JAMA Oncology published a paper on radiofrequency radiation written by a Telecom industry spokesperson.
JAMA Oncology recently published a paper, "Radiofrequency
Radiation and Cancer: A Review,”
that provides a biased, highly selective review of the scientific literature written
by David Grimes, a pro-industry science writer and physicist.
Several experts who have worked in this field for decades and two former U.S. government health officials wrote to me expressing their concerns about this paper:
- "The mentioned paper contains
hardly one page of actual review. It is trying to fixate the old paradigm
of not enough energy to cause harm. What a poor and pathetic attempt by
the industry proponents."
- "I could go on at length about
the flaws in his arguments ... I hope someone with
oncological/epidemiological clout in the community takes this crank to
task and highlights the enormous holes and one-sided nature of his
argument."
- "Confidentially, this is garbage. Grimes gets this published because he is a naysayer. He claims to discuss mechanisms, but only discusses his own irrelevant hobby horse.”
- "Grimes is going to get a bit
of scrutiny over this piece. It is really bad."
- "I think this needs to be
retracted."
On December 20, 2021, I sent the journal’s
editor-in-chief, Mary “Nora” Disis, MD, my comments along with a recommendation
that the journal retract the paper. Her response:
“The JAMA Network journals reserve
retractions for articles that have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized.
There does not appear to be evidence of such misconduct in this article.”
She suggested I submit a (400-word) letter to the editor so the paper’s author could respond to my comments (with a 500-word letter). In my professional opinion, letters to the editor would not suffice to undo the potential damage caused by publication of this industry propaganda piece in a journal sponsored by the American Medical Association.
Since the
journal refused to retract the paper despite what I suspect was a flawed peer-review
process, the journal should change the paper’s title to accurately reflect its
contents (e.g., “Radiofrequency radiation and cancer: Telecom industry talking
points”). Moreover, the journal should publish a companion piece written by experts independent of the industry so the journal’s readers are not misled by an article
replete with industry sound bites.
My critique of the Grimes paper appears below. Also see the following links to articles and letters critiquing Grimes' paper:
Microwave News. Four Reasons Why David Grimes’s RF-Cancer Review Must Be Retracted: Open Letter to Editor-in-Chief, AMA Journals. January 18, 2022
Microwave News. David Robert Grimes Is Not Affiliated with University of Oxford. January 19, 2022
Paul D. Thacker. Experts Blast David Robert Grimes for His Failure to Understand Science and Love of Self-Citation. Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity. January 18, 2022
Paul D. Thacker. Physicist David Robert Grimes Finds Conspiracies Everywhere. The Disinformation Chronicle. December 7, 2021
Kent Chamberlin. Letter to Dr. Mary Disis, JAMA Oncology Editor. January 5, 2022
--
Grimes DR. Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review. JAMA Oncol. Published online December 09, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5964. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/article-abstract/2786776
The title of this paper, "Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review," is misleading because this is not a literature review. Rather, this is an opinion piece written by David Grimes, a science writer and physicist who has served as a paid spokesperson for the telecommunications industry.
Following is a link to an “informational video” he recorded for
Vodafone UK:
The Grimes paper rehashes arguments I have heard for more than a decade. It reflects the perspective of some physical scientists and engineers since the 1980’s that only ionizing radiation is harmful due to photon energy. Their position is that radiofrequency radiation (RFR), or non-ionizing radiation, is harmless unless its intensity exceeds a certain heating threshold, and the only plausible mechanism for harm from RFR is acute heating. These scientists employ a common industry strategy to manufacture doubt about the science by dismissing thousands of peer-reviewed RFR studies published since the 1980's with the claim that these studies are not methodologically sound or have not been replicated.
Grimes implies that anyone concerned about health effects from 5G or RFR is a conspiracy theorist.
Grimes' paper devotes five paragraphs to the discussion of the “biophysical overview” -- how ionizing radiation can harm living organisms through direct action caused by the energy in photons.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers have been published that discuss
biophysical mechanisms for adverse RFR effects. Even though the mechanisms are
not fully understood, substantial empirical evidence exists that low-intensity RFR can
induce oxidative stress, reactive oxygen species (or free radicals), and stress
proteins via indirect action.
With the advent
of the smartphone about a decade ago, the transmitting antennas in many phones
are now located in the bottom, instead of the top, of the phone. Hence, the primary
tumor site for those who hold their phones to their ear may now be the thyroid gland instead of the brain. Two Yale University
studies found increased thyroid tumor risk with heavy cellphone use. Moreover,
the incidence of thyroid cancer has increased substantially in the U.S. and many
other countries. Smartphone use may have contributed to this increase.
The Danish cohort cellphone study has been widely discredited (see responses to this study). The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer dismissed this study in its comprehensive report about RFR cancer risk due to the study’s misclassification of many cellphone users as non-users and its lack of individual exposure data.The UK cohort study also suffered from misclassification because exposure data were only collected at baseline and cellphone use likely changed during the course of the study. Thus, neither of these cohort studies provides a reliable assessment of brain tumor risk among cellphone users.
In 2015 I interviewed the "most knowledgeable person" at the U.S. FDA regarding cell phone radiation risks, the head of the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health who served as the agency’s representative to the now-defunct federal Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group. He informed me that every cellphone study that found evidence of harm had at least one methodological problem; hence, the FDA dismissed all of these studies. Apparently, little has changed in the ensuing years at the FDA.
As a researcher
for more than 30 years in the School of Public Health at the University of
California, Berkeley, I have never read a study without “inherent limitations.”
That no study is perfect is not a valid reason to exclude many hundreds of peer-reviewed
studies which found significant evidence of harm from RFR or cellphone
radiation.
The FDA review
paper was not subjected to an independent, external peer review process, unlike
the NTP cellphone radiation study discussed next.
The NTP study found
"clear evidence" of increased tumor incidence from long-term exposure
to cellphone radiation in male rats and DNA damage from shorter exposures to
male and female rats and mice. Two other major randomized, controlled animal studies,
the Ramazzini Institute study and a U.S. Air Force study, support the NTP’s finding that
long-term exposure to low-intensity (i.e. non-thermal levels of) RFR can cause
cancer.
The IEEE or Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is a professional association for engineers.
Their committees that established RFR exposure limits were dominated by
engineers and physical scientists with little input from biologists or health
scientists.
The FCC, the
agency in the U.S. that regulates RFR exposure, has no health expertise and
relies on the FDA for advice; however, the FDA does no research on RFR health
effects. For more than two decades, the FCC has been “captured” by the
telecommunications industry according to a Harvard study. Most FCC commissioners have worked for
this industry before and after their appointments to the Commission.
The Grimes paper
is a prime example of a common industry tactic when a product or technology is
harmful to humans or the environment -- manufacture doubt about the state of
the science:
Despite Grimes’
claim, Michael Carlberg and Lennart Hardell applied the Bradford Hill criteria to the
peer-reviewed data and concluded that long-term exposure to cell phone
radiation is a causal factor for tumor risk. Hardell and his colleagues in Sweden were not the only researchers to conduct
case-control studies which found increased brain tumor risk with heavy
cellphone use. See also the 13-nation Interphone
study and a French
study.
Our
2020 review and meta-analysis
of the case-control tumor risk studies (Choi, Moskowitz et al., 2020) went
through extensive peer review prior to publication. Moreover, post-publication
we defended the paper against every criticism raised in two letters to the editor submitted by ICNIRP scientists and
their associates. Our quantitative review of 46 case-control studies “found
significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk,
especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or
more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10
years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods.”
More than 240 EMF scientists, all of whom have published peer-reviewed papers on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health totaling more than 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals have endorsed the International EMF Scientist Appeal:
