New York Times Article of 1 Nov 2018 Disregards EMR Science, Misleads Public in Suggesting Newer Cell Phones are Less Dangerous than Earlier Generation Phones

New York Times Article Disregards the EMR Science, Misleading the Public in Suggesting Newer Cell Phones Are Less Dangerous than Earlier Generation Phones

The public deserves the full truth about cell phone radiation, including cancer risks, and a broad range of other serious health risks from the coming 5thGeneration (5G) technologies.

Concord, Massachusetts, December 03, 2018.  On November 1, 2018, The New York Timespublished an article, “Study of Cellphone Risks Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats”,by science journalist William J. Broad, subsequently published in The Boston Globe. The EMR Network summons the author of this article, and both publishers, for spreading false and misleading information. 

The article in question, on the recent NIH/National Toxicology Program animal study (which found evidence for malignant schwannomas and malignant gliomas from cell phone radiation exposures), distorts and diminishes the NIH/NTP findings, as well as thesignificantly greater risk presented by the coming 5G higher pulsation exposures. The article is a disservice to the public.

The article misled’: 

1. Broad: “Many epidemiologists see no overall rise in the incidence of gliomas in the human population.”

Philips et al., 2018, showed a linear, large and highly statistically significant increase in primary glioblastoma multiforme over 21 years from 1995–2015, especially in frontal and temporal lobes of the brain.

2. Broad:“Malignant schwannomas are similar to acoustic neuromas, benign tumors that can develop in people, in the nerve that connects the ear to the brain.”

To compare a cancerous tumor in the heart to a benign tumor in the inner ear is irrelevant and misleading.

3.“The rats were exposed to radiation at a frequency of 900 megahertz — typical of the second generation of cellphones that prevailed in the 1990s, when the study was first conceived.”

The exposures were from 900 and 1,900 megahertz. More to the point, accordingto the National Toxicology website, 2G and 3G networks “are still used for phone calls and texting.” This hardly represents “bygone” technology, and it is known that higher pulsation, later generations pose even greater biological disruption as well as increased risk for tumors.

Professor David O. Carpenter, M.D., Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at University at Albany, a Collaborating Center of the World Health Organization, also said this about the Broad article: 

“There is no evidence that 5G radiofrequency fields are less able to penetrate the human body. There is, however, strong evidence that they do not travel as far as 4G RF, necessitating placement of mini-cell towers in front of about every sixth house in every street.  Thus, exposure to this biologically active radiation is going to be dramatically increased and the public must be made aware of this.” 

To Dr. Carpenter’s point: In April, 2018, the International Society of Doctors for the Environment  and its member organizations in 27 countries, adopted a declaration calling for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G (fifth generation cellular technology) in the European Union.  

Dr. Martin L. Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University wrote a cautionary letter to Jerry Brown, Governor of California in September of 2017:

“The industry is trying to move to much higher frequencies with 5G because these much higher frequencies allow much higher pulsations and therefore much faster transmission of information. However, these higher pulsation rates make these ultra-high devices vastly more dangerous.”

Louis Slesin, PhD, in his November 20, 2018 article in Microwave News“Defending the Indefensible: Deconstructing a New York Times Headline”gets right to the point when he writes“…the NTP story was not that the rats got brain cancer or even that they got malignant tumors in their hearts. The key finding was that they got cancer. A responsible headline would have read, Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer.”

Broad has not reported the facts, and thus has misled readers into believing that they have nothing to worry about from a technology that has been shown to cause cancer and other human maladies. Further, it is unconscionable to misrepresent risks of 5G, a microwave technology that is about to be unleashed on the public for the first time without one single study showing that it is safe. 

The EMR Network’s key missionis to educate the public, government officials and those in other scientific disciplines about the biological effects and environmental concerns associated with EMR.


Virginia Hines,

The EMR Network

Related Posts

Website re-design by The Web Doctor