4 ms·

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/6900... The

by Sin2x 4y ago

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/6900... The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence ofreproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals. Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ac29 4y ago
> cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas I looked into their data for glioma (see page 51, table 4). They used 8 total studies. 3 studies showed glioma to be more likely in mobile phone users, 2 showed no difference, and 3 showed glioma less likely in mobile phone users. From this they concluded "probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas"? This is a long paper and I didnt read it all, but I'm not sure I see how that conclusion is supported.
- Sin2x 4y ago
  I think you misinterpret the words. Equivocal means that it's unclear from the study if there's a causal association while negative means no association was found, not that EMF reduced incidence of gliomas. Also, an important quote in the description following that table: "The association of glioma and acoustic neuroma is stronger among long-term heavy users of mobile phones, which is also the most extensively investigated exposure source, and in some cases the onset of tumours was related to the side on which the device was handled."

by Sin2x 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ac29 4y ago

> cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas I looked into their data for glioma (see page 51, table 4). They used 8 total studies. 3 studies showed glioma to be more likely in mobile phone users, 2 showed no difference, and 3 showed glioma less likely in mobile phone users. From this they concluded "probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas"? This is a long paper and I didnt read it all, but I'm not sure I see how that conclusion is supported.

Sin2x 4y ago
I think you misinterpret the words. Equivocal means that it's unclear from the study if there's a causal association while negative means no association was found, not that EMF reduced incidence of gliomas. Also, an important quote in the description following that table: "The association of glioma and acoustic neuroma is stronger among long-term heavy users of mobile phones, which is also the most extensively investigated exposure source, and in some cases the onset of tumours was related to the side on which the device was handled."