I feel that you will find this article from the 2018 Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure article is a compelling article to read and perhaps worthy of your further investigation.
Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children’s use of wireless devices…” (I emboldened the text) End of Quote
To continue to read this science link click here
If you find this article interesting you may care to further consider the information on this short video. I believe that the presenter is sincere and knows what he is talking about.
I belatedly submit the following extract from an unpublished draft paper that I wrote several years ago. It warns of the radiation damage to children that is the theme of this blog.
” “From the International EMF Alliance:
Professor Yury Grigoriev calls for order and the world needs to listen:
“Man conquered the Black Plague, but he has created new problems – EMF pollution”
The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection has agreed to provide a detailed report for the world containing clear information on the most important Russian research results in RF/EMF radiation over the past 50 years.
RF/EMF researchers and environmental activists, Eileen O’Connor, Director for the UK Radiation Research Trust charity and Sissel Halmøy, Chairman for the International EMF Alliance and Secretary General for the Citizens ́ Radiation Protection in Norway recently returned from a trip to meet with top scientists at the Russian Federation.
Halmøy said: “According to the RNCNIRP, the following health hazards are likely to be faced by children who use mobile phones in the near future: disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to the stress, increased epileptic readiness. Action must be taken immediately to adopt biologically based guidelines to protect children.” Current standards are based more on engineering needs than biological studies.
O’Connor said “The Russian report is a gift to the world. The UK Radiation Research Trust will present the report in the Autumn to the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP and will be forwarded to the UK Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies.” She added “Russian scientists are advanced in their knowledge on RF/EMF radiation and have extended the hand of friendship and are willing to share their expertise and knowledge. I hope decision makers from the western world accept this great honour and work together.”
Russian research offers crucial and important aspects of developmental relevance that conveys a sense of urgency for the global RF/EMF framework. Without it, national governments may not be able to ensure the health of future generations are protected, especially that of our children.
Russian warnings exists urging pregnant women to avoid using mobile phones entirely along with children under eighteen. Likewise, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, Israel, Finland, Belgium and Toronto, Canada, have issued health warnings for children to not use mobile phones, or for emergency use only. Unfortunately, most children, parents, doctors and teachers are not aware of this important information.
Furthermore, in May 2011 the World Health Organisation and IARC issued a classification stating that radio frequency – electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (group 2B). This warning is issued not only for mobile phones and phone masts, but for Wi-Fi, smart meters, wireless computers and all applications of technology on the RF/EMF Spectrum (radio-frequency radiation to electromagnetic radiation.)
Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, member of International Advisory Committee of WHO “EMF and Health” Professor Yury Grigoriev said: “The brain is a critical organ. Vital brain structures are under EMF exposure daily when using a mobile phone. The brain is made up of permanent complex biophysical processes and vital functions. We need to take care with mobile phones and use distance and reduce time. Children should use mobile phones for emergencies only and also use hands free.”
Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Professor Oleg Grigoriev said: “We need correct control and assessment of electromagnetic pollution. There are currently a lot of new frequencies containing modulation and no one knows the results which could be a serious problem.”
Russian scientists are also warning countries throughout the world including ministries of health and other organizations, responsible for the population safety (including children), to pay attention to the regulation of mobile phones and Wi-Fi use in kindergardens and are recommending the usage of wired networks in schools and educational institutions, rather than a network using wireless broadband systems, including Wi-Fi.
The Russians stand by their solid research which has consistently shown that prolonged exposure to RF/EMF radiation disturbs cognitive function.
For protection from RF/EMF non-ionizing radiation, many countries have adopted a set of guidelines provided by private group of industry-friendly scientists known as ICNIRP. The ICNIRP guidelines are for short-term, acute thermal RF/EMF exposure. The current ICNIRP, IEEE standards are based on the preconceived and outdated view of government authorities that the only possible established biological effect of RF/EMF exposure is tissue heating.
The Russian standards are supported by science as a result of extensive research and take into account the dangers of non-thermal exposure. The standards are also backed by the Russian Ministry of Health and are a small fraction of what is allowed by ICNIRP and the IEEE which is currently adopted in many counties.
Research clearly underlines the need for action on mobile phones and wireless technology. We need to launch global government backed hard-hitting advertising campaign especially for children, and large health warnings should be clearly visible on all RF/EMF emitting= equipment. Mass media campaigns can also create awareness.
O’Connor said: “I am grateful to the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith for offering to submit the Russian report to the UK Chief Medical Officer and hope that Government and health agencies worldwide listen to concerns raised by Russian and independent scientists and urgently adopt health based RF/EMF standards to protect human health. We need to provide as swift solution to this problem as soon as possible. We simply cannot afford to wait.”
Russian scientists recognise the value of non-Government groups in discussion and research. Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Professor Oleg
Grigoriev said: “We need to include non-Government groups in discussion and research. Non- Government groups play an equal importance to Government and the scientific community. NGO’s are a new power and are representing people with electrosensitivity (ES) and should be an equal player.” He added that “If the decisions are not made together with the NGOs, then decisions may have no value.”
The UK Radiation Research Trust, Citizens ́ Radiation Protection in Norway and International EMF Alliance are calling for the Governments to engage with NGO’s and Independent (non- telecommunications funded) scientists.
It’s time for action!
Professor Oleg Grigoriev, Head of Department of Non-Ionizing Radiation, Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia and Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Director, Center for Electromagnetic Safety
Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, a member of Int. Advisory Committee of WHO “EMF and Health”
Sissel Halmøy, Secretary General for the Citizens’ Radiation Protection in Norway www.stralevern.org and founder and Chair of the International EMF Alliance http://www.iemfa.orgEileen O’Connor, Founder and Board member for the International EMF Alliance and Director of UK EM Radiation Research Trust. Source
You may find that the last item in this blog in past entitled “The Third International Conference ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS…” is an interesting item that complements this quotation.
(I emboldened and italicised the text above)
Wi-Fi and other EMF’s may be particularly damaging to young people
Research studies demonstrating the link between wireless radiation and body damage. Most of them relate to animals in a lab setting.
If you are not interested in the contents of this section you will find more general information and references relating to the topic in the addendum section further below.
Papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz).
Note. Many of the links shown below are at least ten years old! For this reason I believe that you should treat them as being indicative only.
“…Papers listed are those where exposures are below the current ICNIRP guideline values (I linked ICNIRP)
If the ICNIRP values were protective, we would not be seeing the damaging effects reported in the studies below. Children are exposed to Wi-Fi/2.45GHz in schools every day, around the world. Children are sitting with Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computers on their laps and up against their bodies for prolonged periods of time. The studies below support the claim that schools giving children wireless devices to use, or exposing them to Wi-Fi signals, are failing to safeguard the health, development or well being of the young people for whom they are responsible.
Akar A. et al., 2013. Effects of low level electromagnetic field exposure at 2.45 GHz on rat cornea.Int J Radiat Biol. 89(4): 243-249. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206266
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825
Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647
Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077
Ceyhan A.M. 2012. Protective effects of β-glucan against oxidative injury induced by 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation in the skin tissue of rats. Arch Dermatol Res 304(7): 521-527. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22237725
Chaturvedi C.M. et al., 2011. 2.45GHz (CW) microwave irradiation alters circadian organization, spatial memory, DNA structure in the brain cells and blood cell counts of male mice, Mus musculus. Prog Electromag Res B 29: 23-42. http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb29/02.11011205.pdf
Chou C.K. et al., 1992. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics 13(6): 469–496. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482413
Ciftci Z.Z. et al., 2015. Effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure of Wi-Fi on development of teeth and changes in teeth element concentration in rats : Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) and teeth element concentrations. Biol Trace Elem Res. 163(1-2): 193-201. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395122
Cig B. and Naziroglu M. 2015. Investigation of the effects of distance from sources on apoptosis, oxidative stress and cytosolic calcium accumulation via TRPV1 channels induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Acta. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25703814
Dasdag S. et al., 2014. Effect of long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on testes functions. Electromagn Biol Med. 34(1): 37-42. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460421
Dasdag S. et al 2015. Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. Epub ahead of print. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25775055
Desmunkh P.S. et al., 2013. Detection of Low Level Microwave Radiation Induced Deoxyribonucleic Acid Damage Vis-a-vis Genotoxicity in Brain of Fischer Rats. Toxicol Int. 20(1): 19-24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23833433
Deshmukh P.S. et al., 2015. Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation. Int J. Toxicol. Epub ahead of print. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749756
Eser O., 2013. The effect of electromagnetic radiation on the rat brain: an experimental study. Turk Neurosurg. 23(6): 707-715. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24310452
Ghazizadeh V. and Naziroglu M. 2014. Electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) and epilepsy induce calcium entry and apoptosis through activation of TRPV1 channel in hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab Brain Dis. 29(3): 787-799. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24792079
Grigoriev Y.G. et al., 2010. Confirmation studies of Soviet research on immunological effects of microwaves: Russian immunology results. Bioelectromagnetics 31(8):589-602. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857454
Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408
Gürler H.S. et al, 2014. Increased DNA oxidation (8-OHdG) and protein oxidation (AOPP) by Low level electromagnetic field (2.45 GHz) in rat brain and protective effect of garlic. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 90(10): 892-896. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24844368
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
Kesari K.K. et al., 2010. Mutagenic response of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure on rat brain. Int J Radiat Biol. 86(4): 334-343. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353343
Kesari K.K. et al., 2012. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 166(2): 379-388. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134878
Kumar S. et al., 2011. The therapeutic effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on the reproductive patterns of male Wistar rats exposed to a 2.45-GHz microwave field. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 66(7): 1237-1245. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21876981
Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields. http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf
Margaritis L.H. et al., 2014. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med. 33(3): 165-189. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130
Meena R. et al., 2014. Therapeutic approaches of melatonin in microwave radiations-induced oxidative stress-mediated toxicity on male fertility pattern of Wistar rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 33(2): 81-91. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23676079
Misa-Augustiño M.J. et al., 2012. Electromagnetic fields at 2.45 GHz trigger changes in heat shock proteins 90 and 70 without altering apoptotic activity in rat thyroid gland. Biol Open 1(9): 831-839. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23213477
Naziroğlu M. and Gumral N. 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785
Ozorak A. et al., 2013. Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)- and mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)- induced risks on oxidative stress and elements in kidney and testis of rats during pregnancy and the development of offspring. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 156(103): 221-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101576
Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464
Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138
Paulraj R. and Behari J. 2006. Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res. 596(1-2): 76-80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332
Paulraj R. and Behari J. 2006b. Protein kinase C activity in developing rat brain cells exposed to 2.45 GHz radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 25(1): 61-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16595335
Salah M.B. et al., 2013. Effects of olive leave extract on metabolic disorders and oxidative stress induced by 2.45 GHz WIFI signals. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 36(3): 826-834. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23994945
Saili L. et al., 2015 Effects of acute exposure to WIFI signals (2.45 GHz) on heart variability and blood pressure in Albinos rabbit. Environ Toxicol and Pharmacology 40 (2): 600–605.
Sangun O. et al., 2015. The effects of long-term exposure to a 2450 MHz electromagnetic field on growth and pubertal development in female Wistar rats. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 34(1): 63-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
Senavirathna M.D., et al., 2014. Nanometer-scale elongation rate fluctuations in the Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) stem were altered by radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation. Plant Signal Behav. 9(4): e28590. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25764433
Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843
Shahin S. et al., 2014. Microwave irradiation adversely affects reproductive function in male mouse, Mus musculus, by inducing oxidative and nitrosative stress. Free Radic Res. 48(5): 511- 525. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24490664
Sinha R.K. 2008. Chronic non-thermal exposure of modulated 2450 MHz microwave radiation alters thyroid hormones and behavior of male rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 84(6): 505-513. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18470749
Somosy Z. et al., 1991. Effects of modulated and continuous microwave irradiation on the morphology and cell surface negative charge of 3T3 fibroblasts. Scanning Microsc. 5(4): 1145-1155.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1822036
Soran M.-L. et al., 2014. Influence of microwave frequency electromagnetic radiation on terpene emission and content in aromatic plants. J Plant Physiol. 171(15): 1436-1443. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4410321/pdf/emss-61504.pdf
Tök L. et al., 2014. Effects of melatonin on Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in lens of rats. Indian Journal of Opthalmology 62(1): 12-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24492496
Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060
Also see this link
The safe use of mobile phones from a Russian historical perspective.
You will notice the significant caution that the Russian scientists took in 2002 in respect to their recommendations to the Russian Government for the safe use of mobile phones (also compare it with the earlier Russian quote. Over a fourteen year time space between both reports their high degree of precaution remains)
“…The Third International Conference ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND HUMAN HEALTH – FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH Held in Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, September 17-25, 2002.
OPINION OF THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION ABOUT THE QUESTION OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS OF CELL PHONES
At the session on September 19, 2001, the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) discussed and for the first time approved the recommendations for the population and organizations of the cellular communications industry:
1. Supporting the Precautionary Principle of the World Health Organization, relying on the published data of foreign studies, scientific generalizations, opinions of the international scientific organizations, and expert opinions of members of the RNCNIRP, to distribute on behalf of the RNCNIRP the following information for the population about the key safety and hygienic rules regarding use of cell phones:
1.1. Non-use of cell phones by children under the age of 16.
1.2 Non-use of cell phones by pregnant women.
1.3. Non-use of cell phones by persons suffering from neurological conditions or diseases, including neurasthenia or dysthymic disorders, mental disorders, neuroses, intellectual and memory impairment, sleep disorders, epilepsy, and epileptic predisposition.
1.4. Limiting the duration of phone calls to a maximum of three minutes, and allowing a period between calls of a minimum of 15 minutes. Preferred use of headsets and hands-free systems.
2. The cell phone manufacturers and retailers should include the following information to accompany engineering specifications:
2.1. All of the above recommendations regarding use.
2.2. Data and conclusions on relevant health and epidemiological testing of the name of the test lab.”
(I emboldened the text)
A general discussion.
1. The principal issue with respect to the safety of mobile phones (including WiFi and other similar domestic appliances such as cordless phones) or otherwise surrounds the issue of whether the thermal and non effects of wireless radiation are harmful to human beings or not. ICNERP and its international associates claim that provided their recommended safety precautions are followed that thermal radiation effects are mostly ‘safe’ (there is always exceptions). However, with regard to the non-thermal effects of wireless radiation it says that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that it is harmful to human beings. The sceptics say that this is not the case and point to animal studies to demonstrate otherwise. The sceptics also say that the international wireless technology industry has vested financial interests in ensuring that this safety policy does not change (it is a massive scientific and political debate that would have huge implications for both the industry and consumers alike if this existing international safety policy ever changed). International scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about the safety of 5G technology and other safety advocates are saying that the international Precautionary Principle should apply to the industry worldwide.
2. If you are interested in knowing a little more about this thermal and non-thermal safety debate the following links may be of assistance to you: one two three (with respect to item three see chapter 4 on page 155).
4. Matters relating to medical issues. If you elect to conduct your own medical investigation in respect to the contents in this blog you will generally find as follows:-
4.1 In conventional wider radiation danger reports (principally conducted by pro industry entities) they often do not include children in their their statistics presentations. Also they do not segregate brain tumor/cancer types such as non malignant meningioma’s or on the other hand the far more serious and rapidly rising of Gliobastoma’s Multiforme cancers that can kill people in a matter of just a few months after its initial diagnosis. The industry says that the incidence of all tumor/cancer incidents have not changed over time which is true because it has been medically established that the incidence of more traditional cancer/tumor types have declined over time. This is true because it has been medically established that the incidence of more traditional cancer/tumor types have declined over time, probably because of more improved medical treatment that has created an evening-out effect of the data. I will support these words with the following quote from a British source:
To investigate detailed trends in malignant brain tumour incidence over a recent time period.
UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) data covering 81,135 ICD10 C71 brain tumours diagnosed in England (1995–2015) were used to calculate incidence rates (ASR) per 100k person–years, age–standardised to the European Standard Population (ESP–2013).
We report a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR rise in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) across all ages. The ASR for GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0, with annual case numbers rising from 983 to 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hidden in the overall data by a reduced incidence of lower-grade tumours.
The rise is of importance for clinical resources and brain tumour aetiology. The rise cannot be fully accounted for by promotion of lower–grade tumours, random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques as it affects specific areas of the brain and only one type of brain tumour. Despite the large variation in case numbers by age, the percentage rise is similar across the age groups, which suggests widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible. This article reports incidence data trends and does not provide additional evidence for the role of any particular risk factor…” (I emboldened the text)
4.2 If you wish to conduct your own research you will find data from The Australain Bureau of Statistics suggests that the incidence of brain cancer has not significantly changed in Australia since mobile phones were introduced in the late 1980’s. Whilst this might be true (also keep in mind my words relating to tumor types above) Australalian Bureau of statistics data shows that brain cancer incidence rate in the 1965 to 1970 period was 3.5% per 100,000 and by the late 1980’s it had grown to 5.5% per 100,000 and has hovered around this number ever since. These figures are not reliable because medical treatment types over the years might have changed and the method of collecting data might have changed too. However, and perhaps more importantly, if you visit the Australian Bureau of Statistics website you will find that the incidence of brain cancer in children under the age of five has shown an upward trend over recent years, but the individual child numbers themselves are not significant. The trend of the data, however, suggests that between the ages of birth and four years, two children per 100,000 suffer from brain cancer, and this percentage progressively declines to one per 100,000 around the time they turn fourteen years, and none by adults between the ages of twenty to twenty five
5. If you care to learn more about this important topic this link to the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Ass ociation (ORSAA) might be of value to you. The sceptics in Australia say that the Australalian Govt. supported the early formation of Arpansa. ORSAA appears to be saying that Arpansa is a pro-industry and controlled entity.
6. Finally, this amateur “About radio-frequency radiation” presentation may assist you to decide whether wireless radiation might be of danger to children or not. I am not suggesting that it is conclusive information!
Supplement 3rd of August 2020
You may find the contents of this 2012 debate of value too
“…XIV. Health Protection Agency (Formerly the NRPB -UnitedKingdom)The National Radiation Protection Board or NRPB (2004) concluded, based on a review of the scientific evidence, that the most coherent and plausible basis from which guidance could be developed on exposures to ELF concerned weak electric field interactions in the brain and CNS (NRPB, 2004). A cautious approach was used to indicate thresholds for possible adverse health effects.“Health Effects -It was concluded from the review of scientific evidence (NRPB, 2004b) that the most coherent and plausible basis from which guidance could be developed on exposures to ELF EMFs concerned weak electric field interactions in the brain and CNS (NRPB, 2004). A cautious approach was used to indicate thresholds for possible adverse health effects.”“The brain and nervous system operate using highly complex patterns of \electrical signals. Therefore, the basic restrictions are designed to limit the 22electric fields and current densities in these tissues so as to not adversely affect their normal functioning. The adverse effects that might occur cannot easily be characterized according to presenting signs or symptoms of disease or injury. They represent potential changes to mental processes such as attention and memory, as well as to regulatory functions with in the body. Thus, the basic restrictions should not be regarded as precisely determined values below which no adverse health effects can occurand above which clearly discernible effects will happen. The do, however, indicate an increasing likelihood of effects occurring as exposure increases above the basic restriction values.”“From the results of the epidemiological investigations, there remain concerns about a possible increased risk of child leukaemia associated with exposure to magnetic fields above about 0.4 uT (4 mG). In this regard, it is important to consider the possible need for further precautionary measures.”This recent statement by the UK Health Protection Agency clearly indicates that the current guidelines may not be protective of public health. Yet, the reference levels used in the United Kingdom remain at 5000 mG for 50 Hz power frequency fields for occupational exposure and 1000 mG for public exposure.XV. US Government Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group GuidelinesStatement The United States Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (RFIAWG) cited concerns about current federal standards for public exposure to radiofrequency radiation in 1999 (Lotz, 1999 for the Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group)“Studies continue to be published describing biological responses to nonthermal ELF-modulated RF radiation exposures that are not produced by CW (unmodulated) radiation. These studies have resulted in concern that ‘exposure guidelines based on thermal effects, andusing information and concepts (time-averaged dosimetry, uncertainty factors) that mask any differences between intensity-modulated RF radiation exposure and CW exposure, do not directly address public exposures, and therefore may not adequately protect the public.”The United States government Federal Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group has reviewed the existing ANSI/IEEE RF thermal-based exposure standard upon which the FCC limit is based. This Working Group was made up of representatives from theUS government’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
23Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the National Telecommunication and Information Administration, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On June 17, 1999, the RFIAWG issued a Guidelines Statement that concluded the present RF standard “may not adequately protect the public”. The RFIAWG identified fourteen (14) issues that they believe are needed in the planned revisions of ANSI/IEEE RF exposure guidelines including “to provide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure guidelines”.In particular, the RFIAWG criticized the existing standards as not taking into account chronic, as opposed to acute exposures, modulated or pulsed radiation (digital or pulsed RF is proposed at this site), time-averaged measurements that may erase the unique characteristics of an intensity-modulated RF radiation that may be responsible for reported biologic effects, and stated the need for a comprehensive review of long-term, low-level exposure studies, neurological-behavioral effects and micronucleus assay studies (showing genetic damage from low-level RF).The existingfederal standards may not be protective of public health in critical areas. The areas of improvement where changes are needed include: a) selection of an adverse effect level for chronic exposures not based on tissue heating and considering modulation effects; b) recognition of different safety criteria for acute and chronic exposures at non-thermal or low-intensity levels; c) recognition of deficiencies in using time-averaged measurements of RF that does not differentiate between intensity-modulated RF and continuous wave (CW) exposure, and therefore may not adequately protect the public.As of 2007, requests to the RFIAWG on whether these issues have been satisfactorily resolved in the new 2006 IEEE recommendations for RF public safety limits have gone unanswered (BioInitiative Working Group, 2007).
24XVI. United Kingdom -Parliament Independent Expert Group Report (Stewart Report)The Parliament of the United Kingdom commissioned a scientific study group to evaluate the evidence for RF health and public safety concerns. In May of 2000, the United Kingdom Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones issued a report underscoring concern that standards are not protective of public health related to both mobile phone use and exposure to wireless communication antennas.Conclusions and recommendations from the Stewart Report (for Sir William Stewart) indicated that the Group has some reservation about continued wireless technology expansion without more consideration of planning, zoning and potential public health concerns. Further, the Report acknowledges significant public concern over community siting of mobile phone and other communication antennas in residential areas and near schools and hospitals.“Children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissue of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure.” “The siting of base stations in residential areas can cause considerable concern and distress. These include schools, residential areas and hospitals.”“ There may be indirect health risks from living near base stations with a need for mobile phone operators to consult the public when installing base stations.”“Monitoring should be expecially strict near schools, and that emissions of greatest intensity should not fall within school grounds.”“The report recommends “a register of occupationally exposed workers be established and that cancer risks and mortality should be examined to determine whether there are any harmful effects.” (IEGMP, 2000)…” (I emboldened the text)