In this guest post, Diane Craig explores the worrying correlation between exposures to wireless (RF radiation) and GBM brain cancer, and shares 6 ways you can be proactive and protect yourself:
In 2004, Lisa , reaching for her shampoo bottle during her shower, watched as it slipped through her fingers and slid to the floor. Two years later, Lisa died. She’d lived into her early fifties.
In 2019, having experienced unusual symptoms similar to Lisa’s, Bill  reluctantly left the job he loved. Two years later, Bill also died. He’d lived into his later fifties.
Lisa and Bill, before their illnesses, might have been described as health nuts. Lisa swam and prepared healthy meals, even during her illness. Bill’s DNA was the strong-immune-system kind, and Bill hiked as long as he was able.
What else did Lisa and Bill have in common? Both were professionals. Smart. Accomplished. Focused and determined. Colleagues at work respected and recognized their many achievements. At home, they were well-loving to, and well-loved by, their families.
Lisa and Bill’s lifelong determination and love for their children and spouses may have contributed to their living much longer than their doctors had expected, given that they also shared a diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme, also called GBM.
GBM is a particularly deadly and fast-acting brain cancer. The “average survival from diagnosis” with GBM is “only about 1 year.” 
While Lisa and Bill didn’t know each other, I knew both of them. Because of our acquaintance, I also knew that both were early adopters of, and above-average users of, wireless technology.
Lisa had lugged her then-boxy cellphone everywhere, communicating throughout the day with clients and her employers. Fifteen years later, Bill worked in a government office which, in addition to using wireless technologies, helped develop and advance them.
My obvious question has been asked before: Is there any correlation between exposures to wireless transmissions and GBM brain cancer? Let’s look at the evidence.
In 2021, Mainstream Cancer Organizations’ Websites Don’t Say Much
When I searched the internet for “GBM research” in April 2021, I found that the top suggested results used the word “research” only in connection with treatment options. What I wanted to learn about correlations was described by the term “risk factors.” One mainstream brain cancer website stated,
“Some risk factors may increase a person’s chance of developing a brain tumor. These include radiation therapy to the brain,,,” 
and, further down the webpage,
“Patients usually get radiation treatment following [brain] biopsy or surgery.” .
Other webpages’ “risk factor” information was similarly perplexing. Was I to conclude that cell phone use and other electromagnetic exposures are as unlikely as head trauma and contagion to lead to GBM brain cancer , or that risk of GBM brain cancer would be minimized by lead shields  which, at my dentist, cover my body but not my brain?
Mayo Clinic’s entry on Glioma was somewhat more useful. GBM is one of several types of glioma, and glioma is one type of brain cancer. The Glioma article stated,
“It isn’t clear whether cellphone use increases the risk of brain cancer…. Because cellphones are a relatively new factor, more long-term research is needed….
[I]f you’re concerned about the possible link between cellphones and cancer, experts recommend limiting your exposure by using a speaker or hands-free device, which keeps the cellphone itself away from your head.”  [emphasis added]
What Mayo Clinic didn’t say is why its article used the words “possible link.” Here’s the answer: The International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC], part of the World Health Organization [aka WHO], had examined power densities from pulsed digital wireless radiation transmissions at Extremely Low Frequency in 2002 and at Radio Frequency in 2011, terming both to be “possible human carcinogens.” See this article on an EMF Meter.
The IARC ranks human carcinogens as “possible,” “probable” or “known”. As evidence mounted after 2011, many scientists, including some WHO IARC scientific advisors, had recommended the stronger terms for radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Read more on the smart device shielding tips.
Could non-science factors have affected IARC’s classification? According to a former WHO employee, “Despite the rules about avoiding conflicts of interest and not receiving funding from outside sources, WHO has been receiving laundered money from the wireless telecoms industry for decades.”  Hmmm…
In 2018, One UK Research Study Said A Lot
In June 2018, nearly three years earlier, Hindawi Journal of Environmental and Public Health had published a research article titled Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. 
The first thing I noticed about this study (aside from the quaint English spelling of ‘tumors’) was who funded it. Industries and governments often provide funding for original scientific research, but “[t]his research received no funding from any external agency or body. The…data extracts were paid for personally by [the principal author]. Administration costs were paid for personally by the authors.” 
The second thing I noticed was the thoroughness of the authors’ analysis. In the authors’ words, “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).”  That’s lots of malignant brain tumors requiring lots of detailed analysis! This work led the authors to four conclusions, all with major implications:
Conclusion A: There’s been a Highly Statistically Significant increase in GBM Across All Ages over a 15 year period.
The UK study reported “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.”  This result for GBM, compared with other glioma types, is illustrated by Figure 2 below:
The authors also noted,
“Although most of the cases are in the group over 54 years of age, the age standardised AAPC rise is strongly statistically significant in all our three main analysis age groups.” 
The three main analysis age groupings were: Age over 54, Ages 30-54, and Ages 0-29.
If they’d been included in this study, Bill would have been in the first group, Lisa in the second group, and Brittany Maynard in the third group.
Brittany was the young newly-wed who, after being told she had GBM and six months to live, advocated for the right to a physically-assisted death She moved from California to Oregon, where she realized this. After she died in 2014, California passed an End of Life Option Act. You can read more about Brittany’s story, in her own words, online. 
Conclusion B: There’s Been a Highly Statistically Significant Increase in GBM tumors, especially in the brain’s frontal and temporal lobes
Figure 5 below shows only GBM age standardized rates, by GBM tumor sites and year. The authors reported “a linear, large and highly statistically significant increase in primary GBM tumours … especially in frontal and temporal lobes of the brain.” 
Why is tumor location important?
The frontal lobe is what makes us human. It’s where we do our advanced thinking and process our emotions.
The temporal lobe is near the temples and ears. Its job involves speech and memory, and it processes sounds. This brainwork takes place at the brain areas nearest to where people usually hold their cell phones during calls.
The researchers concluded that the “linear, large and highly statistically significant increase in primary GBM tumours over 21 years from 1995–2015, especially in frontal and temporal lobes of the brain” had “aetiological and resource implications.” 
Aetiology is the part of medical science concerned with determining the cause and origin of disease.
Conclusions C & D: Improved diagnosis doesn’t fully account for these results, and the results “highlight an urgent need for funding more research.”
In the researchers’ words,
“The rise in age–standardised incidence cannot be fully accounted for by improved diagnosis, as it affects specific areas of the brain and just one type of brain tumour that is generally fatal. We suggest that widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible, although these results do not provide additional evidence for the role of any particular risk factor.
“Our results highlight an urgent need for funding more research into the initiation and promotion of GBM tumours. This should include the use of CT imaging for diagnosis and also modern lifestyle factors that may affect tumour metabolism.”  [emphasis added]
The third and fourth things I noticed after reading this original 2018 UK research were:
• how the English authors’ conclusions are absent from the information I had accessed from recent mainstream brain cancer information webpages, and
• that in the nearly three years since the UK study was published, medical researchers and policymakers appear to have ignored the UK authors’ urgent call for further research into causative factors, even as wireless technologies and human exposures to an increasing range of wireless frequencies and power densities have grown exponentially.
This is especially concerning, given that
The UK Researchers Had Quickly Answered Initial Questions
The journal that published the UK research study, having asked the authors for additional information, published their responses as a Letter to the Editor just one day after the original research article appeared. Based on the responses, I imagine the journal’s questions might have been something like these:
Why did the UK authors decide to test a new hypothesis?
Though the UK research authors were scientists, engineers, and professors, none was a medical doctor scientist specializing in aetiology. When asked the reasons behind their study, the authors responded:
“Over the past 20 years, the authors have been involved in organising international conferences on causes of cancer and finding precautionary actions that may help to reduce the ongoing overall rise in the cancer burden….
“As part of this, we follow trends in cancer incidence across all ages. We were hearing from clinicians that they were seeing an increase in aggressive brain tumours, especially glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), but cancer registries were generally reporting no significant overall increased incidence in brain tumours. By 2008, we were seeing a statistically significant increased incidence in frontal and temporal lobe tumours and a decrease in tumour incidence at some other brain sites….
“We were told by two leading European epidemiologists that if we could not see a clear trend in the overall data, there was no point in looking at underlying, more detailed data….
“[W]e decided to formally test our suspicion that something important was changing. We applied for, and obtained, more detailed information…. This resulted in our current article.” 
Could the UK study authors explain how their results differed so greatly from USA brain tumor registry information?
In the UK research authors’ own words:
“We acknowledge that published data from the US Central Brain Tumor Registry (CBTRUS) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) organisations do not report a similar rise in GBM. One factor will be that, according to CBTRUS, GBM incidence rate in black people is approximately half that for white people and has a different age-related profile…. The US has a higher percentage of black people compared with England and this will have some effect on the whole-population brain tumour data profile. [emphasis added]
“However, we have come to an initial conclusion that the main reason is due to (a) the US2000 Standard Population that they use to adjust their data and (b) the fact that they use age-standardised data even for age-grouped data that would usually be age- specific….
“All the data in the CBTRUS reports…are stated as being adjusted to the US2000 Standard Population…. This does not reasonably represent the age spectrum of the current US population…. The current US population is very different from the US2000 Standard Population.
“The effect of applying US2000 is to reduce, by about 30%, the overall contribution from cases in people aged 50 to 70 years. This is the age range of the majority of the cases in the ONS data which show the rising GBM incidence trend. Using US2000 gives added weight to the “healthy worker” age range (30 to 44), where relatively few GBM cases occur. It is important that the age standardisation profile is a reasonable fit to the current population age profile. We note that SEER updated the US Standard Population every ten years from 1940 to 2000 but have not done so since 2000….
“We offer, for discussion, Figure 2, where we have back-adjusted the US age-group data from US2000 to the actual US population data for 2008 and 2012, along with English ONS data for two five-year periods from our article. The readjusted US data now show an increase in GBM similar to our findings….”  [emphasis added]
This is illustrated below:
Could the authors expand on prior science that future researchers might want to consider?
In this section, the UK study authors mentioned six studies, published between 2003 and 2017, that were concerned with possible GBM risk factors. These included pollutants in the air from carcinogenic elements in vehicle exhaust, residential radon exposures in modern housing, and mobile phone and other wireless exposures.
They reiterated that their study “does not focus on any particular risk factor to explain the rising incidence of aggressive GBM tumours, which are usually quickly fatal.” 
They also reiterated the urgent need for follow-up research: “We recommend that our detailed analyses be repeated for cancer registry data in other countries. If our results are confirmed, then high priority should be given to identifying the factors involved in the rise.”  [emphasis added]
In 2018, What Did the FDA Know?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the United States government agency responsible “for evaluating the potential risk associated with exposure to RFR [radio frequency radiation] from wireless devices.” 
On May 19, 1999, the FDA had nominated, for study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), “Radio Frequency Radiation Emissions of Wireless Communication Devices – with a high priority.”  See this article on How to measure RF radiation in your home.
The $30 million NTP program that resulted tested rats and mice in “two-year toxicology studies … to help clarify potential health hazards, including cancer risk, from exposure to RFR like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones….” 
The NTP study went through three different peer review processes before its results finally were released as a technical report in 2018.
National Toxicology Program studies rank evidence in four tiers. Two first tiers indicate positive results, as either “clear” (highest level of certainty) or “some” (the next highest level of certainty). “Equivocal” results are “uncertain findings: the substance may or may not have the ability to cause cancer in laboratory animals.” “No evidence” means “the substance does not have the ability to cause cancer in laboratory animals.” 
“The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with:
• Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
• Some evidence of an association with tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.” [emphasis added]
• Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
• DNA damage: Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in:
• the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice,
• the blood cells of female mice, and
• the hippocampus of male rats.” 
The wireless industry immediately attacked the study. So did the FDA.
“Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health stated that the FDA disagrees with the conclusions of this carefully conducted, peer-reviewed study and that ‘these findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.’” 
“The FDA’s written report ‘omitted the [UK researchers’ 2018] study that reported a doubling in incidence of glioblastoma (frontal and temporal lobes) in England between 1995 and 2015. The latter study was published in June 2018, which is within the timeframe (August 2018) for epidemiological studies included in the FDA document.” 
An article titled “Criticisms of the [NTP] Study Are Unfounded” highlights additional inaccuracies in the FDA’s written report. 
This is especially concerning, considering that earlier, in March, 2018, an Italian study on cell tower radiation had announced “that a large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower radiation developed cancer.” 
The Ramazzini Institute study’s author said, “Our findings of cancerous tumors in rats exposed to environmental levels of RF are consistent with and reinforce the results of the US NTP studies on cell phone radiation, as both reported increases in the same types of tumors of the brain and heart in Sprague-Dawley rats. Together, these studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to re-evaluate and re-classify their conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.” 
Read more EMF scientific research here.
Has Anything Changed since 2018?
In the nearly three years since then, has there been any follow-up research? The short answer is “No.” WHO and the IARC haven’t changed their 2011 minds. In the United States:
• The FDA hasn’t changed its 2018 mind.
• SEER continues to use the 2000 U S. standard population to calculate cancer statistics. It states, “There are no plans to change from the 2000 U.S. standard population,”  adding only that this method “is widely accepted and statistically sound.” 
• Regarding CBTRUS’s use of SEER data, an online medical library’s article updated 2/6/2021 is reporting exactly the same information the UK researchers had cited in 2018: “Based on the 2013 CBTRUS (Central Brain Tumour Registry of the United States) report, the average annual age-adjusted incidence rate (IR) of GBM is 3.19/100,000 population. … The incidence of GBM is more in whites, followed by blacks.” 
Please keep in mind –
GBM is a cruel way to die.
• There’s lost physical functions, including possible “personality changes and verbal, cognitive and motor loss of virtually any kind.” 
• There’s pain, whether from the GBM tumor, surgery, and/or the treatments that follow. Sometimes “morphine-resistant pain”  can play a role.
• There’s heavy financial burdens – medical expenses, income losses, caretaking costs.
• There’s huge emotional burdens, having to leave one’s loved ones in this way and too soon. Lisa’s only child was a minor when Lisa died. Bill’s only child was a young adult. Brittany and her husband had talked about starting a family.
If certain people have a lower GBM rate because of their skin color, they’d have cause to give thanks. On the other hand, could environmental or other factors unique to certain groups have contributed to CBTRUS’s reported result? For example, did CBTRUS consider possibilities such as:
• Different access to medical care, resulting in differing rates of diagnosis and treatment,
• Different housing, less likely to accumulate radon,
• Different driving habits along chemically-toxic highways, and/or
• Different exposures to wireless radiation.
SEER already collects so much information. Would it be costly or difficult to test the UK researchers’ hypothesis by reanalyzing CBTRUS’ GBM rates for just one portion of its database, utilizing age-specific information as the UK authors recommend?
Similarly, would it be costly or difficult for future GBM clinical trials to include a comprehensive patient survey that could include lifetime environmental exposures questions?
If aetiological and treatment-development researchers cooperated, what might they, and we, learn?
Besides Mourning GBM Deaths, What Can We Do?
We can be proactive in six ways:
Practice self-care. Individuals can reduce exposures to already-identified possible GBM environmental risk factors. We can take the precautions Mayo Clinic recommends for cell phone use. We can buy inexpensive home tests for radon levels and, if results are positive, mitigate future exposures by installing a radon reduction system, noting that “(s)cientists already agree that radon causes lung cancer in humans.”  We can pay attention to air quality reports and adjust our outdoor activities.
Educate. There are thousands of human, animal, and plant studies related to negative effects from RFR. Two of many online research resources are non-profits: the Environmental Health Trust website at https://www.ehtrust.org and the 5G Space Appeal at https://www.5gspaceappeal.org.
Read more about the dangers of 5G radiation.
Develop perspective. When wireless technology first came to be, it adopted frequencies whose radiation emissions were within the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum then termed “microwave”. Later, wireless technology companies coined the term “radio frequency radiation”, aka “RFR”, to distinguish theirs from other “microwave radiation” frequencies. Today, wireless sales representatives make wireless radiation sound even safer, by using only two words or letters (“radio frequency” or RF) rather than three (“radio frequency radiation” or RFR).
Advocate for Safety and Common Sense. We can share what we learn.
For example, California fire fighters successfully lobbied for protection from new cell towers being built near their firestations, after learning the results of “a pilot study of [six] California firefighters who worked up to ninety (90) hours per week in fire stations with cell towers in close proximity to the two (2) stations where the firefighters work, eat, and sleep. The men were experiencing profound neurological symptoms following activation of the towers in 1999.”  These fire fighters’ neurological symptoms had made it difficult for them to respond to emergency calls with the efficiency and focus we expect from our First Responders.
Since 2004, California fire fighters have been kept increasingly busy. Some recent California wildfires are suspected of having been caused by wireless facilities. Earlier, in 2012,
“The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) … approved a $12 million settlement with three cellphone companies for their involvement in the cause of the 2007 Malibu Canyon fire…. Investigators for the CPUC allege that at least one of the poles that fell was illegally overloaded with telecommunications equipment. Investigators further allege that Southern California Edison and the four cellphone companies, which either jointly owned the failed power poles or paid Edison to carry equipment on the poles, later misled investigators surrounding the circumstances of the cause of the fire.” 
AT&T, Sprint and Verizon Wireless agreed to the settlement. A fourth wireless cellphone company, NextG, and the utility company did not participate. 
The radiation-free solution to wireless transmissions is to fully utilize the fiber optic cable that the 1996 Telecommunications Act enactors expected would be used. With fiber optics, communication occurs at the speed of light (faster than wireless), is much more secure (protects privacy and minimizes hacking), doesn’t cause fires, and protects all lifeforms from the oxidative stresses associated with wireless transmissions.
FTTP is an acronym for “Fiber To The Premises.” An infrastructure program utilizing FTTP would bring the benefits of fast, secure and reliable fiber optic cable transmissions to everyone’s doorstep. It could be utilized by both current and future technologies, while greatly reducing exterior environmental wireless radiation exposures. Homeowners and businesses who wished could even opt to carry FTTP throughout their premises, to reduce indoor wireless radiation exposures there.
You might also want to read this article on 5G towers.
Create Change. Lisa’s father died within weeks of his 100th birthday. He’d live nearly twice as long as his daughter had. For us, for researchers, for industry, for legislators, for government regulatory agencies, for environmental organizations and for everyone else, Lisa’s father’s favorite poem points the best way forward:
“An old man, going a lone highway, Came, at the evening cold and gray,
To a chasm vast and deep and wide, Through which was flowing a sullen tide. The old man crossed in the twilight dim, The sullen stream had no fear for him; But he turned when safe on the other side And built a bridge to span the tide.
“‘Old man,’ said a fellow pilgrim near,
‘You are wasting your strength with building here; Your journey will end with the ending day,
You never again will pass this way;
You’ve crossed the chasm, deep and wide,
Why build this bridge at evening tide?’
“The builder lifted his old gray head;
‘Good friend, in the path I have come,’ he said, ‘There followed after me to-day
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm that has been as naught to me
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be;
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him!’” 
View this other article on cell tower radiation and cancer.
Many thanks to Diane Craig for this guest post.
For more than 30 years, Diane Craig has advocated for persons diagnosed with celiac disease. From 2013 to 2018, among other activities as a board member for the California non-profit Celiac Support Group, she helped draft a petition to the FDA to label gluten in drugs and wrote blog posts to help publicize research regarding the then-new concept of Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity.
Sources and Bibliography
 Names have been changed.
 A Philips, D L Henshaw, G Lamburn and M J. O’Carroll. Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. Hindawi Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Volume 2018, Article ID 7910754, 6/24/18. at https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7910754. Accessed April 11, 2021.
 (Medically reviewed by) Drugs(dot)com. Glioblastoma Multiforme; updated 8/17/20, at https://www.drugs.com/health-guide/glioblastoma-multiforme.html. Accessed April 11, 2021. Quotations: “Some risk factors may increase a person’s chance of developing a brain tumor. These include radiation therapy to the brain…” and “…Patients usually get radiation treatment following biopsy or surgery.”
 C.P. Davis, MD, PhD and M C Stoppler, MD, How Do You Get Brain Cancer? Brain Cancer Facts. Medically reviewed for MedicineNet; updated 8/24/20, at https://www.medicinenet.com/brain_cancer/article.htm. Accessed April 11, 2021. Quotation: “There is no good evidence that brain cancer is contagious, caused by head trauma, or caused by cell phone use.”
 American Brain Tumor Association. Brain Tumor Education: Risk Factors for Brain Tumors, Environmental Risk Factors. no date shown. at https://www.abta.org/about-brain-tumors/brain-tumor-education/. Accessed April 11, 2021. Quotation: “Of the many potential risk factors scientists have studied, only one – exposure to ionizing radiation – has been clearly shown to increase the risk of developing brain tumors. Ionizing radiation is frequently found in X-rays, which is why human bodies are protected by lead shields when some X-rays are performed.”
 Mayo Clinic. Glioma: Symptoms and Causes. no date shown. at https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/glioma/symptoms-causes/syc-20350251. Accessed April 11, 2021.
 Olga Sheehan, EMF Off: A Call to Consciousness in Our Misguidedly Microwaved World. Published in Canada in 2018 by Inside Our Media (email@example.com); copyright 2017. The quotation above was cited in the book by Lloyd Burrell, EMF Practical Guide: The Simple Science of Protecting Yourself, Healing Chronic Inflammation, and Living a Naturally Healthy Life in our Toxic Electromagnetic World, page 31. Published in France by ElectricSense (https://www.electricsense.com); copyright 2019.
 B Maynard. article Brittany Maynard, available online at https://www.compassionandchoices.org/stories/brittany-maynard/. Accessed April 11, 2021.
 A Philips, D L Henshaw, G Lamburn and M J O’Carroll. Authors’ Comment on “Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor”. Hindawi Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Volume 2018, Article ID 2170208, 6/25/18. at https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2170208. Accessed April 11, 2021.
 Environmental Health Trust. Criticisms Of The Study Are Unfounded. at https://ehtrust.org/science/the-niehs-national-toxicology-program-study-on-cell-phone-
radiation-and-cancer-2018-update-resources/. Accessed April 23, 2021.
 Letter addressed to Dr . Errol Zeiger, Coordinator, from William T . Allaben, Ph.D. FDA Liaison to the NTP, dated 5/19/99. at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/wireless051999_508.pdf,. Accessed April 23, 2021.
 National Toxicology Program, Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation, last updated 12/10/2020. at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=prod&utm_campaign=ntpgolinks&utm_term=cellphone. Accessed April 23,2021.
 Environmental Health Trust, Clear Evidence of Cancer, at https://ehtrust.org/science/the-niehs-national-toxicology-program-study-on-cell-phone-radiation-and-cancer-2018-update-resources/. Accessed April 24, 2021.
 R. Melnick, PhD. Comments on the FCC’s Proposed Rule (Docket No. 19-226): “Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”. Dated 5/13/2020. at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1051420599254/Melnick%20comments%20FCC%20proposed%20rule%2019-226.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2021. Dr. Melnick was Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. He is now retired.
 Environmental Health Trust, Ramazzini Study On RadioFrequency Cell Phon Radiation: The World’s Largest Animal Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link. March, 2018. at https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/. Accessed April 24, 2021.
 https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/faq.html#2000stdpop. Accessed April 19, 2021.
 https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/2000stdpop-use.html, Accessed April 19, 2021.
 T Kanderi, Glioblastoma Multiforme, updated 2/6/2021. at https://www.statpearls.com/articlelibrary/viewarticle/22272/, accessed April 19, 2021.
Stat Pearls provides an online library of updated medical content.
 National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Radon and Cancer. at https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/radon/radon-fact-sheet. Accessed April 22, 2021.
 S D Foster, MSW. Comment Filed Before the Federal Communications Commission, FCC 13-39, ET Docket Numbers 13-84 (Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies) and 03-137 (Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields), September 2, 2013.
 K Adkisson, $12 million settlement reached in 2007 Malibu Canyon fire, Updated 9/20/2012. at http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_e115f3aa-02e3-11e2-811c-0019bb2963f4.html. Accessed May 5, 2021.
 W A Dromgoole, The Bridge Builder. Source: Father: An Anthology of Verse (EP Dutton & Company, 1931). at https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52702/the-bridge-builder. Accessed April 24, 2021..
Add A Comment