Nei giorni scorsi la Commissione Internazionale per la Tutela dalle Radiazioni non Ionizzanti (ICNIRP) ha definito “non convincenti” gli esiti degli studi condotti dall’Istituto Ramazzini e dal National Toxicology Program (NTP) sulle onde della telefonia mobile. Di seguito le osservazioni della dottoressa Fiorella Belpoggi, direttrice del Centro di ricerca sul cancro “Cesare Maltoni” dell’Istituto Ramazzini.
****
Few days ago the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has determined that the two recent animal studies pointing to a cancer risk from cell phone radiation are not convincing and should not be used to revise current exposure standards. Below you can find the comment of Dr Fiorella Belpoggi, Director of Crc “Cesare Maltoni”:
Comments on the ICNIRP evaluation on the NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies:
- For sure both NTP and RI studies were well performed, no bias affecting the results. ICNIRP confirms that.
- Shwannomas are tumors arising from the Schwann cells, they are peripheral glial cells which cover and protect the surface of all nerves diffused throughout the body; so vestibular (acoustic nerve) and heart schwannomas have the same tissue of origin: ICNIRP seems to ignore that;
- In rats, increases in malignant heart schwannomas, malignant glial tumors of the brain and Schwann Cells Hyperplasia (a pre-malignant lesion) are rare yet these lesions were observed in exposed animals of both laboratories, at thousands of kilometers distance, in a wide range of RFR exposures studied. These findings could not be interpreted as occurring “by chance”.
- We are scientists, our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment. Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vynil chloride. This position of ICNIRP represents its own responsibility toward citizens and public health.
- ICNIRP is not a public health agency that routinely evaluates carcinogens. On the other hand, an independent agency that has evaluated over 1000 agents, IARC, as early as 2013 classified RFR as a possible carcinogen on the basis of limited evidence in humans and limited evidence in animals. The studies of the RI and NTP will certainly contribute to the burden of evidence that IARC and other public health agencies can draw upon as a solid base for the re-evaluation of RFR carcinogenicity.
