Presentations

"Radiofrequency Radiation and Your Health: Is 5G Harmful?" 

Joel Moskowitz, Federal Mobility Group webinar / video & slides, Sep 11, 2023

"Health Effects of Cellphone & Cell Tower Radiation: Implications for 5G" 

Joel Moskowitz, UC Center for Occupational & Environmental Health webinar / video & slides, Nov 3, 2021

"Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G" 

Joel Moskowitz, Occupational and Environmental Medicine Grand Rounds, University of California, San Francisco (Sep 24, 2020)

Video (52 minutes), slides and supplemental slides: https://www.saferemr.com/2020/09/UCSF-RFR-health-risks-grand-rounds.html

"Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety"
Joel Moskowitz, Keynote presentation, University Health Services, University of California, Berkeley (Feb 27, 2019)
Video (72 minutes), slides, and safety tips: https://www.saferemr.com/2019/03/cellphones-cell-towers-wireless.html

Cellphones and Public Health Policy 
Joel Moskowitz, Collaborative on Health and the Environment Webinar, May 9, 2018
Video (30 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE-ff6oSY0k

"Wireless Technology & Public Health: Health & Environmental Hazards in a Wireless World"
Joel Moskowitz, Collaborative on Health and the Environment, Teleconference (Feb 16, 2016)  http://healthandenvironment.org/wg_calls/18206
Slides: http://healthandenvironment.org/uploads/docs/MoskowitzslidesFeb162016.pdf
Audio:  http://che.webfactional.com/audio/chepartnercallwirelesstechfeb162016.mp3
Q&A:    http://healthandenvironment.org/articles/partnership_blog/18207

"Wireless Phone Radiation Risks and Public Health Policy"
Joel Moskowitz, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health presentation (Oct 22, 2015)
Slides: http://bit.ly/wirelessradiationUCLA102215

"Wireless Phone Radiation Risks and Public Health Policy"
Joel Moskowitz, Mountain View Center for Performing Arts (Oct 10, 2015)
Slides: http://bit.ly/MtnView10102015
Video:  http://bit.ly/talk101015jmm (46:29)

"Cell Phones and Your Health" (BEUHS653)

Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley faculty and staff presentation (Sep 10, 2015)
Sponsored by University Health Services/Health Matters and CITRIS
Slides: http://bit.ly/ucbjmm091015

"Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Safety Policy Options"
Joel Moskowitz, "Final Remarks: Domestic Policy Implications," Commonwealth Club of California (Jun 22, 2015) 
Slides: http://bit.ly/PolicyOptionsJMM
Video:  https://vimeo.com/133169375 (10:26)

Video & slides for the Commonwealth Club forum: "Cell Phones and Wireless Technologies: Should Safety Guidelines Be Strengthened to Protect Adults, Children and Vulnerable Populations – and Should Parents, Teachers and Schools Restrict Technology Overuse among Children?" (Jun 22, 2015): http://bit.ly/CC062215

"Wireless Phone Radiation Risks and Public Health"
Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley lecture, Health and Social Behavior (PH200) (Apr 8, 2015)
Slides: http://bit.ly/jmm04082015

"Mobile Phone Use and Cancer Risk: Research on a Group 2B Carcinogen"

Joel Moskowitz, Webinar for CDC Work Group on Cancer Prevention (Oct 29, 2014)
Slides:    http://bit.ly/CDCWebinar102914
Audio:     http://bit.ly/101l2lR or http://bit.ly/1tDZbg2

"Mobile Phone Radiation and Health: Recent Research and Policy Developments"

Joel Moskowitz, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley (Jun 19, 2014)
Slides:     http://bit.ly/1lFp9vc

"Brain Tumor Risk from Wireless Phone Use: Recent Research and Policy Implications"
Joel Moskowitz, Commonwealth Club of California (Part II: Dec 9, 2013) 
Slides:    http://bit.ly/1k9PeRQ
Video:     http://bit.ly/1kxkpto or http://bit.ly/1hx3t5j

"Expert Roundtable: Skeptical about Cell Phones and Health?"
Forum at Commonwealth Club of California (Dec 9, 2013)
Other presentations will be available soon. 
Agenda : http://bit.ly/1aqek9K

"Cell Phones & Brain Tumors What Does the Science Show?"
Joel Moskowitz, Commonwealth Club of California (Part I: Nov 18, 2010)
Slides:                       http://bit.ly/W5tNCN
Video (15 minutes): http://vimeo.com/17266112

Radio Interviews

"Cell phones and cancer"

Pat Thurston Show, KGO Radio, July 15, 2021 (36 minutes)

Host: Pat Thurston

Guest: Joel Moskowitz

Stream or download: https://omny.fm/shows/the-pat-thurston-show/july-15-2021-pat-thurston-cell-phones-and-cancer

"5G Health Risks"
Up All Night, BBC Radio 5, May 30, 2019 (9 minutes)
Host: Rhod Sharp
Guest: Joel Moskowitz
Stream or download: https://archive.org/details/5G-health-risks-BBC-Radio-5


"Are cellphones dangerous to your health?"
Kim Komando, Sep 9, 2017 
Guest: Joel Moskowitz
Download podcast: http://podcast.komando.com/episode/2388/download.mp3
https://www.komando.com/downloads/418156/are-cellphones-dangerous-to-your-health


"Berkeley Approves Radiation Warning for Cell Phones"
KQED Forum, May 18, 2015
Host: Michael Krasny
Guests: Allan Balmain, UCSF School of Medicine
             Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201505180930

http://www.kqed.org/.stream/mp3splice/radio/forum/2015/05/20150518abforum.mp3

"Wireless Radiation: What Scientists Know and You Don’t with Dr. Joel Moskowitz"

Green Street Radio, WBAI-FM (New York City), 8:00-9:00 PM EDT, Mar 10, 2015 (37 minutes)

Hosts: Doug and Patti Wood
Guest: Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
Transcript: http://bit.ly/1FCC1i6
http://www.greenstreetradio.com/wireless-radiation-what-scientists-know-and-you-dont-with-dr-joel-moskowitz/


"Cell Phones: Tobacco of the 21st Century" 

Health Action, WBAI-FM (New York City), Feb 4, 2015 (no longer available)

http://wbai.org/programupdates.php?programupdate=581

"Your Call: What do you want to know about cell phone radiation?"

Host: Rose Aguilar, Your Call, KALW - FM, Sep 16, 2014  (49 minutes)

Guests: Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley; Kevin Kunze, "Mobilize" Director

http://bit.ly/Yourcallcellphone


"Mobilize: A Film on Cell Phone Radiation”

Host:  Brian Edwards-Tiekert, Upfront, KPFA - FM, Sep 11, 2014 (25 minutes; starts at 33:50)

Guest: Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley

http://bit.ly/mobilizeKPFA
http://bit.ly/15JmxIM

"Dr. Joel Moskowitz Joins the Show"  (52 minutes)
Boil the Frog Slowly Radio and Patient Safety Radio, Aug 1, 2014
http://bit.ly/boilfrogslowly


"Wireless Revolution: Research/Policy Implications" 

Host: Layna Berman, Your Own Health and Fitness, KPFA - FM, Apr 22, 2014 (1:00-2:00 PM). 
Re-Aired on KPFA - FM on Jun 2, 2015 (1:00 - 2:00 PM)
Guest: Joel M. Moskowitz, UC Berkeley

http://bit.ly/QwhjbB



"Today on Your Call: What are 'best practices' for using digital devices?"
Host: Ali Budner, Your Call, KALW - FM, Mar 13, 2014  (53 minutes)

Guests:  Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley

                Levi Felix, founder The Digital Detox and director of Camp Grounded

http://bit.ly/1dWdnJs or http://n.pr/1l41WCz

"Cell Phones and Health"

KPFA-FM, Jan 31, 2014 (1:00-1:30 PM)
Moderator: Laura Garzon Chica
Guests:  Josh Hart, Director, StopSmartMeters

               Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley

               Kevin Kunze, Director, "Mobilize"

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/99666


"What Do You Need to Know about Cellphone Radiation?"
An interview on KAHI radio news (Nov 22, 2013) (11 minutes).

Transcript:      http://bit.ly/1heyOFv
Download at:  http://bit.ly/J2XAf9 


"Everything you and your 'Friends and Neighbors' need to know about cellphone radiation and how to protect yourselves"
A 2-part program aired on Calvary Radio Network in Dec, 2013 (50 minutes).

Download at:     http://bit.ly/18xbulT

Expert Forum on Cell Phone and Wireless Risks to Children

Cell Phones and Wireless Technologies—Should Safety Guidelines Be Strengthened to Protect Adults, Children and Vulnerable Populations? Should Parents, Teachers & Schools Restrict Technology Overuse Among Children?

Camilla Rees, Electromagnetic Health Blog, July 19, 2015

An Expert Forum on Cell Phone and Wireless Risks to Children was held at the Commonwealth Club of California on June 22, 2015. 

The focus was on the special risks to children and other vulnerable populations from cell phone and wireless exposures. It featured a special segment portraying actual dosimetry measurements of WiFi exposures in a school.

Panelists addressed the questions:

• Should safety guidelines be strengthened to protect adults, children and vulnerable populations?
• Should parents, teachers and schools restrict technology overuse among children?

The program was co-organized by ElectromagneticHealth.org and Environmental Health Trust in association with Citizens for Health, the California Brain Tumor Association and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, with the support of four of the Commonwealth Club’s Member-Led Forums: Health & Medicine, Environment & Natural Resources, Science & Technology and Business & Leadership.

Beyond the biological and health effects, the impacts on children and discussion of the adequacy of the IARC Group 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’ classification, there was a special focus on the role that overuse of wireless technologies may be playing in attention, functional and relational difficulties and in exacerbating childhood psychiatric conditions. 
Panelist Dr. Victoria Dunckley is the author of a book on this subject published recently by New World Library, “Reset Your Child’s Brain: A Four-Week Plan to End Meltdowns, Raise Grades, and Boost Social Skills by Reversing the Effects of Electronic Screen-Time."

Links to the video of each presentation appear below in addition to a link to a podcast of the entire forum.


Introductions

Dr. Bill Grant and Camilla Rees, MBA
https://vimeo.com/131743004

PDF of opening remarks by Dr. Bill Grant, Commonwealth Club, Chair Health & Medicine
http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bill-Grant-EMF-Program-Intro.pdf

PDF of introductory remarks by Camilla Rees, MBA, ElectromagneticHealth.org
http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Camilla-Rees-EMF-Program-Intro.pdf

Panel 1 Theme: What are people—and especially children—experiencing today from cell phone use, wireless devices/computers, and exposure to wireless infrastructure? Are exposure guidelines adequate?

Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD, Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE), UK
https://vimeo.com/131798243

Karl Maret, MEng, MD, Dove Health Alliance, USA
https://vimeo.com/132039697

Victoria Dunckley, MD, Child Psychiatrist, USA
https://vimeo.com/132159417


Panel 2 Theme: What is the latest EMF science telling us about the risks, the mechanisms of action, and the adequacy of the IARC warning?

Lloyd Morgan, BS, Environmental Health Trust, USA
https://vimeo.com/132983244

Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Environmental Health Trust, USA
https://vimeo.com/132867948

Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University, USA
https://vimeo.com/132870272

Nesrin Seyhan, PhD,  Head of Biophysics Department & Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory, Medical Faculty, Gazi University, Turkey
https://vimeo.com/132881352


Panel 3 Theme: Additional science and research in progress on electrosensitivity, and overview of what other countries are doing to protect children from a newly published study by Mary Redmayne, PhD, “International policy and advisory response regarding children’s exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)."

Ellen Marks, California Brain Tumor Association, USA
https://vimeo.com/132868759

Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, PhD, Professor, University of California, San Diego, USA

Video pending.

Suleyman Kaplan, PhD, Vice Rector, Ondokuz Mayis University, Turkey
https://vimeo.com/132987053

Mary Redmayne, PhD, Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Monash University, Australia
https://vimeo.com/132984659


Final Remarks: Domestic Policy Implications

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Video: https://vimeo.com/133169375

Slides: http://bit.ly/PolicyOptionsJMM

Podcast of entire forum (3:27:32)http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/audio/podcast/cc_20150622_wireless.mp3


Gratitude to the Commonwealth Club for hosting this important public health program on the risks to children from cell phones and wireless technologies, and to the panelists from five countries and many disciplines of science and medicine who together present an invaluable depiction of the harm, and potential long-term additional risks, to children from widespread exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from cell phones and wireless technologies.

http://bit.ly/CC062215

Latest Research on Bioelectromagnetics: BioEM2015

Selected Presentations and Papers from BioEM2015

 Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society

Asilomar Conference Center, California, June 14-19, 2015

“As the premier international conference in the area of bioelectromagnetics, BioEM2015 is expected to stimulate further research in this field through the exchange of ideas and lively debate on state-of-the-art knowledge, as well as gaps to be filled.”

“With the increased presence of electromagnetic fields (EMF) in our everyday lives, the meeting aims at presenting and advancing high quality research in basic and applied aspects of bioelectromagnetics to address the medical applications, health concerns, and regulations associated with EMF. BioEM2015 will feature invited plenary talks by world-renowned scientists, a variety of special sessions and panel discussions aligned with the most pressing issues in the field of bioelectromagnetics, as well as informative technical sessions, poster sessions, and social functions.”

In the opening plenary session, Kurt Straif, the head of the Monographs Program at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the WHO will raise the question, "Should IARC's Classification of RF-EMF Invoke the Precautionary Principle?."  

Kenneth Foster, a Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania who has been discussing EMF issues since 1971 will argue, "A Case for Precaution in the Application of the Precautionary Principle."  

The rebuttal,"The Precautionary Principle Should be Invoked for RF-EMF," will be provided by Christopher Portier, former Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at CDC.  Prior to his work at CDC, Dr. Portier was the Associate Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at NIH and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program. Dr. Portier served as the CDC expert on the 31-member IARC expert working group that declared radiofrequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic" to humans in 2011.

The abstracts for a selection of key papers and presentations which have the greatest potential utility for policy makers and the public can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/1IPRgEy.

Latest News Releases

Berkeley's Proposed Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance
http://www.prlog.org/12383163

iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels and Separation Distance
http://www.prlog.org/12373670

CDC Retracts its Precautionary Health Warning about Cell Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12362077

CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12359483

FCC: 98 Scientific Experts Demand Stronger Regulation of Cellphone Radiation
http://prlog.org/12355167

Scientists Call on Government to Protect Public from Wireless Radiation Exposure
http://bit.ly/ScientificDeclaration

Hybrid and Electric Automobiles Should Be Re-Designed to Reduce Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

http://www.prlog.org/12343742

Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation

http://www.prlog.org/12310450

Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC regarding Adverse Impact of Cell Tower Radiation on Wildlife
http://www.prlog.org/12299815

Cell Phone Radiation Label Bill Passes Maine Legislature Before Dying
http://www.prlog.org/12299052

Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children
http://www.prlog.org/12269207

The Top Cell Phone Radiation Safety Stories of 2013
http://www.prlog.org/12262295

Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation: Key submissions to the Federal Communications Commission
http://www.prlog.org/12245111

Belgium Adopts New Regulations to Promote Cell Phone Radiation Safety

http://www.prlog.org/12231532

French Health Agency Recommends Children and Vulnerable Groups Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Exposure
http://www.prlog.org/12226630

Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use
http://www.prlog.org/12216483

LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users

http://www.prlog.org/12215083

Cell Phone Use, Acoustic Neuroma and Cancer of the Pituitary Gland

http://www.prlog.org/12135511

Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published
http://www.prlog.org/12125230

More News Releases

No link between mobile phone radiation and cancer, says Padma awardee doctor

A news article published today in The Indian Express is titled, "No link between mobile phone radiation and cancer, says Padma awardee doctor" (http://bit.ly/1ttBlCA; article reprinted below). 

Dr Siddhartha Mukherjee, a Pulitzer Prize-winning professor of medicine from Columbia University, called on the World Health Organization to remove cellphone radiation from the list of carcinogens in a lecture he presented in New Delhi.

Why am I not surprised? 

Because on April 13, 2011, shortly before the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared that radio frequency energy, including cell phone radiation, is "possibly carcinogenic" in humans, Dr. Mukherjee published an article in the New York Times Magazine, "Do Cellphones Cause Brain Cancer?" (http://bit.ly/1ttBlCA)  He argued that "not a single trial or test that has attributed carcinogenic potential has been free of problems," and labeling something "potentially cancer-causing" is "like crying 'wolf' about cancer."

IARC uses five categories to classify the carcinogenic risk of thousands of agents, mixtures, and exposures:

• Group 1: carcinogenic to humans.
• Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans.
• Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to humans.
• Group 3: not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.
• Group 4: probably not carcinogenic to humans. (Wikipedia, http://bit.ly/1nDkrgE)
  

Apparently, Dr. Mukherjee would like IARC to use only Groups 1 and 4 as he does not like "shades of gray." He forgets that the absence of conclusive evidence of harm is not evidence of safety. Perhaps we should stop warning people about ultraviolet radiation as this exposure is classified in Group 2A? Whatever happened to the "better safe than sorry message"?

In his recent lecture, he asserted, "But I am willing to revise this assessment if there is additional data available" to which my reply is "read the peer-reviewed research published since you wrote your article in 2011." We have additional evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In fact, two peer-reviewed papers have been published making the case for a stronger classification for cell phone radiation's carcinogenicity.
 

On April 21, 2011, I wrote Dr. Mukherjee the letter which appears below. I argued the case why my colleagues and I believe that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic.  I have yet to receive a reply.

By the way, I have no conflicts of interest; Dr. Muhkerjee's recent lecture was co-sponsored by the cellphone operators association of India.

--

No link between mobile phone radiation and cancer, says Padma awardee doctor

The Indian Express (New Delhi), Apr 21, 2014

Photo caption: Pulitzer award winning India-born oncologist Dr Siddhartha Mukherjee addresses a press conference in the capital on Monday.

Summary: Calls for revision of World Health Organization’s list of carcinogens, says not enough data to establish the link.

India-born oncologist Dr Siddhartha Mukherjee on Monday urged World Health Organization to remove cellphone radiation from the list of carcinogens on the ground that the “preponderance of evidence suggests there is no link” between radiation from mobile phones and cancer. In an event sponsored by COAI (formerly known as Cellphone Operators Association of India), India International Centre and Open Health Systems Laboratory,  he delivered a lecture making a strong case for the revision.

Dr Mukherjee, author of the Pulitzer winning book The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer that was published in 2010, is currently in India to accept the Padmashree award. He is an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University and a staff physician at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

In a recent article in The New York Times he had argued that the drastic increase in cellphone usage does not mirror incidence of brain cancer, neither is the radiation emitted by cellphones of the nature that can directly damage DNA. He also termed as “loose” WHO’s definition of “possible carcinogens”, some of which “defies logic” in their proclivity to be more conservative.
However, he says, “The last word has not been said on the matter of cellphone radiation and cancer. The interphone trials (that sought to examine the link) have a serious recall bias — people did not always correctly recall the extent of their cellphone usage. There is a need to examine how radiation of that wavelength can be carcinogenic. I would ask WHO to downgrade cellphone radiation in the list of carcinogens, which includes coffee. But I am willing to revise this assessment if there is additional data available.”

But he says there is not enough data to make a similar claim about radiation emitted by cellphone towers ...

http://bit.ly/1ttBlCA

-------------------
April 21, 2011

Siddhartha Mukherjee, M.D., Ph.D.
Columbia University
Herbert Irving Cancer Research Center (Audubon III )
Room 603 1130 St. Nicholas Avenue
New York, NY 10032

Dear Professor Mukherjee:

First, I would like to congratulate you on your Pulitzer Prize. I look forward to reading your book.

I am writing you about your recent New York Times magazine article and NPR interview about cell phone radiation and brain tumor risk. Although I agree that epidemiologic research does not yield conclusive evidence, my colleagues and I have carefully read and analysed this research and conclude that the evidence is highly suggestive of increased brain tumor risk due to prolonged cell phone use.

My colleagues and I published a meta-analysis of 23 case-control studies (Myung, SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng C-T, Moskowitz JM. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009. 27(33):5565-5572). Although overall we found no evidence of increased tumor risk (including brain, eye, facial nerve, salivary gland, NHL), in our opinion it is a mistake to simply look at the “weight of the evidence” as many scientific committees and government health agencies have done, because not all of the evidence warrants equal weight. In our meta-analysis, cell phone use was associated with significantly increased tumor risk in the high quality or non-industry-funded studies, and significantly associated with decreased tumor risk in the low quality or industry-funded studies. The latter findings were most likely attributable to bias. Moreover, we found that 10 or more years of cell phone use was associated with significantly increased brain tumor risk. Another recent review obtained similar results (Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology. 2009. 72(3):205-14.)

Since these two review papers were published, pooled results from the Interphone study were published from data collected in 13 nations between 2000 and 2004 (Interphone Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010. 39(3):675-694). Like many other epidemiologic studies, most participants in Interphone hardly used cell phones. In fact, the typical user had fewer than 100 hours of lifetime use. Furthermore, as you know brain tumors can take decades to develop so it’s unrealistic to expect to see increased tumor risk in the short term. The typical user in the Interphone study had their phones for about five years.

We agree that the quality of the epidemiologic research has been problematic, and that one cannot draw causal inferences from case-control studies. The Interphone study had numerous problems which have been discussed in the literature (Morgan, LL. Estimating the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use: Published case-control studies. Pathophysiology. 2009. 16(2-3):137-147). However, most of these biases work against finding increased tumor risk. 

Nonetheless, the study found increased risk of glioma in the highest decile of use group (i.e., lifetime cell phone use of 1,640 or more hours). This finding held up in 44 sensitivity analyses that controlled for potential study biases including the concern that some glioma patients may have exaggerated their cell phone use. (Also, a separate methods study indicated that recall bias was not differential for cases and controls.)

The final analyses reported in the second appendix to the Interphone study corrected for what was likely the most important study bias—participation bias. These analyses found a “dose-response relationship”—increased glioma risk with increasing number of years of cell phone use. Among those who used cell phones 10 or more years, Interphone found more than a doubling of glioma risk compared to cell phone users of less than 2 years. These results were similar to those found in a study conducted by Lennart Hardell and colleagues in Sweden. (In these analyses, the risk estimate for the highest decile of use group increased from 1.40 reported in Table 2 to 1.80.)

Three Interphone study investigators including the lead investigator, Elisabeth Cardis, along with Siegal Sadetzki and Bruce Armstrong, have recently called for precautionary health warnings. About a dozen nations have issued warnings to limit children’s cell phone use or to keep cell phones a safe distance from the body, especially the head and genitals. Typical recommendations include use of a wired headset, speakerphone or text and not use phones in locations with weak signals or in moving vehicles.

In addition to the epidemiologic evidence for tumor risk, there is considerable evidence from animal and cellular studies of biologic reactivity to cell phone radiation. Here, too, the evidence is inconsistent, but according to a review by Henry Lai, the research conducted independent of industry funding was far more likely to find harmful effects than industry-funded studies.

The U.S. government needs to cultivate and fund a scientific community that operates independent of industry for us to develop an unbiased, scientific knowledge base that can be used to develop policies that minimize population health risks from the adoption of EMF technologies. A $1 per year fee on cell phones would generate $300 million annually for this work.

Although brain tumors are rare and the research on cell phone radiation is not yet conclusive, with more than 300 million cell phones in use in the U.S. we believe it is imprudent from a public health standpoint to wait before issuing precautionary health recommendations. At a minimum, precautionary principle actions are immediately warranted.

Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss these issues.

Best regards,

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.

Comments on "Do people understand IARC’s 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?"

In May, 2011, a working group composed of 31 experts on electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported on the results of an extensive review of the health effects research. The committee concluded that radio frequency energy is a Group 2B carcinogen, which means this type of electromagnetic radiation is possibly cancer-causing in humans.   

In arriving at this conclusion, the working group relied heavily on the results of the Interphone Study, a 13-nation study sponsored by the WHO, and a series of studies conducted by Dr. Lennart Hardell in Sweden.

The journal Bioelectromagnetics recently published a "letter to the editor" which questions the 2B classification (1). Although the letter makes a few valid points — most laypersons don’t understand the meaning of “possibly carcinogenic” or “40% risk increase” — the authors' intent seems to be to undermine the credibility of the IARC working group’s review of the health effects of exposure to radio frequency energy. In his science blog on mobile phone radiation and health, Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski has called this letter, "A travesty of science."

The letter is a polemic which argues that the IARC working group should have been composed of members “who are not involved in the EMF field” to avoid conflicts of interest. The authors recommend that scientific review panels be composed of individuals who have no expertise in the specific field of study under review — a rather odd solution to this age-old problem.

Ironically, the authors cite Dr. Ahlbom’s work to dismiss Dr. Hardell’s research; yet, Dr. Ahlbom was the scientist with the undisclosed conflict of interest. Dr. Ahlbom opted not to attend the IARC working group meeting after WHO informed him he could not chair the epidemiology subgroup after Mona Nilsson, a Swedish investigative journalist “outed” him for his undisclosed associations with the cellular industry.

The authors failed to discuss the results published in Appendix 2 of the major Interphone study paper which finds that after correcting for one of the study biases the 40% risk increase for the heavy cellphone use group becomes an 80% risk increase.

The authors also failed to mention the peer-reviewed research that has been published since the IARC working group was convened in 2011. These more recent studies provide greater evidence of the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation.

Why are the authors of this paper so motivated to dismiss the science and the consensus of the 30-member IARC working group (not counting the member from our National Cancer Institute who walked out of the meeting in protest)?  One must wonder whether the authors disclosed all of their conflicts of interests?

***

(1) Wiedemann PM, Boerner FU, Repacholi MH. Do people understand IARC’s 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones? Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Apr 15. doi: 10.1002/bem.21851. [Epub ahead of print]

Abstract

In May 2011, the International Agency on Cancer in Research (IARC) issued an official statement concluding that cell phone usage was “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” There have been considerable doubts that non-experts and experts alike fully understood what IARC’s categorization actually meant, as “possibly carcinogenic” can be interpreted in many ways. The present study is based on an online survey indicating that both the characterization of the probability of carcinogenicity, as well as the description of the risk increase given in the IARC press release, was mostly misunderstood by study participants. Respondents also greatly overestimated the magnitude of the potential risk. Our study results showed that IARC needs to improve their scientific communications.

http://1.usa.gov/1qU1lFa

Excerpts

Using Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA), an online survey consisting of 13 questions was conducted in April 2012. Information about this on-going survey and the opportunity to participate was made available to all 27,000 students of the University of Innsbruck in Austria. A total of 2,013 students with a mean age of 24.5 years participated, with 66% of the respondents being female and 34% male. The students were from a wide variety of academic disciplines, and participation was anonymous and voluntary. The survey used parts of the original IARC [2011] press release as stimulus material. Participants were instructed to read the text from the original IARC press release: “The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use. The IARC [2011] did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (using their phones for 30?min per day over a 10-year period).”

… We asked, “What does a 40% risk increase mean?” and “How many additional cases will suffer from cancer?” Respondents could choose between five answers (1) 1 in 4, (2) 4 in 10, (3) 4 in 100, (4) 1 in 40, and (5) a number >0. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of respondents interpreted a 40% risk increase as 4 in 10. The correct answer depends on the baseline, that is, the normal brain cancer incidence in the population studied. Since IARC does not present any baseline information, a number >0, is the only meaningful answer to the information provided from Text 1. Figure 2 shows that only about 10% of the respondents picked the correct category (N?>?0).

…The relative risk statement should be strengthened by information on the incidence rate expressed as the number of new cases per unit of population per year. Given that the incidence of adult glioma is approximately 4.7 per 100,000 persons a year, a 40% increase in risk would mean an additional 1.9 cases of glioma per 100,000 people each year.

… A good 2B narrative should address the issues of who, why and what follows from the 2B classification. The “who” refers to the need to characterize the authors of the classification. The key issue here is that the credibility of the classification of RF fields depends on trust in the process and in the people who conducted the classification. There should be some concern that there are working group members who are the very researchers assessing the quality of their own studies. This would be a reason for people to question the credibility of the classification. A solution to this credibility issue for IARC could be to more thoroughly determine and account for the various potential conflicts of interest and to search for potential working group members without such conflicts. An example could be to select working group members who are not involved in the EMF field to conduct a truly independent review.

… The Interphone Study noted that: “Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.” IARC claims this is a positive study according to their definition when the study authors do not. This is a credibility issue. This existing ambiguity in the 2B-evidence base opens IARC’s classification to contrasting interpretations and opinions. From a communications standpoint, it is necessary to clearly and transparently inform about the pro and contra arguments for the classification based on the selected evidence. The other positive study [2009] was clearly demonstrated [2009] to be an outlier compared with the majority of other epidemiological studies. While IARC’s definition of 2B was technically complied with, because two epidemiology studies showed positive results, there is considerable doubt about the interpretation of what is a positive effect.

… The central message of the present study is that IARC needs to improve their current scientific communications, and in doing so, keep within its mandate vis-à-vis its parent WHO. We believe that focusing, for example, on adding a quantitative explanation to verbal probability expressions or using comparisons and narratives could help to ensure that everyone understands the state of the scientific findings and their underlying uncertainty. This may also enable all parties to draw the necessary conclusions for future health policy activities.

Conflicts of interest: The Science Forum EMF, founded by Peter Wiedemann, is a project of the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), a member of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres.

Wireless Radiation Safety, 2013: Year in Review

2013 was an important year for research on cell phone and wireless radiation health risks and related policy developments. Key research and policy developments include the following:

• 25 or more years of cell phone and cordless phone use was found to be associated with a tripled risk of brain cancer.
• Women who used cell phones for ten or more years were two-and- a-half times more likely to develop acoustic neuroma, a tumor on the nerve from the ear to the brain.
• Only 30 minutes of exposure to LTE, 4th generation cell phone radiation, was found to alter activity on both sides of the human brain.
• Children with slightly elevated lead levels in their blood who used cell phones were found to be at greater risk of developing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) than lead-exposed children who did not use cell phones; the amount of cell phone use predicted ADHD.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requested public input on its 17-year-old regulatory limits on cell phone radiation.
• The American Academy of Pediatrics submitted a letter to the FCC that urged the adoption of standards that protect children's health and well-being from radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices; that reflect how people actually use their cell phones; and that provide sufficient information to enable consumers to make informed decisions when they purchase cell phones.
• The U.S. appointed Tom Wheeler, the former chief lobbyist for the cellular industry, to chair the FCC, raising concerns in the public health community that the FCC will not strengthen our obsolete and inadequate cell phone radiation standards.
•  The World Health Organization in a 471 page report concluded that there is now “limited evidence” in both humans and laboratory animals that radiofrequency radiation, especially from cell phones, causes cancer.
• The European Environment Agency issued a report calling on governments to reduce exposure to cell phone radiation, especially exposure to children and young adults who are at greatest risk for brain and salivary gland tumors; the report recommended texting, use of hands-free sets, and improved cell phone design; governments should reconsider the present exposure standards; cell phones should be required to have effective labeling and warnings about potential risks; and funding should be provided for “urgently needed research into the health effects of phones” and base stations.
• Twelve health experts called on governments to adopt stricter safety standards for radiofrequency radiation because the obsolete, current standards are not based on the recent literature about biological effects; and recommended that Wi-Fi be banned from public schools and other public venues.
• The Los Angeles Unified School District adopted a $500 million technology plan to install Wi-Fi in every classroom and provide every student with a wireless tablet despite opposition from health experts and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
• Belgium banned children’s cell phones and requires the specific absorption rate (SAR) be listed on every cell phone at the point of sale and a warning provided to customers to choose a lower SAR phone, use it moderately, and wear an earpiece.
• The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health warned the public to reduce their exposure to cell phone radiation.

Of the 21 news releases I prepared this year, my most popular article reported on the first published study about the effects on the human brain of exposure to the fourth generation (4G) cell phone technology, LTE. This peer-reviewed, study found that 30 minutes' exposure to LTE cellphone radiation altered activity on both sides of the brain.

The study established that short-term exposure to LTE microwave radiation affects the user's brain activity. Although LTE technology is too new for the long-term health consequences to be studied, we have growing evidence that long-term cell phone use is associated with various health risks in humans including increased risk of head and neck cancer, sperm damage and male infertility, and health effects on children from pre- and post-natal exposure (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). A recent study documented four cases of women who developed breast tumors proximal to where they kept their cell phones in their bras.

Although the LTE study was not reported by the mainstream media, my press release received more than 7,000 page views on the website where I posted it and generated almost 800 Facebook “likes” and 75 tweets. The release was translated into Spanish, French, Dutch, and Finnish and re-posted on 43 websites around the world, receiving many more page views. 

Listed below in order of popularity are the eleven most popular news releases I distributed this year through PRLOG, a press release distribution website, and the nine most popular articles I posted this year on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website. My news releases received about 60,000 page views, and my website received about 40,000 page views from visitors in more than 100 countries attesting to the worldwide concern about electromagnetic radiation safety.

Eleven Most Popular Electromagnetic Radiation Safety Press Releases of the Year 

LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users 

Oct 24, 2013 
Your Cell Phone Company May Affect Your Risk of Brain Cancer

Mar 27, 2013 
Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published

Apr 24, 2013 
Cell Phone Use, Acoustic Neuroma and Cancer of the Pituitary Gland 
May 10, 2013

FCC Needs Input about Radio-Frequency Radiation 
Jul 19, 2013 
Wireless Industry's Patented System to Reduce Cancer Risk from Wireless Local Networks Never Adopted
Mar 11, 2013
WHO Monograph on Cancer Risk from Mobile Phone Use Released 

Apr 19, 2013

Call for Action to Reduce Harm from Mobile PhoneRadiation 
Jan 23, 2013 
Children's Cell Phone Use May Increase Their Risk of ADHD 
Apr 2, 2013
Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use: Study 

Sep 25, 2013 
Did Tom Wheeler, Nominee for FCC Chair, Subvert Research Showing Harm From Cell Phone Radiation? 
May 28, 2013

Nine Most Popular Articles of the Year on the SaferEMR Website 

Cellphones and Health
Nov 3, 2013
Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation:An Index of FCC Submissions 

Nov 20, 2013 
Opposition to the Los Angeles Public Schools Wi-Fi Policy 
Mar 25, 2013 
American Academy of Pediatrics Demands FCC Protect Children from Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation 
Sep 12, 2013
French Health Agency Recommends Children and Vulnerable Groups Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Exposure 
Oct 15, 2013 
MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study
May 10, 2013 
Experts Adopt Two Resolutions about Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation 
Apr 18, 2013 
World Health Organization Monograph on Cancer Risk from Mobile Phone Use Released 
Apr 19, 2013 
Welcome to EMR Safety
Dec 16, 2013

American Academy of Pediatrics: Protect Children from Cell Phone & Wireless Radiation

Letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the FCC 

Regarding Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Standards

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics submitted the following letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 

The letter "urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards" that 1) protect children's health and well-being from radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices; 2) reflect how people actually use their cell phones; and 3)  provide sufficient information that enables consumers to make informed decisions when they purchase mobile phones.

The letter is also  available on the FCC's web site at http://bit.ly/17tQclg.

August 29, 2013

The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn
Acting Commissioner 
Federal Communications Commission 
445 12th Street SW 
Washington, DC 20054

The Honorable Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg
Commissioner 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
10903 New Hampshire Avenue 
Silver Spring, MD 20993
 

Dear Acting Chairwoman Clyburn and Commissioner Hamburg:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule “Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2013.
 
In the past few years, a number of American and international health and scientific bodies have contributed to the debate over cell phone radiation and its possible link to cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The National Cancer Institute has stated that although studies have not demonstrated that RF energy from cell phones definitively causes cancer, more research is needed because cell phone technology and cell phone use are changing rapidly. These studies and others clearly demonstrate the need for further research into this area and highlight the importance of reassessing current policy to determine if it is adequately protective of human health. 

As radiation standards are reassessed, the AAP urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards that: 

• Protect children’s health and well-being. Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes. 

• Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996. Approximately 44 million people had mobile phones when the standard was set; today, there are more than 300 million mobile phones in use in the United States. While the prevalence of wireless phones and other devices has skyrocketed, the behaviors around cell phone uses have changed as well. The number of mobile phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use mobile phones has increased, while cell phone and wireless technology has undergone substantial changes. Many children, adolescents and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures. FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today. 

• Provide meaningful consumer disclosure. The FCC has noted that it does not provide consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience. 

The AAP supports the reassessment of radiation standards for cell phones and other wireless products and the adoption of standards that are protective of children and reflect current use patterns. If you have questions, please contact Clara Filice in the AAP’s Washington Office at 202/347-8600.

Sincerely, 


Thomas K. McInerny, MD FAAP
President