Tuesday, February 23, 2016

World Health Organization Confirms that Wi-Fi and Cell Phone Radiation are Class B Carcinogens.

Myth: The Class 2 B Carcinogen classification by the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer does not include Wi-Fi radiation emissions. 
  • MCPS has this myth up on their webpage. 
Fact: Wi-Fi radiation is a Class 2 B Carcinogen just the same as cell phone and cell phone tower emissions.
  • Wireless radiation is also called radio frequency radiation (RF-EMF Radiation). RF-EMF specifically refers to a range of frequencies from 30 kHz–300 GHz.
  • Wireless radiation comes from any wireless device. In fact, every wireless device is a two way microwave radio. They send and receive wireless signals (microwaves). We are talking about cell phones, gaming consoles, baby monitors, ipads, fitbits, laptops, computers and tablets. 
Please read the email from the World Health Organization confirming this fact. The chain starts at the bottom. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Question about the RF-EMF classification 
FromVéronique Terrasse TerrasseV@iarc.frhide details
To'theodora
Mon, Dec 14, 2015 6:57 am

IARC's evaluation of the cancer hazards from exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields covers all sources of RF-radiation.






Véronique Terrasse
Press Officer, IARC Communications Group
Web:     www.iarc.fr
Tel:       +33 4 72 73 83 66
Cell:      +33 6 45 28 49 52

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Theodora
Sent: 14 December 2015 12:15
To: Véronique Terrasse
Subject: Re: Question about the RF-EMF classification

Ms. Véronique Terrasse

Thank you so much, 

Could you please carify the answer to this question. "Was the classification intended to apply to all wireless frequencies including 2.45 GHZ? " In other words, does it only include radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones? Or does it simply apply to all radiofrequencies within the radiofrequency range ?

Please clarify if the intention of the classification for the frequency and the type of radiation OR was it specifically for the source of the emissions or the device giving off emissions .. ie mobile phones only. 

Could you please detail an answer to this. 
Thank you ,
Theodora Scarato 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Original Message-----
From: Véronique Terrasse  

To: 'Theodora
Sent: Mon, Dec 14, 2015 5:14 am
Subject: Question about the RF-EMF classification
Dear Theodora Scarato

Please find below some information on behalf of Dr Straif.


As far as cancer is concerned, electromagnetic fields were evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research branch of WHO in 2011. The details of these assessments have now been published in Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs and is the latest authoritative Monograph on the topic.
IARC classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including Wi-Fi signals and mobile phone signals) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.
The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10year period).


IARC's evaluation of the cancer hazards from exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields covers all sources of RF-radiation.
Please find also attached three documents explaining several aspects of residential electromagnetic fields, on  where they originate, and how they are measured. These documents  are not from IARC but from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency but I think you may find them useful.
Best regards,
Véronique Terrasse

 




Véronique Terrasse
Press Officer, IARC Communications Group

Web:     www.iarc.fr
Tel:       +33 4 72 73 83 66
Cell:      +33 6 45 28 49 52

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Theodora
Sent: 06 December 2015 00:01
To: straif@iarc.fr
Subject: Question about the RF-EMF classification

Dear Dr. Kurt Straif, 

I need clarification from the IARC on the classification for RF-EMF. 
  • Was the classification based on studies that looked st 1,640 hours a year or for a lifetime? 
  • Was the classification intended to apply to all wireless frequencies including 2.45 GHZ? 
  • Does it matter what the source of the radiation is or is the classification for the radiation itself no matter what the source? 

Thank you so much, 
Theodora Scarato 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Note: This email was initiated because MCPS stated on November 20 , 2015 that “The 2B classification was based on studies of extremely heavy cell phone use: 1,640 hours or more per year, which is equal to holding a cell phone to the side of one’s head for four hours a day, every day for an entire year.” 

MCPS changed the text on their website on Dec, 5, 2015 (after repeated letters from us) but then the text read that, "According to the Office of the Provincial Health Officer in British Columbia the 2B classification was based on studies of extremely heavy cell phone use: 1,640 hours or more per year, which is equal to holding a cell phone to the side of one’s head for four hours a day, every day for an entire year. Again, this is cell phone use, not Wi-Fi. "

Clearly this is wrong so we continued to write and unfortunately now the MCPS text reads that "Using the Group 2B classification of the entire spectrum of radiofrequencies as an indication that Wi-Fi is harmful when the classification came about due to extremely heavy cell phone use and not Wi-Fi does not accurately represent the intention of the classification."

MCPS has yet to put fully factual information on its page. So we wrote the World Health Organization in hopes that an email from them would clear up the matter.  We have been providing MCPS with factual information on this issue for three years now. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.