ANNAPOLIS, Md. – A federal agency has released the final results of what could be the world's largest and most costly experiment linking cancer in male rats to cellphone radiation.

The National Toxicology Program concluded there's "clear evidence" that prolonged exposure to high levels of radio-frequency radiation, like that used in 2-G and 3-G cellphones, triggers cancerous brain and heart tumors in lab rats.

Dr. Ronald Melnick designed the exposure systems used in the study before his retirement from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. He believes the final peer-reviewed data should serve as a public health warning.

"Consequently,” says Melnick, “I believe that new wireless technologies, including 5G, should be adequately tested before their implementation leads to unacceptable levels of human exposures and increased health risks."

However, scientists at the agency cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and the experiment used what is now outdated cell technology. The $30 million NTP studies took more than 10 years to complete and are the most comprehensive assessment, to date.

While some experts, including those at the Food and Drug Administration, debate the level of concern between "clear evidence" and using terms like "some evidence" of adverse risk, Theodora Scarato – executive director of the Environmental Health Trust – says even a small cancer risk could have wide implications on world health.

Her advice is that everyone should take precautions to limit their exposure.

"Not carrying the phone in your pants, or your bra or your shirt pocket, and not allowing children to use cellphones, because they're most vulnerable to this radiation; it penetrates deeper into their bodies," says Scarato.

The rodents used in the study were exposed to radiation up to nine hours per day for two years – far longer than heavy users of cellphones.


get more stories like this via email

Dollar-store chains are rapidly growing across the country, with more locations than McDonald's, Starbucks, Target and Walmart combined, according to a new report, which claims their rapid growth is due in part to targeting low-income communities.

The report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance claimed Dollar General and Dollar Tree -- which owns Family Dollar -- choose disenfranchised areas, and Black and Latino neighborhoods in or near urban centers, to set up shop.

Aaron Weber, a concerned citizen in Micanopy, said he fought a dollar store entering his community, based on what he argued are plaguing America with increased risks of obesity, diabetes and cancer.

"They are a public health disaster from what they sell," Weber stressed. "I'd rather have a liquor store in my community than a dollar store, because liquor stores only sell alcohol, and dollar stores sell alcohol plus a lot of processed foods, a lot of stuff that's high in sugar, cigarettes too."

The chains have become a go-to grocery destination for cash-strapped shoppers, though Dollar Tree recently announced it will no longer sell eggs because the cost skyrocketed during the fall. In a statement, the Dollar General Corporation said the Institute "is not a reliable source for information regarding Dollar General, or our efforts to meet the value and convenience needs of millions of Americans for nearly 85 years."

Kennedy Smith, senior researcher at the Institute, said its investigation indicates the stores are a threat to existing businesses, especially food stores.

"And the concern there is that, by edging out stores that provide good, healthy food options for communities, they are actually creating food deserts, or exacerbating food deserts that may already exist," Smith explained.

Dollar General said it offers fresh produce in more than 3,000 stores, with plans to do so in about 2,000 more this year. The company added its stores are often in locations other retailers have chosen not to serve.

Smith, however, describes tactics used to drive local grocers and retailers out of business. The report said since 2019, people in 75 cities and towns have organized to block new locations being built.


get more stories like this via email

The collapse of two banks has put the U.S. financial sector into focus this week.

Some are considering the alternative structures of institutions like credit unions. Troy Stang is the president and CEO of the GoWest Credit Union Association, which represents more than 300 credit unions in Oregon and five other states.

He said tumult in the financial market historically generates interest in the local structure of credit unions.

"Whether it was with the dot-com bust, whether it was with the activities that led up to the Great Recession," said Stang, "consumers at their kitchen tables started having these conversations more intentionally about who is it that we do our financial services with?"

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is the second-largest bank collapse in U.S. history. To get depositors their money, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has stepped in.

Stang noted that the National Share Insurance Fund administered by the National Credit Union Administration is the equivalent regulator for his institutions and is paid for by the credit union system.

Stang said credit unions are not-for-profit and member-owned.

"We're not accountable to Wall Street investors," said Stang. "We're not accountable to other forces outside of our membership. And so it's a much different model."

Stang said many of the credit unions in his association have spent the last week reassuring customers and noting differences in their institutions' structure from others.

He added that a strong financial system is important for consumers, regardless of which institution they bank with.

Renters these days are getting hit with all kinds of extra charges, and consumer advocates want the federal government to crack down on the so-called "junk rental fees."

A new report from the National Consumer Law Center found many landlords charge excessive fees, not just for utilities but to process a rental application, move trash to the bins, allow roommates or pets, accept certain forms of payment or notify you of late payment.

April Kuehnhoff, senior attorney at the center, said with rents already sky-high, all extra fees must be disclosed ahead of time.

"There are fees that people can't opt out of, so it's very difficult to comparison shop or to actually know how much does it cost to rent this apartment," Kuehnhoff explained.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission are both looking into the issue of junk fees. Advocates want the government to crack down on abuses by large landlords and debt collectors, and work with private companies such as Zillow and Apartments.com to make sure fees are disclosed upfront.

Kuehnhoff pointed out pest-control fees may even be illegal.

"The duty of a landlord is to provide a habitable space," Kuehnhoff stressed. "So you should be delivering an apartment that's free of rodents free of cockroaches, and it shouldn't be up to the tenant to pay an additional sum."

The California Legislature is considering Senate Bill 611, which would force landlords to disclose upfront the true rent and any required fees. It is part of a six-bill legislative package to combat junk fees in housing, hotels, car rentals, ticketing, electric-vehicle purchases and small-business financing.


get more stories like this via email