ICNIRP does it again - rejecting the finding of NTP and Ramzini studies that RF radiation may cause and promote cancer

The ICNIRP does it again - rejecting the finding of NTP and Ramzini studies that RF radiation may cause and promote cancer.

Microwave news report that ICNIRP has released a 8 pages note that try to explain why these studies' findings will not effect the old, non protective standard for RF exposure.
By that ICNIRP prove once again that the role it chose to play is to protect the industry from any update of the easy to follow, non protective RF exposure guidelines. These non protective guidelines were written in 1998, that don't cover health and biological damage from RF exposure and that take into consideration only immediate damage from the rise of temperature due to RF exposure.

The trick they use is repeated every once in a while when a new study find evidence that RF radiation exposure can cause or promote cancer or damage health in any other way.
They use the magic words : "inconsistent" and " unreliable"  to undermine the findings while accepting and promoting studies that show a safer picture, even if  provem worn (for example the Danish cohort study)

ICNIRP prove it self once again as the inadequate, baise  and irrelevant.

Therefore I suggest to change "ICNIRP" name to "ICNIRIP".
It is a small change that will bring more "reliability" to the group.

2 words and lots of PR soften a 25 million $ study that find cell phone's radiation not healthy

2 words and lots of PR soft the finding of a 25 million $ study that find cell phone radiation is not healthy for you. This is my headline after reading the first 12 pages of the 2 summaries of the NTP study published this month.
The Study found the following main findings:

1. Higher ratio of Glioma in the mail rates that were exposed.
2. Higher radio of Swanova of the heart (cancer in the similar cells as in the case of acoustic neuroma).
3. Precancerous conditions in rats and mice that were exposed.
4. Smaller wait for offsprings
5. Evidence of DNA breaks in exposed animals. 

The 2 words that play a crucial part in downgrading the outcomes of the NTP study, and I am guessing were inserted to the summary of the study by a PR professional or someone who wanted to downgrade that all study, are "equivocal" and "some". accompanied to the word "evidence" they  light a shady light on the outcomes. These words not only downgrade the outcomes of the study, they also present the all study as doubtful, dubious & unreliable.

In cases that the study showed statistically unsignificant results (but still a risk) or that he risk was seen in only one exposure group they used the term - "equivocal evidence" (please see in the picture below undermarked with a  Red line).

In cases that the study showed statistically significant result or that the risk was seen in most exposure groups, they used the term -  "some evidence" (please see in the picture below undermarked with a  purple line) .

FDA, FCC and other Non-ionizing damage demiers PR claim the study outcomes show that as they suspected the risk is not too high. They also point out that in their opinion the exposure was higher than every day users are exposed to.
I read some articles that actually argue that their understanding of the NTP results is that  "cell phone use makes you lose weight and increase your lifespan.

The PR of this article turned the facts around. The  NTP is a study that show DNA DAMAGE in life mammals(!!!) due to cellphone radiation exposure. It shows procarcinogenic condition in exposed animals(!!!). It shows higher cancer rates of Glioma and acoustic neuroma in exposed rates (!!!).

Regardless of the PR, I hope that when this study will be discussed in closed rooms of the IARC and other scientific bodies, it will contribute to the understanding that cell phone radiation is a clear carcinogenic.