests, the iPhone 8 measured under the limit at 5 millimeters, but all four iPhone 7s did not.

In response to these results, Apple issued a statement saying the lab procedures in the Tribune testing still were improper. The company, based in Cupertino, Calif., wouldn’t say what methods were necessary.

FCC documents show that when Apple sought agency approval in 2016 to market the iPhone 7, the company promised to “take appropriate action” on any complaint “relating to the product’s compliance with requirements of the relevant standard.”

Apple, which said it validated the safety of its phones in response to the Tribune testing, would not provide any additional detail about the actions it took to evaluate the phones.

The company also wouldn’t comment on the information it provides the public on radiofrequency radiation. Consumers can find such information on their iPhones, but it’s difficult.

On the iPhone 7, for instance, a user would go to Settings > General > About > Legal > RF Exposure. There, the term “radiofrequency radiation” is not used but rather “RF energy,” a reference to radiofrequency exposure.
Around-the-clock cellphone use represents one of the most dramatic cultural changes in decades.
To reduce exposure, Apple suggests using “a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories.”
For some past models, Apple gives additional advice. Apple’s website tells users of the iPhone 4 and 4s: “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.” The site says those phones were tested at a distance of 10 millimeters.
When Apple submitted its application to the FCC to market the iPhone 7, the company included a similarly worded radiation statement, suggesting users carry the device at least 5 millimeters from the body, records show.
But iPhone 7s eventually sold to the public did not include that advice.
When the Tribune asked Apple in its written questions why that suggestion was not included, the company did not respond.

Sam Roe is an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who writes about various topics. He was part of the reporting team that won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, and he was a Pulitzer finalist four other times. He also teaches at Columbia College Chicago and coaches baseball in Oak Park.  Email the author: sroe@colum.edu.



martedì 11 giugno 2019

Nuovi parametri per valutare il rischio da RF

Questo documento arriva da un'agenzia comunitaria:


The European Committee on Radiation Risk was formed in 1997 following a resolution made at a conference in Strasbourg arranged by the Green Group in the European Parliament.


Nel 2018 a fronte dei progetti industriali di implementazione del 5G hanno deciso di muoversi!


ECNRR The European Committee on Radiation Risk made the decision in September 2018 to set up a new committee of scientists and experts to investigate the issue of the health effects of non-ionising radiation. The proliferation in the last 20 years of devices generating significant amounts of Electromagnetic (EM) Radiation has been paralleled by studies showing a wide range of biological effects in animals and in isolated cells. Most recently, two major lifespan studies of rats have independently demonstrated that exposures to Radiofrequency EM radiations in the region employed by mobile phones, WiFi and other communication systems cause both benign and malignant tumours.

 No attempt has been made by any State organisation to regulate overall exposures; rather the emission characteristics of the individual devices have been capped by legislation.

The ECRR main committee noted a historic parallel with regulatory frameworks in the development of the use of ionising radiation, where eventually, following the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals from cancer, the concept of absorbed dose (rad, Gray, Sievert) was developed, and applied to regulatory limits of exposures. The current annual legal dose limit adopted by most western nations for members of the public is 1mGy or 1mSv. This level is tied to the estimate of cancer risk in those exposed, which is, in turn derived (inaccurately) from the Japanese A-Bomb studies.


The Nrad                                       



The committee, therefore, decided to define a similar quantity for non-ionising radiation and to name this quantity the Nrad or Non-ionising Radiation Absorbed Dose. One Nrad is an absorption of EM energy equal to 1 kJoule per kilogram of tissue.

Since the dose rate over one year which leads to cancer in the rat studies is known from the studies, it is a simple matter to use that information to assess risk to humans, and to choose a dose limit for exposure. The committee decided in November 2018 to advise on a regulatory provisional safe limit of 250nrads per year for adults and for children 7- 12 years 10-100Nrad linearly depending on their age. EMDose is a cumulative quantity and is assessed as a maximum or hotspot dose, not a kilogram integrated dose as is the case with ionising radiation.



Provisional nature of the dose limit


The ECNRR publishes this dose limit and its calculation and assessment in a first attempt to address what it sees as a serious and increasing public health danger which is not being regulated by State actors. It invites and welcomes inputs from all interested sources, including industry, stakeholders and current government risk agencies. On the basis of such inputs, and with regard to them, it will finalise its recommendations by May 2019.Contact:
Roland von Malmborg, Administrative Secretary, ECNRR, Stockholm, Sweden; info@ifrrr.org



New limits for exposure to nonionising radiation

European Committee on Non Ionizing Radiation Risk ECNRR Dose limits for exposure to 4G and 5G radiofrequency cellphones, cellphone towers and other sources including proposed 5G.

The Annual and Daily Dose limits in Nrad and Nrep for cumulative exposures to Non Ionising radiations in the 2Gz and proposed 5G radiations were published today by the ECNRR. These limits for adults and children have been decided following an initial publication in December 2018 and a consultation period of 3 months. The rapid increase in Radiofrequency (RF) radiations in the environment and the proposed major increases associated with 5-G rollout in the near future represent a serious and unaddressed public health hazard. Citizens are exposed to radiations which have been now shown by hundreds of scientific studies to cause biological damage potentially resulting in cancer and developmental issues. This is a Human Rights  and Public Health issue and has now been addressed though the quantification of cumulative absorbed doses based on the Nrad or Non ionising radiation absorbed dose equal to 1kJ per kg of tissue. For radiations above 2GHz a weighting factor is applied based on the frequency of the radiation to provide the unit Nrep or Non Ionising Radiation Equivalent Person. Details are found in the Publication:




Prof Christopher Busby, Scientific Secretary of the ECNRR presents the new report here

euradcom.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ECRRnonionizing290519finalDRC4.pdf
(questo report è molto orientato ad una profonda revisione dei limiti ... una contrapposizione a ICNIRP.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWUmJH4qJdE&feature=youtu.be 



giovedì 13 settembre 2018

ICNIRP prosegue sulla sua strada da negazionista

Il 4.9.18 ICNIRP ha rifiutato le conclusioni del più grande studio di effetti di radiofrequenze su animali fatto (da parte di US National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences costato ben 28 milioni di dollari!), confermando la validità dei limiti espositivi che propone da tanti anni.  

Studi che arrivano quasi contemporaneamente di quelli eseguiti in Italia dall'Istituto Ramazzini di Bologna, che ha portato a risultati quasi identici.

Purtroppo questa Agenzia (privata, di diritto tedesco) è ritenuta dalle grande organizzazioni internazionali (WHO, CE, USA, Canada, etc.) come depositaria del 'verbo assoluto'.  

Qui sotto un ricercatore ora pensionato che ha lavorato appunto in questo grande istituto di ricerca  americano, Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D., confuta puntualmente le argomentazioni messe in piedi da questi " scienziati " dell'ICNIRP per avvalorare le loro conclusioni.

https://ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/


sabato 31 marzo 2018

NTP: altro passo concluso ! Le conclusioni determinano un CAMBIAMENTO

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/health-care/article207112454.html

Articolo dal New Observer   .  TRaduzione

Le onde radio a frequenza cellulare possono essere decisamente collegate al cancro nei ratti, secondo una riunione del comitato scientifico nazionale nel Research Triangle Park di mercoledì. La scoperta degli scienziati stabilisce la più chiara connessione del rischio di cellulare per gli esseri umani in un importante studio degli Stati Uniti fino ad oggi.

Gli scienziati hanno fatto il loro annuncio alla fine di una riunione di tre giorni per esaminare un esperimento sui roditori da 25 milioni di dollari condotto dal Programma nazionale di tossicologia in RTP per la Food and Drug Administration statunitense. La bozza dello studio, pubblicata all'inizio di febbraio, aveva in alcuni casi stabilito un legame debole e in alcuni casi nessun collegamento, ma il gruppo consultivo scientifico di mercoledì ha affermato che i dati sono più convincenti e indicano un rischio maggiore rispetto a quelli inizialmente riconosciuti.

Si prevede che la decisione di mercoledì cambierà il dibattito sulla sicurezza dei telefoni cellulari dato che l'industria delle telecomunicazioni, con l'incoraggiamento della Federal Communications Commission, si prepara a lanciare la tecnologia wireless 5G ad alta velocità di prossima generazione. Gli attivisti della salute pubblica prevedono che le conclusioni del panel scientifico sui rischi wireless aumenteranno la pressione sulle agenzie federali per emettere avvisi di sicurezza e stringere gli standard di sicurezza del dispositivo elettronico onnipresente.

"Probabilmente dovrebbe portare a una riduzione dei limiti di esposizione", ha detto Ronald Melnick, lo scienziato del National Toxicology Program che ha progettato lo studio prima di ritirarsi nove anni fa. "Questo è importante perché le agenzie che riceveranno questi dati prenderanno decisioni sulla salute pubblica sulla base di queste informazioni".

Melnick ha detto che i rischi per la salute riconosciuti mercoledì potrebbero costringere i funzionari pubblici e i leader delle telecomunicazioni "a non promuovere l'uso di alcuni di questi dispositivi a emissione di radiofrequenza per bambini".

Solo il mese scorso la bozza di rapporto era stata giudicata inconcludente dalla FDA e dall'American Cancer Society, e il gruppo scientifico era atteso dagli attivisti per apporre il timbro di approvazione a quelle conclusioni nella riunione di mercoledì.


Prima che gli scienziati votassero, Kevin Mottus, il direttore di outreach della California Brain Tumor Association, ha chiesto dal pavimento che l'intero panel si ricusasse per mancanza di qualifiche per valutare i dati di radiofrequenza. Mottus in seguito ha detto che i cellulari sono paragonabili all'amianto e al tabacco e dovrebbero contenere etichette di avvertimento.

Ma mentre la discussione elettorale ha preso il via, gli scienziati hanno iniziato a proporre mozioni per migliorare il livello dei risultati per affermare che un'esposizione prolungata alle radiofrequenze può essere chiaramente collegata al cancro del tessuto cardiaco nei ratti maschi. Il progetto di studio aveva precedentemente affermato che esisteva un collegamento ma nessuna evidenza chiara.

I tumori del tessuto cardiaco sono stati particolarmente significativi perché sono una rara forma di cancro che si verifica raramente nei ratti e non possono essere spiegati come malattie casuali.

John Bucher, scienziato senior del National Toxicology Program, ha affermato che il cancro del tessuto cardiaco che si sviluppa nei ratti maschi è lo stesso tipo di tumore che è stato osservato in alcune persone che hanno utilizzato per anni i cellulari nelle impostazioni di potenza più elevate.

"Il fatto che questo tipo di tumore fosse lo stesso ha attirato la nostra attenzione", ha detto Bucher. "E inoltre sono stati alcuni dei risultati più forti da un punto di vista numerico."

I relatori hanno anche votato che lo studio mostra alcuni collegamenti tra la radiazione del cellulare e il cancro al cervello nei ratti. Il progetto aveva affermato che il collegamento era equivoco, una designazione scientifica che indicava che era inconcludente e probabilmente irrilevante.

Oltre a mostrare un aumento dei tumori nei ratti, lo studio ha anche dimostrato che i ratti neonati pesavano meno e soffrivano di più alti tassi di mortalità quando vivevano in una camera di radiazione a radiofrequenza.

Qual'è il prossimo?
Il direttore della FDA dell'ufficio di scienza e ingegneria, Edward Margerrison, ha partecipato alla riunione e ha poi messo in guardia contro la formulazione di conclusioni avventate basate sulle votazioni di mercoledì. "Stiamo adottando un approccio responsabile", ha detto. "Non andiamo a prendere decisioni impulsive"

La FDA tradurrà i risultati dei roditori in rischi per la salute umana e la Commissione federale delle comunicazioni deciderà se le conclusioni della FDA sono abbastanza serie da giustificare l'introduzione di standard di emissioni inferiori per i cellulari degli Stati Uniti o di adottare altre precauzioni.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

articolo con riscontro di dettaglio della commissione degli esperti e voti

https://www.saferemr.com/2018/01/national-toxicology-program-peer-public.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NTP Should Analyze Overall Tumor Risk in Cell Phone Radiation Studies


In my written submission to NTP about the cell phone radiation studies, I recommended that NTP analyze the overall tumor risk from cell phone radiation exposure. After watching the three-day expert review of these studies, I restate this recommendation. 

While it is useful to examine what happened to the trees in the forest in this experiment (e.g., the increased risk of a specific tumor  developing in male rats from GSM exposure), it is essential to examine what happened to the forest (e.g., the overall risk of a male rat developing a malignant tumor from exposure to cell phone radiation).

NTP should test the null hypothesis that lifelong exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation does not increase the incidence of cancer.

There are several strong justifications for conducting this analysis.

First, a 5-year, $5 million Air Force study found low incidences of various types of tumors in male rats exposed to microwave radiation. In that study, the exposed rats were three times more likely to get cancer than the control rats. The study employed much lower intensity microwave radiation than the NTP studies.

Second, early toxicology research on the effects of tobacco found low incidences of many types of tumors among animals exposed to tobacco smoke. Scientists dismissed this evidence as they assumed an agent could not cause cancer in different types of tissue. History later proved them wrong.
Third, numerous biologic studies have found that exposure to low-intensity radiofrequency radiation increases oxidative stress causing generation of free radicals, stress proteins, and DNA damage in many different types of cells.

Finally, my preliminary analysis of the overall tumor risk using summary data from the appendices to the NTP report, found that male rats exposed to cell phone radiation were significantly more likely to develop cancer than control rats (38% vs. 25.5%; p = .021), and more likely to develop a nonmalignant tumor (70% vs. 54%; p = .003).

Male rats in the lowest cell phone radiation exposure group, 1.5 watts per kilogram, were also more likely to develop a nonmalignant tumor than control rats (74% vs. 54%; p < .001). Although cancer incidence for this low exposure group was greater than the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (34% vs. 25.5%; p = .163).

NTP should conduct these analyses controlling for differences in survival between the exposed and control animals.

http://www.saferemr.com/2018/01/national-toxicology-program-peer-public.html

--

Experts find "clear evidence" of cancer from cell phone radiation in NTP study

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, March 28, 2018 (UPDATED March 30)

Eleven experts convened by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) over a three day period to review the draft technical reports from the NTP's cell phone radiation studies concluded that there is "clear evidence" that exposure to cell phone radiation caused a rare cancer in the hearts of male rats, and there is "equivocal evidence" for the hearts of female rats.
The expert panel also reported "some evidence" that cell phone radiation exposure caused brain cancer in male and female rats and cancer of the adrenal glands in male rats. Additionally, "equivocal evidence" of cancer risk was reported in the pituitary, adrenal, and prostate glands and pancreas and liver in male rats and adrenal glands in female rats.
The mice in the study, exposed to a different cell phone radiation frequency than the rats (1800 MHz vs. 900 MHz), displayed less evidence of cancer risk. Equivocal evidence of cancer risk from cell phone radiation was reported for lymphoma in male and female mice. Equivocal evidence was also reported for skin, lung, and liver cancer in male mice.
In seven instances, the expert group upgraded the evaluations of evidence published by NTP staff in the draft technical reports. Thus, the NTP scientists appear to have been overly conservative in their assessment of the hazards of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation.

A table (dated March 30) based upon NTP's official results which compares the evaluations of evidence of carcinogenicity prepared by NTP staff with the expert committee's findings can be found at:
General Interest:
By Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie,THE NATION, March 29, 2018.

-- 


NTP cell phone studies — experts recommend elevated conclusions

John BucherBucher cautioned that the findings tell us that we should take a closer look, but they should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)
A panel of external scientific experts met March 26-28 at NIEHS and recommended that some National Toxicology Program (NTP) conclusions be changed to indicate stronger levels of evidence that cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) caused tumors in rats.
The panel agreed with NTP conclusions that there was little indication of RFR-related health problems in mice. The panel reviewed the conclusions of two draft technical reports, one in rats and one in mice, based on 10 years and $25 million of research.
“It was gratifying that the members of the expert panel unanimously praised the NTP cell phone studies as very well done, and vitally important research,” said NTP Senior Scientist John Bucher, Ph.D. “They conducted a thorough review, engaged in spirited debate, and grappled with the same uncertainties as did the NTP staff.”
Bucher stressed that the goal of the study was to establish the potential health hazard of exposure to cell phone 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 cell phone emissions today.
David EatonPanel chair David Eaton, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, said NTP was clairvoyant for including in utero exposure long before this was commonly considered in toxicology. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)

Heart, brain, and adrenal tumors

Working from the NTP scale of clear evidence, which is graded as some evidence, equivocal evidence, and no evidence, the panel made several recommendations.
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.
“When I look at these types of studies, I look for high-level signals that can infer mechanisms. I have more questions than answers, but the heart is clearly sending a signal in the rat studies, between the levels of cardiomyopathy and malignant tumors,” said panelist Rick Adler, D.V.M., Ph.D., senior director of discovery and regulatory pathology for GlaxoSmithKline.
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.

Tissue changes and lower body weights

Chad BlystoneBlystone oversaw internal scientific reviews with NTP staff. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)
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.
For several other tissues, including the prostate and pituitary glands, the panel agreed that tissue changes were equivocal, meaning it was unclear if any of these tumor increases were related to RFR.
NTP also reported lower body weights among newborn rats and their mothers, especially when exposed to high levels of RFR during pregnancy and lactation, but these animals later grew to normal size.
“I want to highlight that we don’t rely on one specific item for determining response,” said NTP toxicologist Chad Blystone, Ph.D. He explained that NTP staff review numerous factors when determining conclusions, including those listed below.
  • Statistics.
  • Dose-response relationship.
  • Commonality of tumors and tissue changes.
  • Comparison to concurrent and historical controls.
  • Findings across sexes and species.

Most expensive, technically challenging studies

To conduct the studies, NTP worked with collaborators at the IT’IS Foundation to design special chambers that exposed rats and mice to different levels of RFR for up to two years, including exposure to pups while in the womb.
Myles Capstick, Ph.D., of the IT’IS Foundation explained that they wanted to expose the whole animals because they were not sure where health effects might occur. “We were aiming to expose as many tissues as possible, not mimic a phone next to the head,” said Capstick.
Capstick, Kuster, LadburyFrom right, John Ladbury of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Kuster, and Capstick presented the exposure system and how it was validated. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)
Exposure levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogram in rats and 2.5 to 10 watts per kilogram in mice. The low power level for rats was equal to the highest level permitted for local tissue exposures to cell phone emissions today. The animals were exposed for 10-minute on, 10-minute off cycles that totaled more than 9 hours each day.
The studies used 2G and 3G frequencies and modulations that are still used in voice calls and texting in the United States. More recent 4G, 4G-LTE, and 5G networks for streaming video and downloading attachments use different cell phone signal frequencies and modulations than NTP used in these studies. Niels Kuster, Ph.D., of the IT’IS Foundation added that their studies of 4G technologies are very similar.
There were approximately 3,000 animals in the study, and pathologists examined 50 tissues in each animal to look for signs of cancer or other changes.
(Virginia Guidry, Ph.D., is a technical writer and public information specialist in the NIEHS Office of Communications and Public Liaison and a regular contributor to the Environmental Factor.)

Asimina Kiourti
Michael Wyde
Asimina Kiourti, Ph.D., of the Ohio State University, acknowledged the challenge of changing technology. “How to catch up with technology?” she said. “This study delivered 100 percent of what you promised.” (Image courtesy of Steve McCaw)


https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/4/feature/feature-2-cell-phone/index.htm


--

Male rats exposed to cell phone radiation were significantly more likely to develop tumors and cancer 


Null hypothesis rejected
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, March 30, 2018  (Updated April 2)
... my preliminary analysis of the overall tumor risk using summary data from the appendices to the NTP report, found that male rats exposed to cell phone radiation were significantly more likely to develop a tumor than control rats overall (81% vs. 62%; p < .001), and even in the lowest cell phone radiation exposure group, 1.5 watts per kilogram (82% vs. 62%; p <.001).
Male rats exposed to cell phone radiation were significantly more likely to develop cancer than control rats (38% vs. 26%; p = .021), and more likely to develop a nonmalignant tumor (70% vs. 54%; p = .003).

Male rats in the lowest cell phone radiation exposure group, 1.5 watts per kilogram, were also more likely to develop a nonmalignant tumor than control rats (74% vs. 54%; p < .001). Although cancer incidence for this low exposure group was greater than the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (34% vs. 26%; p = .163).

NTP should conduct these analyses controlling for survival differences between the exposed and control animals.

National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review
Also see:

National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer
Ramazzini Institute Replicates Key Finding from NTP Study 
 


--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley