On May 25, Microwave News reported
that a $25 million federal government study found that cellphone radiation
caused brain cancer in rats. The FDA had, in 2001, called for a
government-funded study to resolve their concern that cellphone radiation is
harmful. The federal government has funded one major study, the National
Toxicology Program study reported on by Microwave News. Even though the study
examines the effects of second-generation cellphone technology and soon most cellphones
will switch to fourth-generation LTE for voice communications, these results
are relevant today because we should not wait another 15 years and spend
millions of dollars to research newer technology before we improve public education
about precautionary measures.
Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal published a debate
on whether cellphones should have warning labels. I was asked to write
for the “pro” side; Dr. Larry Junck, a neurology professor, was asked to
write for the opposition. The two essays were published with the title, "Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?" and
appeared in print on May 23, 2016.
Prior to publication, the Journal shared with me only four of Dr. Junck's assertions. I was not provided his entire “con” essay in advance. Below are references supporting my arguments as well as comments on the debate.
The Wall Street Journal asks …
Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2016
Post-Publication Additional References and Comments
The editors state in the debate Preface that advocates recommend that cellphones come with labels outside the devices. I would argue that cellphone users need more conspicuous precautionary information whether by means of software inside the devices, package labeling, or other forms of communication.
Pro-Warning Labels for Cellphones: Additional References
Paragraph 3. Exposure to radio-frequency radiation,
a major risk of cellphone use. Warnings should be obvious: legal duty. Mentions of RF radiation and safety tend to be buried if they are provided by the manufacturer.
Paragraph 4. Many consumer groups are demanding stronger
warnings about RF, the Environmental Working Group, a coalition of consumer groups wrote a letter; see also Consumer Reports.
Paragraph 5. International Agency for Research on
Cancer declaration on possible carcinogenicity of RF radiation.
Paragraph 6. Citations on epidemiology, brain tumor risks.
a. Scientific reviews of epidemiological
research on cellphone use and brain tumor risk
Hardell, Carlberg (2013). Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965
for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated
with use of mobile and cordless phones. http://1.usa.gov/1jelT8p
Morgan, Miller, Sasco, Davis (2015). Mobile phone radiation
causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen
(2A) (Review). http://1.usa.gov/1EqL1DF
Myung, Ju, McDonnell, Lee, Kazinets, Cheng, Moskowitz (2009).
Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. http://1.usa.gov/12wBOmd
World Health Organization (2013). IARC monographs on the
evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation,
Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. http://bit.ly/10oIE3o
b. Epidemiological studies that report evidence of increased brain tumor risk associated with long-term, heavy mobile phone use: Malignant tumors (glioma)
Carlberg and Hardell, 2012
Cardis et al, 2011
Coureau et al, 2014
Hardell et al, 2002
Hardell et al, 2004
Hardell et al, 2005
Hardell et al, 2006
Hardell et al, 2006
Hardell et al, 2009
Hardell et al, 2010
Hardell et al, 2013
Hardell et al, 2013
Hepworth et al, 2006
Interphone Study Group, 2010
Lakhola et al, 2007
Schuz et al, 2006
c. Epidemiological studies that report evidence of increased brain tumor risk associated with long-term, heavy mobile phone use: Non-malignant tumors (acoustic neuroma or meningioma)
Aydin et al, 2011 (child study; unclassified tumors)
Benson et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)
Cardis et al, 2011 (meningioma)
Carlberg and Hardell, 2015 (meningioma)
Coureau et al, 2014 (meningioma)
Hardell et al, 2006 (acoustic neuroma)
Hardell et al, 2009 (acoustic neuroma)
Hardell et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)
Hardell et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)
Interphone Study Group, 2011(acoustic neuroma)
Lonn et al, 2004 (acoustic neuroma)
Moon et al, 2014 (acoustic neuroma)
Schoemaker et al, 2005 (acoustic neuroma)
d. Evidence of increased brain tumor incidence in the United States: Non-malignant tumors (also see http://bit.ly/USbraintumors)
Brain tumor increases in the 1990's that preceded widespread
cellphone use may be accounted for by cordless phone use. Cordless phones were
adopted before cellphones; they emit RF radiation, and Hardell's studies have found them to be associated with increased brain
tumor risk.
Dolecek et al, 2015 (meningioma in adults)
Gittleman et al, 2015 (brain/central nervous system tumors in
children & adolescents)
Ostrom et al, 2016 (meningioma in adolescents and young adults)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26705298
e. Evidence of increased brain tumor incidence
in the United States: Malignant tumors (also see http://bit.ly/USbraintumors)
Gittleman et al, 2015 (brain/central nervous system tumors in
children & adolescents)
Zada et al, 2012 (glioblastoma multiforme)
Zhu et al (2016). The apoptotic effect and the plausible
mechanism of microwave radiation on rat myocardial cells.
Paragraph 7. Sperm damage evidence available in 2014 review. World Health Organization’s IARC committee on cellphoneradiation. International Electromagnetic Field Scientist Appeal.
Paragraph 8. How cellphones may affect cells.
f. Mechanisms that explain biologic effects of
low intensity radiofrequency fields
Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak
magnetic fields on biological systems: Radiofrequency fields can change radical
concentrations and cancer cell growth rates.
Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency
exposure.
Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between radiofrequencies
emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress.
Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent
biological effects of radiofrequency fields.
Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium
channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.
Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields.
Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in
neurological disorders.
Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal
exposure on brain glucose metabolism.
Yakymenko et al (2015) Oxidative mechanisms of biological
activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.
Paragraph 9. Electromagnetic fields and insurance
companies’ concerns, Lloyd’s of London report, Swiss Re.
Paragraph 10. The controversy over cellphone warnings
shares many similarities to cigarette labeling. There were numerous dissenters
from the scientific community in 1965 when Congress passed the CigaretteLabeling and Advertising Act.
Paragraph 11. Tips for safer use of wireless technology, including cellphones.
Con-Warning Labels for Cellphones:
Comments on
Arguments by Dr. Larry Junck in WSJ Debate
Comments on Paragraphs 1-3: Malignant tumors often
require decades to develop
before they are detected so one would not necessarily expect to see a strong
correlation between cellphone adoption rates and brain tumor incidence.
Brain tumor increases in the 1990s
that preceded widespread cellphone use may be accounted for by cordless phone
use. Cordless phones were adopted before cellphones; they emit RF radiation,
and Hardell's research has found
cordless phone use to be associated with increased brain tumor risk.
Comments on Paragraph 4: There is peer-reviewed
evidence for several mechanisms that explain how low-intensity cellphone
radiation can cause oxidative stress, free radicals, and DNA damage leading to
cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. There are also papers that describe a
mechanism for sperm damage.
The research shows that the
cellphone's RF emissions are absorbed by the head and body. The young child's brain absorbs twice
as much radiation as the adult brain.
Comments on Paragraph 5: It often takes decades
of independently-funded research before scientific consensus
is reached about a health risk.
Much of the cell phone radiation research
has been funded by the telecommunications industry. In our 2009 review of the epidemiological research, we found that studies with
industry funding tended to use lower quality research methods. These studies
either failed to find increased brain tumor risk or dismissed the significant
evidence of risk that was observed. Dr. Henry Lai has reported that the
industry-funded studies were also much less likely to report biological
effects.
The higher-quality research on long-term, heavy cell phone use among adults consistently finds increased brain tumor risk. The risk is roughly doubled after 10 years of cellphone use. Although little research has been conducted on children, a few studies suggest that the risk is greater for children and adolescents who use cellphones.
The higher-quality research on long-term, heavy cell phone use among adults consistently finds increased brain tumor risk. The risk is roughly doubled after 10 years of cellphone use. Although little research has been conducted on children, a few studies suggest that the risk is greater for children and adolescents who use cellphones.
A few industry-funded
scientists recommend we take precaution about cellphone use. But many argue we
should wait 25 or more years until their current
research studies are completed. In contrast, the 220 scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal believe that
we have sufficient evidence to take precaution now. They argue for stronger
regulations and better disclosure.
Regarding bias in studies
that depend on patient recall, it is true that people err when they report
their cellphone use in these studies. They tend to underestimate the duration
of calls and overestimate the number of calls they make. These two biases
cancel each other out. The net effect when the data are analyzed for the total
amount of cellphone use is to underestimate the association
between cellphone use and brain tumor risk.
Comments on Paragraph 6: The 13-nation Interphone Study reported in a
40% increased risk of glioma for heavy cellphone users who used cellphones
1,640 or more hours in their lifetime, which averages to about 30 minutes a day
over 10 years (Table 2).This was a primary, not a secondary analysis of the
data.
The Interphone Study has been
criticized by many scientists for its methodological shortcomings, but most of
the biases are in the direction of underestimating brain tumor risk. For
example, the Interphone study presented a secondary analysis in Appendix 2 of the paper
which corrected one methodology problem. This analysis found an 82% increased
risk of glioma for the heavy cellphone users instead of the 40% increased risk
reported in the main body of the paper.
In another paper, the Interphone
Study reported a 289% increased risk of acoustic neuroma for heavy cellphone
users.
The 30-member IARC expert group
depended heavily on the Interphone study and research by Lennart Hardell and
his colleagues when they decided to classify RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic”
in 2011.
IARC classified Asian pickled
vegetables and coffee as “possible carcinogens” because consumption of the
first increases risk of esophageal cancer, and the second, bladder cancer. The
cellphone industry has cited these findings to diminish IARC’s classification
of radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B possible carcinogen to humans, which
is also the same category as DDT and lead.
Comments on Paragraph 7: The most recent meta-analysis found that
cellphone radiation harms both sperm motility and viability -- two of the three
effects examined.
Several mechanisms have been proposed
for sperm damage (see my post, “Effects of
Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality”).
Cellphones emit radiation at least
once a minute whenever they are powered on. Since males often store cellphones
in their pants pocket, they are exposing their genitals to this radiation. A
Cleveland Clinic study of 361 men
undergoing infertility examination found that the “decrease in sperm parameters
was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones.”
Comments on Paragraph 8: The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency found evidence of genotoxicity from exposure to cellphone radiation in
the 1990’s. Based upon the research, the EPA advocated for stronger regulations
than the FCC adopted in 1996. Congress ended the EPA’s funding for research on
RF radiation so the EPA has not conducted any research since the 1990’s.
Microwave News reported on 5/25 that a $25 million federal government study
found that cellphone radiation caused brain cancer in rats.
The FCC’s cellphone radiation
regulations have not changed since 1996. Although the FCC has been
gathering input from
scientists and the public since 2003, it has never issued a review of the
evidence it has received. A recent Harvard publication reported that
the FCC has been “captured” by the industries it regulates including the
telecommunications industry. Perhaps we will begin to see changes in the
positions of our federal agencies following release of reports from the
National Toxicology Program’s major study.
Before WSJ editing, my original essay
contained information about the cellphone industry – their tendency to oppose
and lobby against all “Right to Know” legislation that crops up from the grass
roots. I know of six states where allegations have been made that proposed
regulations designed to inform citizens about potential cellphone risks have
failed under industry pressure.
Comments on Paragraph 9: Insurers are probably worried about
both compensating victims of actual harm associated with cellphones, as well as
paying for the expense of defending lawsuits regardless of the merits.
The insurance industry has a
legitimate concern that the cellphone industry will someday be held liable for
cellphone radiation health effects because the scientific evidence has grown
substantially over time. Moreover, the cellphone industry funded much of the
early research that found evidence of harm which suggests that the industry
knew the risks but failed to act responsibly. Although most cellphone companies
issue safety information about how to reduce RF radiation exposure, the
information is not user-friendly.
Comments on Paragraphs 10-11: Hardell and his colleagues have
found a three-fold risk of brain cancer for 25 or
more years of wireless (cellphone and cordless) phone use and a four-fold risk
of acoustic neuroma for 20 or
more years of use. Given how widespread cellphone use is these risk estimates
should be of great concern to neuro-oncologists. Some research suggests that
children who use cellphones may have greater long-term risk of brain tumors.
I discussed two risks for which we
have the most evidence: brain tumors and sperm damage. In addition, there is
scientific evidence for other health problems associated with cellphone
radiation. These risks include other head and neck tumors, breast cancer,
electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and reproductive health risks including
miscarriage and fetal effects (e.g., ADHD).
Bottom line: There is less “harm” in warning consumers about potential risks based
on what we know or suspect than in failing to do so and later on facing another
tobacco or asbestos debacle.
Precautionary warnings are the least
we can do at this point in time.