User Bar First

This is a debugging block

User Bar Second

This is a debugging block

Subscribe to Syndicate
A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Branding

This is a debugging block

Header First

This is a debugging block

Header Second

This is a debugging block

Preface First

This is a debugging block

Preface Second

This is a debugging block

Preface Third

This is a debugging block

News Center: Short Takes Archive

Content

This is a debugging block

December 17, 2010

One of the glaring omissions of the Interphone cell phone–brain tumor paper is any serious discussion of a similar study by Lennart Hardell's group in Sweden and how they compare (see "Interphone Points to Long-Term Brain Tumor Risks"). Hardell, Michael Carlberg and Kjell Hansson Mild have now filled in the blanks. In a letter to the International Journal of Epidemiology, released today, they present a new analysis of their own data which has been restricted to be consistent with those data collected by the Interphone group. That is, they dropped cases among 20-29 year olds, and the use of cordless phones was disregarded. The bottom line is that the two sets of results are generally consistent with each other. "In conclusion both studies showed a statistically significantly doubled risk for glioma at the same side as the mobile phone had been used for 1,640 hours or more," they state in a press release

December 16, 2010

A biological effect that goes away with a small change in the experimental setup provides convincing evidence that the original observation is not an artifact. A group in Ankara gives such an example in a new paper on the effects of cell phone radiation on the brain tissue of rats. The 900 MHz phone signal caused changes in the activity of a number of enzymes, but they disappeared when the rats were fed vitamin C. Take a look, the paper is a free download from the December issue of the International Journal of Radiation Biology.Three years ago, another Turkish group, this one in Isparta, showed a similar type of change with and without vitamin C. There is a constant flow of new research papers coming out of Turkey. It has a much larger research program than does the U.S.; it's one of the strongest in the world. 

December 15, 2010

We recently wrote about the new ICEMS monograph on non-thermal effects which can be downloaded from the Internet. A printed copy of the collection of papers is now available from the publisher, Mattioli 1885 in Fidenza, Italy (not far from Parma). The 400-page paperback costs €29 (approx. US$39).

December 11, 2010

In today's Wall Street Journal, Carl Bialik, the newspaper's "Numbers Guy," digs into reports from the Netherlands on the effects of Wi-Fi radiation on trees. The headline, "Wi-Fi Threat to Trees Rooted in Shaky Stats," tells the story. Check out also Bialik's accompanying blog entry, "Trees and Wi-Fi May Co-Exist After All."

December 10, 2010

Monaco, the world's smallest country, now has one the world's toughest RF exposure standards. An ordinance adopted at the end of November requires ambient levels near mobile phone towers not exceed 4 V/m (~4 µW/cm2). For radio and TV towers, the limit is a slightly more lenient 6 V/m. These are about ten times stricter than the limits recommended by ICNIRP. Switzerland adopted a 4 V/m standard for cell towers ten years ago. At the time, the Swiss environmental agency said the standard was an example of the application of the precautionary principle (see MWN, J/F00, p.1).

December 6, 2010

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, the publisher, is allowing free downloads of its top radiology papers, at least for a limited time. Number one on the list is "Risk of Brain Tumors From Wireless Phone Use" which appears in the November/December issue of Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. Use this link for a pdf copy.

November 26, 2010

For a completely different perspective of the ELF-EMF genotox literature (from ICNIRP's), take a look at a review by an Italian group led by Livio Giuliani. It appears in a just-released monograph, "Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter," which includes 24 papers (the one on genotoxicity begins on p.123). The entire volume, which was sponsored by ICEMS and the Ramazzini Institute, is a free download. Another important paper in this collection (p.219) is the first published report from the Ramazzini's "mega" animal experiments on EMFs and cancer, directed by Morando Soffritti and Fiorella Belpoggi: It shows that magnetic fields can increase the incidence of breast tumors among rats. Giuliani and Soffritti are the co-editors of the new monograph. ICEMS is positioning itself as a counterweight to ICNIRP. This should not be too difficult given that ICNIRP has lost its way.

November 24, 2010

After we posted our November 15 Short Take on ICNIRP's failure to cite a host of papers showing genotoxic effects of power-frequency EMFs, we got an e-mail from Kjell Hansson Mild of Umeå University in northern Sweden. "ICNIRP missed many others," he told us. Mild appended a list of eight papers he had been associated with —published between 1984 and 2001, all in peer-reviewed journals. They document DNA and chromosomal breaks in cells, animals (mice and rats) and humans (substation workers and train drivers). No word yet about how ICNIRP missed every single one.

November 16, 2010

ICNIRP has now posted a copy of its new ELF EMF guidelines (the Health Physics paper), together with an accompanying fact sheet, on its Web site. Both are free downloads.

November 15, 2010

If you want to see just how misguided the ICNIRP enterprise really is, take a look at its new EMF exposure guidelines in the December issue of Health Physics. [See also our November 10 post.]

Start at the end with the footnote that discloses the composition of its five-member ELF Task Group (p.830): Rüdiger Matthes (Germany, chair), Anders Ahlbom (Sweden), Kari Jokela (Finland), Colin Roy (Australia) and Richard Saunders (U.K.). Only one of them has training in any of the biological sciences. Saunders earned his doctorate in zoology and comparative physiology.

All the others except for Ahlbom work on EMF measurements and dosimetry. Ahlbom is an epidemiologist, who spent a good part of his career showing that EMF exposures are associated with childhood leukemia; a finding he now seems to want to repudiate. The absence of a molecular biologist on the task group might be the reason the guidelines all but dismiss the possibility that ELF EMFs can lead to DNA breaks (which could explain the link to leukemia). ICNIRP states that, "Generally, studies of the effects of low-frequency field exposure of cells have shown no induction of genotoxicity at fields below 50 mT" (500 G or 500,000 mG).

This is simply wrong. Totally wrong. ICNIRP has ignored a large body of work published in peer-reviewed journals. One Swedish team, for instance, showed "highly significant" DNA damage at levels as low as 8 µT (80 mG) —an exposure that is 6,250-times lower than 50 mT! Much of this was known more than a decade ago (see MWN, N/D98, pp.9-10.) Just last year, Switzerland's Primo Schär reported significant DNA fragmentation at 1 mT. (See also "Faulty DNA Repair May Explain EMF Role in Childhood Leukemia.")

Is anyone going to hold ICNIRP accountable for these errors and biases?

Pages

Postscript First

This is a debugging block

Postscript Second

This is a debugging block

Postscript Third

This is a debugging block

Postscript Fourth

This is a debugging block