What the strongest literature actually shows now

AI: Melanie Independent Voices RF Safe Nov 25, 2025 CONCERN LOW

This RF Safe article argues that the “strongest” RF-EMF literature supports concern about cancer-related findings, emphasizing non-monotonic dose–response patterns in the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) rat study and citing additional analyses and animal studies. It reports that FDA evaluations have downplayed the human relevance of NTP results due to high exposures and inconsistencies, and counters that some effects may occur at lower exposure levels than commonly claimed. The piece also references the Ramazzini Institute rat study as supportive evidence at lower whole-body SARs and mentions a 2024 PLOS ONE paper analyzing Ramazzini tumors, but provides limited detail in the excerpt.

Key points

Claims NTP TR-595 reported “clear evidence” of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats and “some evidence” for malignant gliomas and other tumors, and highlights non-linear (non-monotonic) incidence patterns across dose groups.
States that FDA evaluations downplay NTP’s human relevance because exposures were high and results inconsistent, and argues this “unrealistic dose” critique is weakened by reported effects at the lowest tested NTP dose (1.5 W/kg).
Cites Uche & Naidenko (2021, Environmental Health) as modeling benchmark doses from NTP data and concluding effects occur below 1.5 W/kg, proposing substantially lower health-based limits after applying safety factors (as presented by the article).
Compares NTP whole-body SAR levels to the FCC’s localized 1.6 W/kg phone SAR limit, arguing they are not “orders of magnitude” apart (while noting geometry/averaging differences).
References the Ramazzini Institute (Falcioni et al., 2018) as reporting similar tumor types at lower, base-station-like exposures, and notes a 2024 PLOS ONE sequencing study of Ramazzini tumors without detailing findings in the provided text.

Referenced studies & papers

Relevant papers in OpenMel

Source: Open original

AI-generated summaries may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

No comments yet.