Chair of IARC Working Group: Designation of RF as a class 2B Carcinogen has “Broad Applicability” (which means it includes Smart Meters)

Posted on January 31, 2012 by melissalevine

“The designation of group 2b is radio frequency electromagnetic fields–that is unspecified as to source so the group 2b classification would have broad applicability to sources with this type of emissions”–-Jonathan Samet, MD, Chairman of the Working Group of 31 Scientists for The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which, on May 31, 2011, declared radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a class 2B (possible) carcinogen.

This entry was posted in Class 2b Possible Carcinogen, Health Impact, Science, Radiation, Smart Meters. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Chair of IARC Working Group: Designation of RF as a class 2B Carcinogen has “Broad Applicability” (which means it includes Smart Meters)

  1. Wayne Harvey says:
    December 16, 2013 at 11:33 pm

    Did I just read that someone said that RF emissions are “possibly class 2B carcinogens”? The very definition of class 2Bs is that they are POSSIBLY carcinogens in the first place, “Possibly possibly is possibly the weakest argument I have ever heard against the few hundred substances and things classified as 2Bs.

    Reply
  2. melissalevine says:
    December 17, 2013 at 7:14 am

    Yes, Wayne. It’s classified as a 2B possible carcinogen, the same as lead.
    There is a Lancet article which discusses this. See Microwave News http://microwavenews.com/news-center/iarc-rf%E2%80%93cancer-summary-published-lancet-oncology

    Wayne,
    Dr. Anthony Miller believes there is enough evidence to classify RF radiation as 2A (probable) rather than 2B. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wARxnaxrRKk

    Reply
    • Wayne Harvey says:
      December 17, 2013 at 10:48 pm

      Also about the same as pickles, talcum powder and ferns. Notice that the ink you use on your printer contains a great deal of carbon black – just another 2B.

      Reply
  3. melissalevine says:
    December 17, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    1. Researcher Dariusz Leszczynski who was part of the IARC working group recently wrote on his blog Between a Rock and a Hard Place that he thought both types of comparisons were irrelevant (that is more innocuous sounding examples of 2B carcinogens such as coffee or ferns and more worrisome examples such as lead and car exhaust). I just saw this article after posting my response. See this link http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/confusing-possible-carcinogenicity-and-certain-toxicity-of-cell-phone-radiation-coffee-ddt/

    2. Other studies show deleterious effects from RF radiation which have nothing to do with the 2B carcinogen classification. This includes damage to sperm (DNA damage) and lowered fertility.
    3. There is also a study (Volkow) affiliated with the NIH which shows that cell phones can speed up glucose metabolism in the brain. See this report in Microwave news http://microwavenews.com/Volkow.html.

    Reply
    • Wayne Harvey says:
      December 18, 2013 at 10:32 pm

      Why do you say “more worrisome”? If WHO says pickles are 2Bs, who are you to suggest that some 2Bs are worse than others.

      “Lead” you quote? Ancient Romans lived about as long as we do now using lead oxide as a sweetener. Sure many died of lead poisoning at about age 80 but it was NOT from cancer,

      Please TRY to get your science straight.

      Reply
  4. melissalevine says:
    December 19, 2013 at 8:38 am

    I think you are misreading my post, Wayne. Different words have different connotations. That’s a language issue. “Have a cup of coffee” is more inviting than “have a cup of lead.”

    What Dariusz, who is a scientist, talks about in his blog post (see link above) is that people confuse toxicity with carcinogenicity:

    “Selective use of these examples, however, does not distinguish between the carcinogenicity and toxicity. All of the agents, cell phone radiation, coffee, pickles, DDT and engine exhaust, have, according to IARC, similar potential to cause cancer – they all are possible carcinogens.
    However, there is a big difference between these agents in respect to cancer-unrelated toxicity. DDT and engine exhaust are strong poisons and can easily cause health harm and even death. But this health harm, caused by toxicity, is unrelated to carcinogenic properties of these agents.”

    Reply

Leave a comment