Editor’s note: This is the third in a three-part series investigating why the U.S. government ended studies on the biological effects of wireless radiation. Part 1 covered the expert opinion of John Bucher, Ph.D. Part 2 covered results from Children’s Health Defense’s FOIA request to the National Institutes of Health for records related to the studies.
In January 2024, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced it had no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on human health — even though the program’s own $30 million study found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage.
In April 2024, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed requests to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain records related to why the government shut down the research — NIH produced records that included 2,500 fully redacted pages.
As part of The Defender’s ongoing investigation into why the government shut down its studies on wireless radiation, CHD FOIA’d all emails related to communications among key NTP officials and researchers from Feb. 1, 2023, to Feb. 1, 2024.
However, the NIH produced only 14 emails — none of them revealed who made the decision to stop the research or provided detailed information about why the research was halted.
The NTP’s two-year study of 2G and 3G cellphone radiation, published in 2018, found “clear evidence” of malignant heart tumors in male rats, “some evidence” of malignant brain tumors in male rats, and “some evidence” of benign, malignant and complex combined adrenal gland tumors in male rats.
After the study’s findings were published, researchers began conducting follow-up studies, according to a February 2023 fact sheet.
However, the NTP in January 2024 announced via an updated fact sheet that it was abandoning further investigation of wireless radiation’s biological effects because “the research was technically challenging and more resource-intensive than expected.”
The NTP is an “interagency program composed of, and supported by” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and NIH, according to the agency’s website.
Paul Héroux, Ph.D., told The Defender that if NTP’s leadership wanted to make their statement credible, they should or could have publicly explained those difficulties.
Héroux is an associate professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and a medical scientist in McGill University Health Center’s surgery department. He is also vice chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, a “consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers” who study wireless radiation and make recommendations for wireless radiation exposure guidelines “based on the best peer-reviewed research publications.”
According to Héroux, there definitely would have been “scientists willing to help” overcome any technical challenges.
In April 2024, CHD filed two FOIA requests. The FOIA didn’t allow CHD to ask the government why it stopped the research, said CHD Staff Attorney Risa Evans, who wrote the requests.
“Unlike a deposition, the FOIA doesn’t give a right to ask questions or demand an explanation for a decision,” Evans said. “Instead, it allows members of the public to request agency records related to topics they want to investigate.”
CHD’s first FOIA request sought details about what the planned follow-up studies entailed.
The second FOIA request asked for all communications between key officials and researchers from Feb. 1, 2023, to Feb. 1, 2024 — when NTP appeared to be conducting follow-up studies and when it decided to discontinue them.
The FOIA request named four employees:
- Robert C. Sills, DVM, Ph.D., who at the time was the acting scientific director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ (NIEHS) Division of Translational Toxicology (DTT). Scientists with DTT were the ones conducting the follow-up studies, according to the NTP website.
- Rick Woychik, Ph.D., director of NIEHS, who sets the budget for NIEHS, including DTT, according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who founded the Environmental Health Trust.
- Nigel J. Walker, Ph.D., acting chief of DTT’s Systems Toxicology Branch, who was thought to be responsible for managing the follow-up studies, according to a former government scientist who chose to remain anonymous.
- Stephanie Smith-Roe, Ph.D., the DTT scientist who was the first author of the NTP’s 2019 follow-up study that looked at a subset of data from the 2018 study. Smith-Roe was thought to be supervising subsequent follow-up studies, according to a former government scientist who chose to remain anonymous. However, slides obtained by CHD later revealed Michael Wyde, not Smith-Roe, as the follow-up studies’ lead scientist.
The request sought “all communications (including but not limited to emails, text messages, instant chat messages, and any other electronic or written communications) sent or received (whether as a direct recipient, or cc or bcc) … discussing or mentioning the follow-up rodent studies described above, including but not limited to the following topics:
- The conduct of the follow-up studies.
- The transmission of follow-up study data for interpretation, evaluation, or review.
- Funding for the follow-up studies.
- Termination of the follow-up studies.
The NIH said in a Jan. 31 letter to CHD that it found only 14 pages of emails responsive to CHD’s request — and none of them involved communications before the decision to stop the research.
Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., who directed NTP from 2009 to 2019 and oversaw NTP’s 2018 study, said it’s possible that whoever chose to halt the studies “decided they weren’t going to have anything in writing.”
Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, said:
“It’s concerning that there were apparently no written communications involving Woychik or Sills in the months leading up to NTP’s announcement that it was abandoning the research. These officials were most likely aware that the research was being discontinued. What role did they play in the decision?”
Davis, with the Environmental Health Trust, reviewed CHD’s FOIA results. She said many questions are left unanswered, including:
- Was the decision made from above the director of NIEHS or is it simply that the new director or those directing him chose to avoid controversy?
- Was there any communication between the Federal Communications Commission and NIH about this? or between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the NIEHS?
- What role did the director of NIH play in squashing the RFR studies?
Do you have a news tip? We want to hear from you!
NIH scientists, PR staff struggle with response to editor of Microwave News
The 14 disclosed pages all pertained to questions Louis Slesin asked in late January 2024 when he noticed NTP had updated its fact sheet to say it discontinued the research.
Slesin is the editor of Microwave News, an online news outlet that has reported on the potential health and environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields and radiation for over 40 years.
The emails reveal communications between NIH scientists and public relations staff as they crafted a response to questions from Slesin about the results of the follow-up studies.
After the NTP’s 2018 study of 2G and 3G cellphone radiation was published, NIH researchers built a new wireless radiation exposure system for conducting smaller follow-up studies, according to the NTP webpage.
According to Slesin, the webpage failed to clarify what kinds of results were obtained in the follow-up studies.
On Jan. 30, 2024, he emailed Robin Mackar, former media relations coordinator for the Office of Communications and Public Liaison in the NIEHS.
NIEHS is one of the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers. Mackar worked at NIEHS from January 2022 until her retirement in June 2024, according to her LinkedIn profile.
Slesin wrote:
“It is not clear from what you have posted on the NTP website … whether what will be published are the results of the testing of the new (smaller) exposure system, or the results of follow-up studies using the new exposure system?
“That is, can you tell me whether experiments were carried out with the new exposure system or did the NTP team complete the ‘feasibility testing’ and then decide not to pursue additional experiments?”
The resulting email thread from Jan. 30 to Feb. 1, 2024, reveals internal deliberations between Mackar, three NIH scientists and two NIH communications staff about what to tell Slesin.
Named in the emails were Mackar; Michael Wyde, Ph.D., toxicologist; Nigel Walker, Ph.D., staff scientist; Georgia Roberts, Ph.D., staff scientist; Mary Wolfe, Ph.D., DTT deputy director for policy and communication; and Christine Flowers, director of NIEHS’ Office of Communications and Public Liaison.
DTT is under NIEHS and commonly supports NTP projects.
NIEHS takes over a week to acknowledge Slesin’s questions
The 14 pages of emails provide more questions than answers as to why the NTP chose to stop studying wireless radiation, said Eckenfels.
For instance, Wyde’s Jan. 30, 2024, email to the group suggested that the NTP, at some point, may have had plans to study RFR, just not using the new exposure system the researchers tested.
In the email, Wyde proposed a response to Slesin for the group to review and edit. However, his response included a sentence that had been struck through.
The omitted sentence said, “Efforts will be refocused in other areas where contributions can be made to understanding the potential effects of RF exposure on public health.”
No one on the email thread suggested adding the omitted sentence back in.
“The omitted sentence raises questions,” said Eckenfels. “Did the NTP have plans to refocus efforts so it could still study the effect of RFR on public health? If not, why was that sentence ever there in the first place? Why was it omitted?”
The emails also showed that NIEHS was initially unresponsive to Slesin when he first asked the agency when and where results from the follow-up studies would be made public.
Slesin first emailed NIEHS’ Office of Communications and Public Liaison on Jan. 17, 2024. He wrote:
“What can you tell me about when and where these results will be released?
“Journals? If so, how many papers are you preparing? Conference abstracts? Which meetings? In-house reports?”
NIEHS didn’t immediately respond. Two days later, Slesin wrote again asking when he might receive a reply.
NIEHS still didn’t respond.
On Jan. 24, 2024, Slesin tried again. “A week after my request, not even an acknowledgment,” he wrote. “Really?”
Later that day, Mackar wrote to Slesin, apologizing for not acknowledging his initial email and NIEHS’ delayed response. “We will be back in touch soon with a bit more info,” Mackar said.
It is unclear why NIEHS initially failed to respond to Slesin’s Jan. 17, 2024, email.
Slesin reviewed CHD’s FOIA results but declined to comment.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
The Defender reached out repeatedly via email and phone to all NIEHS employees named in the emails with questions about their communications. None responded.
On Feb. 12, Flowers took The Defender’s phone call but declined to answer any questions. She said she and the other NIEHS members contacted by The Defender were working to put together a response.
The Defender then emailed Flowers additional questions to address in NIEHS’ response, including:
- Could you please define “feasibility” (i.e., cost-wise, managing the RFR signal accuracy, keeping the animals alive, etc.)?
- Were the scientists who designed the new exposure system the same scientists who tested it?
- Were independent consultants brought in to troubleshoot the feasibility issues before the NIEHS scientists decided to abandon plans to continue researching RFR?
The Defender has not yet received a response from NIEHS.
Related articles in The Defender- NIH Redacts Nearly 2,500 Pages of Records on Wireless Radiation Studies
- No More Research on Cellphone Radiation and Human Health, Government Says
- CHD Files FOIA Requests: Why Did Government Shut Down Studies on Cellphone Radiation and Cancer?
- How FDA Spins the Science on Cellphone Radiation and Human Health Risks
- For 50 Years Regulators Ignored Report Linking Wireless Radiation to 23 Chronic Diseases
