Thursday, March 29, 2018

Industry-funded Scientists Undermine Cell Phone Radiation Science

"How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation"

The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, THE NATION, March 29, 2018


January 30, 2017

In the following post, Dr. Leszczynski, one of the world's leading EMF scientists, was censored by STUK, the Finnish government radiation research agency whom he worked for, when he wrote about scientific misconduct in the WHO-sponsored Interphone study in 2011.
Uncensored version of blog post on Interphone, first published in 2011 and re-published for the first time now…Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Jan 30, 2017.

March 7, 2015

In his February 12 blog post, Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski discussed how industry-funded scientists undermined his cutting-edge research on cell phone radiation biologic effects which he conducted for the Finnish government for more than a decade. The Wireless Industry, following Big Tobacco's playbook, co-opts scientists to do low quality research and  uses them to manufacture doubt about high quality science. Dr. Leszczynski provides some insight about how industry-funded scientists undermined his government-funded, state-of-the-art scientific research.

Dr. Leszczynski was one of 31 experts selected to review the cancer risks of radio frequency (RF) radiation in 2011 by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer. The panel declared that RF radiation is "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B). Dr. Leszczynski reported in a subsequent blog post that he and several other experts wanted RF radiation to be classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A), but a majority of the panel would not support this designation.

Since 2011, we have considerably more biologic and epidemiologic data to support the Group 2A classification for RF radiation.


Science and Conflict of Interest in Bioelectromagnetics

Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, March 7, 2015

Key-note presentation of Dariusz Leszczynski at the Jubiläums-Generalversammlung of the Swiss association Gigaherz, celebrating its 15th anniversary, Thalvil (near Zurich) on March 7, 2015.

Video recording of the presentation will be made available shortly.


The GameChanger: revision of dosimetry by Schmid & Kuster

Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Feb 12, 2015


"The general trend of exposing cells at 2.0 SAR was strongly advocated and propagated by the scientists from the telecom industry. It was a strong peer pressure from, among others, Mays Swicord, Joe Elder and C-K Chou of Motorola, USA, and Sakari Lang and Jafar Keshvari of Nokia, Finland, that caused lack of in vitro studies at SAR higher than 2.0. These five scientists mentioned above were the most active in exercising peer pressure.It was a normal occurrence at the scientific meetings, and I attended really a lot of them, that whenever scientist reported biological effects at SAR over 2.0, the above mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results. The argument was always the same – safety standards are set at 2.0 and examining effects above it is futile. Furthermore, any study with SAR above 2.0 was suggested to be caused by thermal effect. It meant, according to these industry scientists that the obtained biological data were irrelevant.It was the continuous and relentlessly executed peer pressure from the industry scientists that discouraged, and in the end prevented, scientists from the academia to do freely research at SAR higher than 2.0, even when the exposure chamber had cooling system."
"Therefore, with the extreme delight I read the recent paper in Bioelectromagnetics “The Discrepancy Between Maximum In Vitro Exposure Levels and Realistic Conservative Exposure Levels of Mobile Phones Operating at 900/1800 MHz” by Gernot Schmid and Niels Kuster.
Here area  few quotes from this game-changing paper by Schmid and Kuster:"

In vitro studies of GSM cell phone radiation should be redone using higher SAR levels to better simulate real-world conditions

Here is the abstract for the "game-changing" paper by Schmid and Kuster. The results of this analysis suggest that most in vitro studies of GSM cell phone bioeffects tested exposures that are too low to simulate real-world exposures, especially to cells contained in skin and blood. According to the authors, these studies should to be redone using SAR's that greatly exceed 2 watts per kilogram so the results can be generalized to real-world exposures.
Gernot Schmid, Niels Kuster. The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics. 36(2):133-148. 2015.
The objective of this paper is to compare realistic maximum electromagnetic exposure of human tissues generated by mobile phones with electromagnetic exposures applied during in vitro experiments to assess potentially adverse effects of electromagnetic exposure in the radiofrequency range.

We reviewed 80 in vitro studies published between 2002 and present that concern possible adverse effects of exposure to mobile phones operating in the 900 and 1800 MHz bands. We found that the highest exposure level averaged over the cell medium that includes evaluated cells (monolayer or suspension) used in 51 of the 80 studies corresponds to 2 W/kg or less, a level below the limit defined for the general public. That does not take into account any exposure non-uniformity. For comparison, we estimated, by numerical means using dipoles and a commercial mobile phone model, the maximum conservative exposure of superficial tissues from sources operated in the 900 and 1800 MHz bands.

The analysis demonstrated that exposure of skin, blood, and muscle tissues may well exceed 40 W/kg at the cell level. Consequently, in vitro studies reporting minimal or no effects in response to maximum exposure of 2 W/kg or less averaged over the cell media, which includes the cells, may be of only limited value for analyzing risk from realistic mobile phone exposure.

We, therefore, recommend future in vitro experiments use specific absorption rate levels that reflect maximum exposures and that additional temperature control groups be included to account for sample heating.
Keywords: SAR; GSM; cell; compliance; radiofrequency


 Research “firewalls” – The King is Naked!

Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Mar 29, 2014


In my opinion, the currently used system of “firewalls” does not work. Industry sponsors and sponsored scientists are intelligent people. Industry sponsors do not need to say “things” aloud and scientists understand “things” that are not said. In the situation of research data being very ambivalent, the interpretation of the meaning of the results is crucial and should not be in any way influenced by “things” not said….

On the Cosmos project website at the Karolinska Institute the following statement is displayed:

“…Vinnova administers a grant from Telenor, TeliaSonera and Sony Ericsson, and acts as a firewall according to a contract that guarantees the independence and autonomy of the research…”

This statement is to assure us that the science is independent of the industry because:

  • the industry provided research funding, but
  • funding is administered by Vinnova, meaning that
  • researchers receive funds from Vinnova and not directly from the industry ....
Institutions that are used as “firewalls” are living off the industry funding for the “firewall”. It is not certain that they will endanger their own livelihood by passing funding to “undesirable” projects.

Industry that sponsors research projects often requires, as a part of the deal, to know on what projects their money will be used. This way the industry justifies the participation of the industry scientists in planning phase of the research projects – they do not want their money to be wasted for unnecessary research. There is some logic in this kind of thinking but there is also a danger. Projects that for some reasons industry considers as undesirable, from the industry point of view, will not get funded. This does not automatically mean that these “undesired” projects are wrong….

Friday, March 9, 2018

Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation

New Study Shows that Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor 
to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure

A new study measuring radiofrequency electromagnetic fields shows considerable variability in exposure in six countries. Cell phone towers are the most dominant contributor.

(Los Angeles, CA, March 9, 2018) Today the journal, Environment International, published online a six-nation study of outdoor exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).

Wireless devices and infrastructure emit RF-EMF. However, little is known about how this affects environmental exposures around the world. In the present study, RF-EMF measurements were taken in locations in Australia, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa, Switzerland and the United States by means of portable measurement devices. The devices considered exposure from cell phone towers, TV and FM radio broadcast antennas, cell phone handsets and Wi-Fi.

According to Dr. Martin Röösli, Associate Professor at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and senior author of the paper, “The study demonstrates that total RF-EMF exposure levels in the environment vary widely between different areas. Cell phone tower radiation is the dominant contributor in most outdoor areas.”

Los Angeles was the study site in the United States.

Compared to the other five countries, the US had high exposure levels ranging from 1.4 milliwatts per square meter (mW/m²) in a non-central residential area of Los Angeles to 6.8 mW/m² in a rural center of the city. The median total exposure to RF-EMF across all eight outdoor microenvironments in Los Angeles was 3.4 mW/m².

Today’s outdoor RF-EMF levels in Los Angeles are about 70 times greater than what the EPA estimated forty years ago.

The last time RF-EMF exposure was systematically measured in Los Angeles was in the late 1970’s as part of a 12-city study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Tell and Mantiply, 1982; Hankin, 1985). The EPA assessed RF-EMF in 38 outdoor locations in Los Angeles and found that the median population-weighted exposure was 0.05 mW/m². At that time television and FM radio broadcast antennas were the most important contributors. Hence, since the 1990’s, the implementation of cell phone tower networks has resulted in substantial increase in RF-EMF.

Although this measurement study demonstrates that environmental exposure levels are substantially below regulatory limits, there are still uncertainties about whether the strong increase of RF-EMF in the environment in recent years poses a health risk. Switzerland has implemented precautionary limits for RF-EMF and indeed exposure levels were lowest among all countries participating in the study.

Röösli and his colleagues emphasize that this measurement study contributes to a better understanding of the exposure situation of the general population all over the world and foster the design of future health studies.

Sanjay Sagar, the first author of the paper, and Martin Röösli, are with the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel, Switzerland. Co-authors from the U.S. include Michael Jerrett and Tony Kuo with the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Michael Brunjes and Lisa Arangua with the Los Angeles County Health Department,  and Joel Moskowitz with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.


Sagar S, Adem SM, Struchen B, Loughran SP, Brunjes ME, Arangua L, Dalvie MA, Croft RJ, Jerrett M, Moskowitz JM, Kuo T, Röösli M. Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. Environment International, 114: 297-306. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.02.036. 


We measured RF-EMF in 94 matched microenvironments in six countries.
We applied a common protocol for direct comparison of RF-EMF.
Downlink and broadcasting exposure was most relevant in outdoor microenvironments.
Uplink is only relevant in public transport with the highest in Switzerland.
Exposure in urban areas tended to be higher.


Background: The aim of this study was to quantify RF-EMF exposure applying a tested protocol of RF-EMF exposure measurements using portable devices with a high sampling rate in different microenvironments of Switzerland, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa, Australia and the United States of America.

Method: We used portable measurement devices for assessing RF-EMF exposure in 94 outdoor microenvironments and 18 public transport vehicles. The measurements were taken either by walking with a backpack with the devices at the height of the head and a distance of 20–30 cm from the body, or driving a car with the devices mounted on its roof, which was 170–180 cm above the ground. The measurements were taken for about 30 min while walking and about 15–20 min while driving in each microenvironment, with a sampling rate of once every 4 s (ExpoM-RF) and 5 s (EME Spy 201).

Results: Mean total RF-EMF exposure in various outdoor microenvironments varied between 0.23 V/m (noncentral residential area in Switzerland) and 1.85 V/m (university area in Australia), and across modes of public transport between 0.32 V/m (bus in rural area in Switzerland) and 0.86 V/m (Auto rickshaw in urban area in Nepal). For most outdoor areas the major exposure contribution was from mobile phone base stations. Otherwise broadcasting was dominant. Uplink from mobile phone handsets was generally very small, except in Swiss trains and some Swiss buses.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates high RF-EMF variability between the 94 selected microenvironments from all over the world. Exposure levels tended to increase with increasing urbanity.

Supplemental Material:


Tell and Mantiply. Population exposure to VHF and UHF broadcast radiation in the United States. Radio Science. 17(5S):39S-47S. 1982.

Available for interview:

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley;

Prof. Martin Röösli, Ph.D., Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel;,

Sanjay Sagar, Ph.D., Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel;

Sunday, March 4, 2018

Acoustic Neuroma and Cell Phone Use

Studies that report evidence of increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with 
long-term cell phone use

Acoustic neuroma, also known as vestibular schwannoma, like heart schwannoma arises from the Schwann cells, but unlike its counterpart in the heart, it is usually a slow-growing tumor and not cancerous. 

Acoustic neuroma develops on the main nerve leading from the inner ear to your brain. This nerve influences balance and hearing, and pressure from an acoustic neuroma can cause hearing loss, ringing in your ear and unsteadiness. Occasionally, it can interfere with brain functioning.

Two experimental studies have found evidence of increased incidence of heart schwannoma in male rats from exposure to cell phone radiation: National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer.

Nine peer-reviewed studies, including one cohort study, have found evidence that long-term cell phone use is associated with increased risk of acoustic neuroma in humans (see below).

April 26, 2017
Cohort Studies

Benson et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma) - UK Million Women cohort study

For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03).

Case-Control Studies
Moon et al, 2014

Vestibular schwannomas (VSs) grow in the region where the energy from mobile phone use is absorbed. We examined the associations of VSs with mobile phone use. This study included 119 patients who had undergone surgical tumor removal. We used two approaches in this investigation. First, a case-control study for the association of mobile phone use and incidence of VSs was conducted. Both cases and controls were investigated with questions based on INTERPHONE guidelines. Amount of mobile phone use according to duration, daily amount, and cumulative hours were compared between two groups. We also conducted a case-case study. The location and volume of the tumors were investigated by MRI. Associations between the estimated amount of mobile phone use and tumor volume and between the laterality of phone use and tumor location were analyzed. In a case-control study, the odds ratio (OR) of tumor incidence according to mobile phone use was 0.956. In the case-case study, tumor volume and estimated cumulative hours showed a strong correlation (r(2) = 0.144, p = 0.002), and regular mobile phone users showed tumors of a markedly larger volume than those of non-regular users (p < 0.001). When the analysis was limited to regular users who had serviceable hearing, laterality showed a strong correlation with tumor side (OR = 4.5). We found that tumors may coincide with the more frequently used ear of mobile phones and tumor volume that showed strong correlation with amount of mobile phone use, thus there is a possibility that mobile phone use may affect tumor growth.

Hardell et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)

We previously conducted a case-control study of acoustic neuroma. Subjects of both genders aged 20-80 years, diagnosed during 1997-2003 in parts of Sweden, were included, and the results were published. We have since made a further study for the time period 2007-2009 including both men and women aged 18-75 years selected from throughout the country. These new results for acoustic neuroma have not been published to date. Similar methods were used for both study periods. In each, one population-based control, matched on gender and age (within five years), was identified from the Swedish Population Registry. Exposures were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire supplemented by a phone interview. Since the number of acoustic neuroma cases in the new study was low we now present pooled results from both study periods based on 316 participating cases and 3,530 controls. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for age, gender, year of diagnosis and socio-economic index (SEI). Use of mobile phones of the analogue type gave odds ratio (OR) = 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.0-4.3, increasing with >20 years latency (time since first exposure) to OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 2.8-21. Digital 2G mobile phone use gave OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1, increasing with latency >15 years to an OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.8-4.2. The results for cordless phone use were OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1, and, for latency of >20 years, OR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.7-26. Digital type wireless phones (2G and 3G mobile phones and cordless phones) gave OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.0 increasing to OR = 8.1, 95% CI = 2.0-32 with latency >20 years. For total wireless phone use, the highest risk was calculated for the longest latency time >20 years: OR = 4.4, 95% CI = 2.2-9.0. Several of the calculations in the long latency category were based on low numbers of exposed cases. Ipsilateral use resulted in a higher risk than contralateral for both mobile and cordless phones. OR increased per 100 h cumulative use and per year of latency for mobile phones and cordless phones, though the increase was not statistically significant for cordless phones. The percentage tumour volume increased per year of latency and per 100 h of cumulative use, statistically significant for analogue phones. This study confirmed previous results demonstrating an association between mobile and cordless phone use and acoustic neuroma.

Hardell et al, 2013

Regarding acoustic neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73-4.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55, 95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained. Also use of cordless phones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma in the Hardell group studies.

Interphone Study Group, 2011

The odds ratio (OR) of acoustic neuroma with ever having been a regular mobile phone user was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.04). The OR for ≥10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.76 (0.52-1.11). There was no trend of increasing ORs with increasing cumulative call time or cumulative number of calls, with the lowest OR (0.48 (0.30-0.78)) observed in the 9th decile of cumulative call time. In the 10th decile (≥1640 h) of cumulative call time, the OR was 1.32 (0.88-1.97); there were, however, implausible values of reported use in those with ≥1640 h of accumulated mobile phone use. With censoring at 5 years before the reference date the OR for ≥10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.83 (0.58-1.19) and for ≥1640 h of cumulative call time it was 2.79 (1.51-5.16), but again with no trend in the lower nine deciles and with the lowest OR in the 9th decile. In general, ORs were not greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour than in those who reported it on the opposite side, but it was greater in those in the 10th decile of cumulative hours of use.

Hardell et al, 2009 

For acoustic neuroma, the highest OR was found for ipsilateral use and >10 year latency, for mobile phone OR=3.0, 95% CI=1.4-6.2 and cordless phone OR=2.3, 95% CI=0.6-8.8.

Hardell et al, 2006

Regarding acoustic neuroma analogue cellular phones yielded odds ratio (OR) = 2.9, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 2.0-4.3, digital cellular phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.1-2.1 and cordless phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.04-2.0.

Schoemaker et al, 2005

Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as reported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1). The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out.

Lonn et al, 2004 

The overall odds ratio for acoustic neuroma associated with regular mobile phone use was 1.0 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-1.5). Ten years after the start of mobile phone use the estimates relative risk increased to 1.9 (0.9-4.1); when restricting to tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used, the relative risk was 3.9 (1.6-9.5).