Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation

The FCC received more than 900 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the media and to the public. 

 These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.

 Although fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken our radiation standards instead of strengthen them.

In all, 955 submissions were made to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and June 30, 2014. Many submissions include multiple documents. To access these papers go to the FCC's web site for Proceeding Number 13-84: http://bit.ly/1aGxQiq.

Although there is a crude search engine on the FCC web site, one cannot use it to search the documents that were submitted. Thus, to help investigative journalists, researchers, and activists, I have created a table of contents for this valuable archive about cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.

The table organizes the submissions by into the following categories: (1) professionals, health scientists and engineers; (2) consumer, environmental and health organizations; (3) municipalities; (4) wireless industry corporations and organizations; and (5) miscellaneous other. The listings contain direct links to the documents.

Not indexed below are submissions from the many individuals who did not provide an affiliation. These individuals uploaded numerous scientific publications which enable the general public to access these papers from the FCC's web site. 

Electrosmog illness

Many individuals not indexed below submitted written testimony documenting adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. This condition has been called electrosensitivity or electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is recognized as a functional impairment in Sweden. Perhaps, it is more appropriately called electrosmog illness.

Boston and Philadelphia Accuse Federal Agencies of Negligence

In a November 18 filing with the FCC, the cities of Boston and Philadelphia in their joint submission accused the FCC and Federal health agencies of negligence for failing to investigate whether electrosensitive persons are harmed by cell phone radiation:
"The FCC admits its own lack of expertise in the field. But the overlap of federal agency responsibilities for RF radiation protection and the merely advisory status of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group often leaves leadership unclear and encourages a pass-the-buck attitude ...

The 1999-2000 judicial challenge to the FCC’s 1996 rules never reached the issue of “electrosensitivity” as a cognizable disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (“ADA”) Here again, an agency responsible for ADA implementation acknowledges that the impairment may be disabling but has promised merely further inquiry. After more than a decade, that investigation remains unopened. The dockets here have been updated with massive additional evidence of the crippling effects of RF radiation on an admitted minority – but a suffering minority – of U.S. citizens. The FCC and its sister regulatory agencies share responsibility for adherence to the ADA and should replace promises with serious attention to a serious medical problem. This is one area where the FCC could lead in advice to electrosensitive persons about prudent avoidance." http://bit.ly/1kAYSu7
The table of contents below is not comprehensive. If I missed some critical documents, please send me the direct links, and I will consider their inclusion in an updated index.



Selected FCC Submissions re: 

 "Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 
Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)
Last revision: 7-23-2014
Professionals, Health Scientists and Engineers



 Benevento Resolution (Belpoggi, Blackman, et al)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941320


http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311191
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017467408

Devra Davis PhD MPH, Alvaro de Salles PhD, Susan Downs MD, Gunnar Heuser MD PhD, Anthony Miller MD. Lloyd Morgan BSEE, Yael Stein MD. Elihu Richter MD MPH (rebuttal of the CTIA's claims)
http://bit.ly/1aGDa5w

David DeBus, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520928685

Dr. Jack Dresser
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941543
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098235
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521098074

Cheryl Harter, MD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017467987

Dr. Suleyman Kaplan
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941388

Toril Jeter, MD, FAACP
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958097
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941432

 Robert Kane, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941400

 Henry C. Lai, PhD & B. Blake Levitt
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311465
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311466
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311543
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311544
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941777
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939733
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939734

Victor Leach / Simon Turner   

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941929

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD
http://bit.ly/1b9FG37  (compilation of my press releases from prior 2 years)

 Miriam D. Weber, MD

Grace Ziem, MD, MPH, DrPH
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017467251


Consumer, Environmental and Health Organizations

American Academy of Pediatrics
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318

American Academy of Environmental Medicine
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941435


http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311548
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311547
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311546
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311545
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311542
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311541
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311540
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311533
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311532
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311531
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311530
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311529
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311528
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311527
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311526
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311525
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311522
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311518
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311517
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311516
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311515
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311537
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311538
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311510


Pharmacists Planning Service Inc (PPSI)


Municipalities
 
Clear Image
Wireless Industry Corporations and Organizations

Alarm Industry Communications Committee
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958406

ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941424



Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941477

National Association of Broadcasters
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941561

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958184
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941659


Miscellaneous Other

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Kevin Kunze (transcript from "Mobilize," a new documentary on cell phone radiation)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940431

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Why do many scientists around the world believe mobile phone use increases cancer risk?

Given  the international media attention generated by the City of Berkeley's proposed cell phone warning law, I have been questioned by journalists and others why I believe that mobile (cell and cordless) phone use increases brain cancer risk.

My colleagues and I published a meta-analysis on mobile phone use and tumor risk five years ago in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (Myung et al. 2009). When we grouped the 23 studies based upon the quality of the research, we found strong differences. In the thirteen studies which failed to meet scientific best practices, we found what appeared to be reduced tumor risk. However, in the ten higher-quality studies we found increased tumor risk among mobile phone users, especially in brain tumor studies. Increased brain tumor risk was generally found in studies where individuals had used mobile phones for ten or more years. The risk was stronger on the side of the head where people predominantly used their mobile phones.

 Interestingly, the higher quality studies had no funding from the cellular industry, whereas the lower quality studies had at least partial industry funding.

In May, 2011, thirty-one experts were convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. After a review of the epidemiologic and toxicology research, the expert group classified radiofrequency radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B carcinogen), largely based upon the epidemiologic studies of long-term mobile phone use.

Since 2011, several new, major epidemiologic studies have been published which provide further evidence that long-term mobile phone use is associated with increased risk of glioma, a type of malignant brain tumor, and acoustic neuroma, a nonmalignant tumor of the nerve from the ear to the brain. Moreover, the risks increase with the amount and duration of mobile phone use and are stronger on the side of the head where the mobile phone was predominantly used. 

A careful review of the research strongly suggests that long-term mobile phone use increases the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma. Furthermore, although more research is needed, there is some evidence that mobile phone may increase the risk of other head and neck tumors (e.g., meningioma and parotid gland tumors). Currently, many scientists in the U.S. and in many other nations share this belief. Some, however, will not express this belief publicly in order not to jeopardize industry funding for their research. Many researchers are funded largely by industry, and some are now conducting 30-year cohort studies. 

Industry,of course, prefers we wait until these studies are concluded before governments issue precautionary safety warnings or alter public policies that regulate mobile phones and other wireless devices. This is a tactic that was used successfully for decades by the tobacco industry as well as other industries to delay regulation at the expense of public health. 

 See the three recently published review papers cited below for the supporting evidence that long-term exposure to the non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones increases tumor risk.

 Additional resources can be found on this Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.

---

Hardell L., Carlberg M. 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. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):97-106. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0006.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Wireless phones, i.e., mobile phones and cordless phones, emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) when used. An increased risk of brain tumors is a major concern. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the carcinogenic effect to humans from RF-EMF in May 2011. It was concluded that RF-EMF is a group 2B, i.e., a "possible", human carcinogen. Bradford Hill gave a presidential address at the British Royal Society of Medicine in 1965 on the association or causation that provides a helpful framework for evaluation of the brain tumor risk from RF-EMF.

METHODS:

All nine issues on causation according to Hill were evaluated. Regarding wireless phones, only studies with long-term use were included. In addition, laboratory studies and data on the incidence of brain tumors were considered.

RESULTS:

The criteria on strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient for evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma were fulfilled. Additional evidence came from plausibility and analogy based on laboratory studies. Regarding coherence, several studies show increasing incidence of brain tumors, especially in the most exposed area. Support for the experiment came from antioxidants that can alleviate the generation of reactive oxygen species involved in biologic effects, although a direct mechanism for brain tumor carcinogenesis has not been shown. In addition, the finding of no increased risk for brain tumors in subjects using the mobile phone only in a car with an external antenna is supportive evidence. Hill did not consider all the needed nine viewpoints to be essential requirements.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24192496

---

Levis AG, Minicuci N, Ricci P, Gennaro V, Garbisa S.Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise? Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-59.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Whether or not there is a relationship between use of mobile phones (analogue and digital cellulars, and cordless) and head tumour risk (brain tumours, acoustic neuromas, and salivary gland tumours) is still a matter of debate; progress requires a critical analysis of the methodological elements necessary for an impartial evaluation of contradictory studies.

METHODS

A close examination of the protocols and results from all case-control and cohort studies, pooled- and meta-analyses on head tumour risk for mobile phone users was carried out, and for each study the elements necessary for evaluating its reliability were identified. In addition, new meta-analyses of the literature data were undertaken. These were limited to subjects with mobile phone latency time compatible with the progression of the examined tumours, and with analysis of the laterality of head tumour localisation corresponding to the habitual laterality of mobile phone use.

RESULTS

Blind protocols, free from errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give positive results that reveal a cause-effect relationship between long-term mobile phone use or latency and statistically significant increase of ipsilateral head tumour risk, with biological plausibility. Non-blind protocols, which instead are affected by errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give negative results with systematic underestimate of such risk. However, also in these studies a statistically significant increase in risk of ipsilateral head tumours is quite common after more than 10 years of mobile phone use or latency. The meta-analyses, our included, examining only data on ipsilateral tumours in subjects using mobile phones since or for at least 10 years, show large and statistically significant increases in risk of ipsilateral brain gliomas and acoustic neuromas.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or latency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=21679472

---

Davis DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y. Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.03.001. Epub 2013 May 7.

Abstract

With 5.9 billion reported users, mobile phones constitute a new, ubiquitous and rapidly growing exposure worldwide. Mobile phones are two-way microwave radios that also emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Inconsistent results have been published on potential risks of brain tumors tied with mobile phone use as a result of important methodological differences in study design and statistical power. Some studies have examined mobile phone users for periods of time that are too short to detect an increased risk of brain cancer, while others have misclassified exposures by placing those with exposures to microwave radiation from cordless phones in the control group, or failing to attribute such exposures in the cases. In 2011, the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) advised that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone and other wireless devices constitutes a "possible human carcinogen," 2B. Recent analyses not considered in the IARC review that take into account these methodological shortcomings from a number of authors find that brain tumor risk is significantly elevated for those who have used mobile phones for at least a decade. Studies carried out in Sweden indicate that those who begin using either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 have greater than a fourfold increased risk of ipsilateral glioma. Given that treatment for a single case of brain cancer can cost between $100,000 for radiation therapy alone and up to $1 million depending on drug costs, resources to address this illness are already in short supply and not universally available in either developing or developed countries. Significant additional shortages in oncology services are expected at the current growth of cancer. No other environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one decade. Empirical data have shown a difference in the dielectric properties of tissues as a function of age, mostly due to the higher water content in children's tissues. High resolution computerized models based on human imaging data suggest that children are indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies. If the increased brain cancer risk found in young users in these recent studies does apply at the global level, the gap between supply and demand for oncology services will continue to widen. Many nations, phone manufacturers, and expert groups, advise prevention in light of these concerns by taking the simple precaution of "distance" to minimize exposures to the brain and body. We note than brain cancer is the proverbial "tip of the iceberg"; the rest of the body is also showing effects other than cancers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23664410
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 21, 2014

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.
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, April 18, 2014

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.
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Cell Phone Radiation Label Bill Passes Maine Legislature Before Dying

The Maine House and Senate passed "The Wireless Information Act," a cell phone radiation label requirement, and then killed it prior to enactment due to cellular industry lobbyists.

 On March 11, 2014, the Maine House House of Representatives passed an amended version of "The Wireless Information Act" on a vote of 83 to 56.  The bill, LD 1013, requires that any manufacturer's information relating to radio-frequency exposure must be plainly visible on the outside of the cell phone's product packaging or the packaging must contain a label with the following warning for all cell phones sold in the state that have manufacturer's safety warnings:
"RF EXPOSURE: To find information relating to radio-frequency exposure, refer to information supplied by the manufacturer" and language directing consumers to the page or pages of the owner's manual or other insert or location where the radio-frequency exposure guidelines or instructions or general information may be found."

The amended bill specifies that it applies only to cell phones sold at retail in the state, and that the law would take effect only after four other states, in addition to Maine, have adopted legislation requiring labeling of cell phones or cell phone packaging relating to radio-frequency exposure.

Rep. Andrea Boland sponsored the bill.

Prior to the vote, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig publicly announced at a lecture at the University of Southern Maine that he would help defend the law if the industry sued and the State of Maine did not want to defend it.

On March 18, the Maine Senate passed the amended bill on a 21-14 vote.  

Before a bill goes to the Governor for approval in Maine, it is returned to the originating body for enactment, usually a routine matter.  However, on March 20, the bill died in the Maine House of Representatives as the House failed to enact it on a 77-60 vote.  Cell phone industry lobbyists killed the bill by co-opting the Democratic House leadership to switch their votes from approval to disapproval.

Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, have tried to adopt cell phone warning label laws but have been blocked by intense lobbying by the cell phone industry. The industry does not want consumers to read the microwave radiation safety warnings that cell phone manufacturers bury in cell phone user manuals, nor does it want cell phone users to take simple precautions to reduce their risk of harm.  The industry has argued before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that consumers will panic if they are informed about the risks from exposure to cell phone radiation that have been reported in the scientific literature.

Why does the cellular industry continue to hide from the public the RF safety information contained in the cell phone user manuals?  Isn't this short-sighted from the perspective of product liability? Why isn't this industry concerned about public safety?

The wording of the bill and the amendment appear below.
LD 1013 (HP 711)
‘An Act To Create the Wireless Information Act’
‘Sec. 1.  22 MRSA c. 261-B  is enacted to read:
CHAPTER 261-B
THE WIRELESS INFORMATION ACT
§ 1537. Short title
This chapter may be known and cited as "the Wireless Information Act."
§ 1538. Labels for cellular telephones

1.  Definitions.     As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

A.  "Cellular telephone" means a device used to access a wireless telephone service.

2.  Prominence of instructions.     If a cellular telephone manufacturer includes guidelines or instructions or general information relating to radio-frequency exposure in any literature distributed or made available to consumers in connection with its products, the cellular telephone manufacturer shall ensure that:

A.  The full language of the radio-frequency exposure guidelines or instructions or general information is plainly visible on the outside of the product packaging; or

B.  A label is plainly visible on the outside of the product packaging alerting consumers to the radio-frequency exposure guidelines or instructions or general information. The body of the notice must be in letters not less than 1/16 inch in height. The initial words "RF EXPOSURE" must appear in capital letters and in bold type at least 1/8 inch in height, followed by: "To find information relating to radio-frequency exposure, refer to information supplied by the manufacturer" and language directing consumers to the page or pages of the owner's manual or other insert or location where the radio-frequency exposure guidelines or instructions or general information may be found.

3.  Violation.    A violation of this chapter is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.’

SUMMARY

This amendment replaces the bill. It requires that any notification related to radio-frequency exposure supplied by a cellular telephone manufacturer must have the language of the notification plainly visible on the outside of the product packaging or a label, plainly visible on the outside of the product packaging, directing the consumer where to find the information. A violation of this provision is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. 

AMENDMENT
Amend the amendment in section 1 in §1538 by inserting after subsection 2 the following:

‘3.  Application.    This section applies only to cellular telephones sold at retail in this State.’
Amend the amendment in section 1 in §1538 by renumbering the subsections to read consecutively.
Amend the amendment by inserting after section 1 the following:
‘Sec. 2. Contingent effective date; repeal.
1. Effective date. The chair of the Public Utilities Commission shall monitor legislative activities in other states and certify to the Secretary of State and the Revisor of Statutes when 4 states, in addition to Maine, have adopted legislation requiring labeling of cellular telephones or cellular telephone packaging relating to radio-frequency exposure. The chair shall notify the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over utilities matters when certification is made. That section of this Act that enacts the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22, chapter 261-B takes effect 30 days after the date of the chair's certification.
2. Repeal. If no certification has been made by the chair of the Public Utilities Commission under subsection 1 before January 1, 2024, the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22, chapter 261-B is repealed on that date.’
 SUMMARY
This amendment provides that the requirements governing the labeling of cellular telephones or cellular telephone packaging relating to radio-frequency exposure applies only to cellular telephones sold at retail in Maine. This amendment also requires that before this legislation takes effect, 4 other states must adopt legislation requiring labeling of cellular telephones or cellular telephone packaging relating to radio-frequency exposure.
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)