And Now … Tinnitus
June 30… Users of cell phones have another reason to be cautious. An Austrian team has found that
the risk of developing tinnitus, a ringing in the ears, doubled after four years. This is one of the first epidemiological studies to investigate the
long-term effects of mobile phones on hearing. June 9… The International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) has recruited Joachim Schüz to lead its Section on Environment. Among
his duties in Lyon, Schüz will supervise the still-unfinished work of
the Interphone project. He will also play an advisory role in next year's
IARC review of the possible cancer risks associated with RF radiation.
Schüz, who begins at the agency on August 2, will report to Christopher Wild, the director of IARC.
Hans-Peter Hutter of the Institute
of Environmental Health at the Medical University of Vienna, and coworkers report that the observed association
is "unlikely" to be spurious and could have important implications for public health. Their
new epidemiological study, based on 100 cases and 100 controls,
will appear in an upcoming issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
The "possible association of mobile phone use and tinnitus is plausible," according to Hutter, "because the cochlea [the inner ear] and
the auditory pathway are located in an anatomical region where a considerable amount of the power emitted by mobile phones is absorbed." The risk of tinnitus was greatest
on the side of the head the phone was used. The doubling of the incidence after long-term use is of borderline statistical significance. Hutter
also raises the possibility that other factors may be responsible: For instance, blood flow near the ear could be affected when the user is in a constrained posture while on the phone.
Two large European research projects, GUARD
and EMFnEAR, have investigated the possible impact of cell phones on human hearing. But both have
focused on short-term exposures —mostly for just 10 or 20 minutes— and have generally found no
effects (see, for example, a recent paper in Radiation Research.) These two projects
cost a total of $3-4 million.
Michael Kundi, the head of the Vienna institute and a coauthor of the new study, told Microwave News that more studies of long-term exposures and hearing are needed.
"It is complete nonsense to look for short-term effects," he said. Kundi explained that the lack of studies on prolonged use of cell phones is not surprising, given
the official view that microwaves can only cause heating. "If the position is that thermal effects are all that count, there cannot be long-term effects," he said.
A 2007 study of students in the U.K. found no increase in tinnitus
or adverse effects on hearing and balance. Tinnitus is more common among older people.
Joachim Schüz Moves to IARC
Interphone Analysis To Continue
The appointment signals a calculated gamble for IARC and for Wild, at least with respect to making further progress on Interphone. The $25 million, 13-country project has tarnished the agency's reputation
as factions within Interphone have battled for years over whether cell phones present a cancer risk. Now, immediately following the release of the Interphone paper on
brain tumors, Wild has picked
Schüz, a well-known member of the project's no-risk camp, to bring the feuding parties together. Schüz must begin by forging a consensus on the
equally contentious question of whether mobile phones can lead to a second type of tumor,
acoustic neuroma. And he has to do so on a tight schedule.
Schüz, a prolific epidemiologist, has worked with both the German
and Danish Interphone study groups. While at the University of Mainz, he
led the German team, which published its first Interphone paper on brain tumor risks
more than four years ago: Schüz himself reported that long-term users had more than twice the rate of brain tumors, but that the increase was not statistically significant
(see "Is There a Ten-Year Latency
for Cell Phone Tumor Development?" Jan'06). In 2005, he moved to
the Danish Cancer Society in Copenhagen, where he has collaborated with
Christoffer Johansen on the Danish analyses. Schüz is currently the
head of the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at the society's
Institute of Cancer Epidemiology. (See also Schüz's full CV.)
When Christopher Wild took over as the head of IARC in January 2009, he sought to break the deadlock over Interphone.
Wild picked Schüz to join him on a
three-member panel to redraft the Interphone brain tumor paper. Schüz represented the skeptics
— also known as the ICNIRP
contingent, which includes Sweden's Maria Feychting
and the U.K.'s Tony
Swerdlow. Rounding out the panel was Australia's
Bruce Armstrong,
who along with
Elisabeth Cardis and
Israel's Siegal
Sadetzki, is seen as more open to the idea that there might be a long-term tumor risk
(see Armstrong's lecture: "Cell Phone Link to Tumors? — 'We
Don't Know'," Mar'09).
Interphone will move forward, Schüz told Microwave
News. "The mandate is to finish all the work —the sooner, the better,"
he said. Wild is helping to meet that goal. Wild has recently allocated funds so that data
analyses can continue at the agency's headquarters in Lyon, according to
Nicolas Gaudin, the head of communications at IARC.
Elisabeth Cardis will continue as the head of the overall Interphone project,
Schüz said. Cardis, the former chief of IARC's radiation group, led
Interphone from its very beginnings in the late 1990s. She left the agency two
years ago to join the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology
(CREAL) in Barcelona.
Completing the Interphone paper on acoustic neuroma is the top priority, according to Schüz:
"The results for acoustic neuroma are the most urgent on our list."
Asked about the current status of that work, he replied, "The analysis
is still in progress." Schüz conceded that a paper has not yet been drafted.
The results on acoustic neuroma would no doubt play an important role at the IARC RF review,
scheduled for May 24-31, 2011 —if they are finished in time. The cancer monograph finalized at that meeting will likely
be the last word on RF radiation tumor risks for the foreseeable future.
Vincent Cogliano, the head of IARC's
Monograph Program, told
Microwave News that due to "intense interest among national health
agencies and among the general public," the review would not be delayed to
wait for any further Interphone results. "We hope that this deadline —more
than 11 months in the future— will encourage investigators to swiftly
complete and publish their analyses of the data they have already collected,"
he said.
But the Interphone study team seems unlikely to meet the deadline.
The brain tumor paper was finally published last
month after four years of wrangling (see "Interphone Points to Long-Term
Brain Tumor Risks; Interpretation Under Dispute," May'10).
The acoustic neuroma paper promises to be just as controversial. The pooled data from five Northern European
Interphone groups —as well as a separate study from Lennart Hardell's team in Sweden— have linked
acoustic neuromas to long-term cell phone use. But here too, as with the brain tumor results, the no-risk faction within Interphone sees these results
as unreliable.
Other Interphone work that still must be completed is the analysis of the parotid gland tumor data, as well as an investigation of the location of the tumors
relative to the radiation plume of the phones. Using such already-collected Interphone data would be the quickest way to resolve some of the uncertainties about the tumor risks, according to
Joe Bowman of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), who helped the
Interphone team assess radiation exposures. "Analyses of these other Interphone data should help clarify
whether the reported increases in cancer risks are due to the phone's radiation or resulted from the study's design weaknesses," Bowman noted in
a "Questions & Answers on Interphone," prepared with NIOSH's Robert Park. (In addition, no one has yet looked at what role the use of DECT, and other cordless phones, and
the use of hands-free kits, may have played.)
Schüz on Long-Term Tumor Risks: “Very Unlikely”
In a wide-ranging interview, Schüz said that the Interphone study group had learned more
about epidemiological methods than about cell phone tumor risks.
"The entire association [seen in Interphone] can be explained by bias —
There are a lot of competing biases," he said. "If there were a stronger effect,
we would have seen it." Schüz believes that a doubling of the risk
following 10-15 year of cell phone use is "very unlikely."
Schüz said that his outlook on long-term risk is largely based, not on Interphone, but on his and
Johansen's Danish cohort studies and especially on their
more recent analysis of the
incidence of brain tumors in the Nordic countries, published late last year. Neither points to an
increase in brain tumors among the general population.
Others, such as Michael Kundi of the Medical University of Vienna, argue that, it is
still far too early to be able to detect any increase in national statistics that could be linked to the use of mobile phones. Even under "extreme assumptions," it would not
be possible "to find an increased risk at the population level," Kundi told Microwave News.
(See also "Spin, Spin, Spin," Dec'09.)
When asked whether he can heal the fractures within the Interphone group,
Schüz replied that, "It's not unusual in science for there to be
differences in opinions." He added: "At the end, all of the 17 principal
investigators signed off on the [brain tumor] paper. A lot of work was done.
We should look forward not backward." Armstrong, his colleague on Wild's
three-member panel, told Microwave News that he has "great
respect" for Schüz. "His motivation throughout was to get the science
right."
Convincing members of the EMF activist community that he will serve as an
impartial broker at IARC will be more difficult. Many of them see Schüz as
too willing to discount possible risks. "Schüz does his best to serve
industry," said Lothar Geppert of Diagnose Funk in Zurich.
According to his "declaration of
interests", submitted to the EC last year, Schüz has received industry funding under a six-year contract with the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) for studies on childhood leukemia. He also received support from the mobile phone industry through the Interphone and COSMOS projects. In addition, Schüz has
consulted for Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk (WBF), an Austrian mobile phone advisory group that has received
funding from telecom companies.
When he joins IARC this summer, Schüz will become one of the most
prominent EMF researchers in the international cancer establishment. He has
been working in the field his entire professional career. Schüz wrote his
doctoral thesis on the link between childhood leukemia and power-frequency
EMFs at the University of Mainz in the mid-1990s. ("I am pretty sure that
bias does not explain the association," he said recently; see also MWN, J/A97,
p.10.) And Schüz has just been elected president of the
Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS). A formal announcement will be made
at the BEMS annual meeting in Seoul next week.
Schüz is a member of the EC's Scientific
Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR).
He is also a member of two ongoing research projects on the brain tumor
risks associated with mobile phones:
COSMOS and CEFALO. Schüz
said that he would continue with CEFALO since it is drawing to a close, but
that he would step down from COSMOS, which is still in its very early
stages.
IARC's environment section has two groups, one on radiation and the other
on lifestyle and cancer. Ausrele Kesminiene, the current leader of the
radiation group, will stay on, reporting to Schüz. Kesminiene's
research has focused on ionizing radiation, specifically on the effects of the
meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986. Schüz himself
will head the lifestyle group (see IARC's organizational chart).
Interphone Points to Long-Term Brain Tumor Risks
Interpretation Under Dispute
May 17… There's an old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Welcome to Interphone.
The good news is that the Interphone paper has finally been made public after a four-year stalemate within the 13-country research team.
But it comes at a price. A series of compromises over how to interpret the results of the largest and most expensive study of cell phones and
brain tumors ever attempted has left the paper with no clear conclusions other than more research is needed.
Everyone anticipated that Interphone wouldn't offer any definitive findings, and they were right. "An increased risk of brain cancer [has not been] established," said Christopher Wild, the director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, which coordinated the study. IARC is part of the World Health Organization (WHO).
But, there are "suggestions of an increased risk" at "the highest exposure levels," according to the abstract of the paper published by the International Journal of Epidemiology.
How should those "suggestions" be interpreted? At the very least, the risks are greater than many believed only a few years ago.
Interphone Results Due Out on May 18
May 7… The first results of the
Interphone project will be released on May 18, Microwave News has learned.
The paper will be published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
"It is scheduled to be in the June issue," said an assistant in the journal's editorial office in Bristol, England. An electronic copy of the paper will be posted on the
"advance access" page of the journal's Web site on the 18th.
Interphone is the largest and most expensive epidemiological study of the possible tumor risks associated with the use of mobile phones
ever attempted. Research teams in 13 countries are participating in the project which is being coordinated by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France.
The Interphone project, which has cost approximately $30 million to date, was originally scheduled to be
completed in mid-2005, but work
came to a halt as the individual national teams could not agree on how to interpret the findings of an increased incidence
of tumors among long-term users of mobile phones (see
"Set Interphone Free"
and "The Cracks Begin To Show").
A spokeswoman at the Oxford University Press, the publisher of the journal, said that the press release is in the process of
being finalized by IARC and will be distributed under embargo, probably at the end of next week.
Nicolas Gaudin, IARC's head of communications, did not respond to a request for comment on the timing of the release.
It is not yet known whether IARC will allow the paper to be open access, that is, available to all at no charge.
There are reports that Elisabeth Cardis, the
head of Interphone, has been
invited to present the results on May 27 in Bordeaux, France at a meeting sponsored by the
European BioElectromagnetics Association,
COST and URSI Commission K. Cardis told Microwave News
that she is awaiting confirmation from the conference organizers.
The Interphone stalemate has become a major embarrassment for IARC. When Christopher
Wild took over as IARC director in January 2009, he made publishing the results a top priority. Five months later, the paper was
submitted to a journal.
Even so, it took another year for the group to complete the rewrites that are part of the peer-review process. This prompted
rumors that the epidemiologists were, once again, fighting among themselves —or as some have remarked, behaving badly.
But, the paper to be released on the 18th will only address brain tumors, not acoustic neuromas or parotid gland tumors. Work on those parts of the project
stopped years ago, as did efforts to use location data to see whether the tumors are in the cell phones' radiation plume
(see "Much Remains To Be Done"). Some believe that these
analyses may never be completed. "It appears unlikely that the Interphone investigators will work together to finish the rest of what was supposed to be done," Joe Bowman of U.S.
NIOSH in Cincinnati told Microwave News, "It would be a crime if that happened, so I hope
I'm wrong." Bowman is on the exposure assessment team for the Interphone project.
Study teams from Individual countries, as well a group of five northern European countries, have published their own results —some as early as 2005. IARC posted
a list of these papers, as well as full list of all project publications in its last
Interphone status report, dated October 8, 2008. At that
time, the project had produced a total of 42 papers. IARC has also posted a copy of the
study protocol, which was completed in 2001.
May 6… Today, the President's Cancer Panel issued its report,
Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. The #1
recommendation is to adopt a precautionary outlook: "A precautionary, prevention-oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants
in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure" (p.103). The panel also states that, "It is vitally important to recognize that children are far
more susceptible to damage from environmental carcinogens" (p.111).
One notable quote from Martha Linet,
the head of the Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the National Cancer Institute (NCI):
"[T]he most urgent issue that we need to address … is whether children or adolescents using cell phones are at increased risk" (p.58, see also p.A-55).
With respect to cell phones, the panel advises: "Adults and children can reduce their exposure to electromagnetic energy by wearing a headset when using a cell phone,
texting instead of calling and keeping calls brief" (p.112).
Children and Cell Phones:
Time To Start Talking Sense
May 3… Fifteen years ago Om Gandhi pointed out that
children are exposed to higher levels of
radiation from cell phones than adults. He was right then and he is right today. Yet, no one could blame you for thinking otherwise.
In an article
published in the May issue of Harper's,
Nathaniel Rich uses
this putative controversy, among a number of other examples, to make the case that confusion reigns in all aspects of cell-phone research.
"The brain of a child absorbs a much greater amount of radiation from a cell phone than does
the brain of an adult," he writes, adding immediately after, "No, it does not."
The truth is that there should be no controversy. Children do have higher radiation exposures and if cell phones are indeed doing
us harm, then children are at greater risk than their parents.
"There is nothing complicated about why children absorb more radiation than adults,"
Gandhi told Microwave News from his office at the University of Utah not long ago.
Children have thinner skulls and smaller ears than adults, he explained, and so the radiation has a shorter distance to travel
from the phone to the brain. (Every millimeter of separation makes a big difference.) Because more radiation gets to the brain, the specific
absorption rate (SAR), the preferred way to measure the radiation dose, increases. That's it.
You don't need any complicated equations, or even a computer to see the big picture. "The higher SARs have nothing to do
with sophisticated models," Gandhi said, "It's all about separation distance. This is something you can explain to your mother-in-law."
April 14… Men's Health has gotten into the act too. The May issue offers its take on cell phone radiation health risks with
"Is Your Life
on the Line?" by Paul Scott. He covers much of the same ground as Nathaniel Rich in
Harper's —except his is shorter. Like Rich, Scott begins with the story of Lloyd Morgan, a brain tumor survivor
and cell phone activist, who, Scott says, "has made it his mission to spread the message that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic."
Scott leans towards believing that there may well be a brain tumor risk, but tries to stick to the center. His editors, on the other hand, are playing both sides. In a
separate post, Men's Health
lists the question as a phony health scare. That verdict is based
on the opinion of John Moulder, who has long served as an industry consultant (see
"Radiation Research and the Cult of Negative Studies").
Unlike Harper's, Men's Health gives Internet readers free access; Harper's wants you to subscribe first.
April 13… Out today: The May issue of Harper's magazine with a cover story on mobile phone and other
EMF health risks: "For Whom the Cell Tolls:
Why Your Cell Phone May (or May Not) Be Killing You" by Nathaniel Rich.
March 11… The CBS Evening News took on the brain tumor-cell phone story tonight with
"Maine Considers Warnings for Cell Phones." The focus was
on State Representative Andrea Boland's bill,
the Children's Wireless Protection Act, which would require cell phones be sold with warning labels.
That bill has practically no chance of getting through the legislature. Members of the Health and Human Services Committee unanimously (13-0) opposed it earlier in the week, according to the
Associated Press. And even if the legislature were to pass the bill,
Gov. John Baldacci would likely veto it.
Last night, CNN's Campbell Brown ran a segment, "How
Safe Is Your Cell Phone?" on her prime time news show. Her guests were Time magazine's Bryan Walsh who has a cell-phone feature in this week's issue
and John Boockvar, a neurosurgeon at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. Boockvar, who appeared on the CNN set wearing his scrubs and white coat, expressed
skepticism that there might be any link between cell phones and brain tumors. The RF radiation emissions, he said, "probably do not cause any significant tissue damage that would cause brain tumors to form." He went on to note that the
incidence of brain cancer in the U.S. has stayed "relatively stable over the last ten years" as the use of cell phones has risen exponentially. Boockvar joins Ted Schwartz
as the second Weill Cornell neurosurgeon to take the national stage to downplay public concerns over cell phone risks.
March 4… Time magazine has posted a piece on "Cell-Phone Safety," which will appear in
next week's print edition (March 15).
Also, in its March issue, Popular Science offers a detailed look at the EMF controversy.
"Disconnected" runs a full ten pages, with a promo on the cover:
"Killer Cell Phones: The Real Science Behind the Health Scare." The magazine's Web site pitches the story as an exploration of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS):
"The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves." The "man" is Per Segerbäck, a former Ellemtel telecom engineer who now lives deep
in the Swedish countryside.
To see, once again, how little has been learned about EMFs and health over the last generation, take a look at David Kirkpatrick's article,
"Do
Cellular Phones Cause Cancer?, which ran in Fortune magazine 17 years ago this week (it too was promoted on the cover). In a sidebar,
"Maybe the Swedes Are Right," Kirkpatrick cited
Segerbäck's case of EHS —though not his name. Years later, Kirkpatrick reported that his 1993 article "caused quite a ruckus," adding that, "Motorola
was not thrilled." That was an understatement. Motorola got so ticked off, it pulled all its advertising from Fortune for a long time.
The magazine lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
February 16… The Washington Post's health section offers its take on the cell phone–tumor story today.
In "Not Exactly a Ringing Endorsement,"
reporter John Donnelly presents a variety of opinions from DC area residents: "Everything is a risk. I'm a bodyguard. That's risky. You got to have a life. Cell phones don't scare me," said one.
"It makes me nervous," said a pregnant 26-year-old, "I use the speakerphone as much as I can. I keep it away from my body. I try to use it very little."
Donnelly offers a similar wide range of views from those who are more directly involved. "I absolutely believe there is a risk, said
Andrea Boland, a lawmaker who has introduced
the Children's Wireless Protection Act in the Maine legislature.
It would require cell phones be sold with warning labels.
"The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," countered
John Walls, VP for public affairs at
CTIA.
NIEHS' Michael Wyde, who is running the $25 million
cell phone animal studies for the
National Toxicology Program (NTP), took the middle ground: "Everyone has to make their own decision on
whether to limit exposures or not," he told the Post.
February 14… Tomorrow's Los Angeles Times features a package of four stories on the EMF–health controversy: February 6… Assessing health risks is a tricky business. Teaching others how to do it is no easier.
To see this, you need to look no further than a recent report from the Geneva-based International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), a self-described
"independent" group run by a group of government, industry and academic leaders. The title of the report is a mouthful:
Risk Governance Deficits: An Analysis and Illustration of the Most Common Deficits in Risk Governance.
A better title would have been, Common Pitfalls in Risk Analysis, or perhaps, Risk: A Guide to Better Decision Making. We conclude that risk management of EMFs has certainly not been perfect, but for power-frequency EMFs risk
management has evolved and can be largely considered a success. Lessons from the power-frequency experience can benefit risk governance of radiofrequency EMFs and other emerging technologies. (p.68) The main lesson to be learned from power-frequency experience is that an open and proactive approach to research allowed for a successful management of a potentially
volatile issue that could have had tremendous societal costs. While some uncertainty remains, it is widely accepted that the health effect, even if real, is not of major public health significance.
• "On Different Wavelengths over EMFs"
• "Victims of Electrosensitivity Syndrome Say EMFs Cause Symptoms"
• "Electromagnetic Field Studies Reach Different Conclusions"
• "How Strong Are Different Magnetic Fields?"
Chris Woolston, the Times reporter, does not take a stand, leaving the usual cast of scientists to voice their now well-known opinions. On the there's-nothing-to-worry-about side:
• NCI's Martha Linet: She says studies so far suggest a weak connection [between EMFs and cancer], so weak that it might not exist at all.
• University of Pennsylvania's Ken Foster: "You have a whole population of people that are scared to death of electromagnetic fields;
People latch on to fears that mainstream science doesn't take seriously."
• Robert Park, the former DC rep of the American Physical Society: "I don't understand how anyone with a knowledge of science could believe this stuff."
And, on the side favoring precaution:
• New York's Institute for Health and Environment's David Carpenter: "It's apparent now that there's a real risk; The evidence is growing stronger every day."
• Cleveland Clinic's Ashok Agarwal: Agarwal says there's not enough evidence to tell men with fertility problems to give up
their cellphones, although he personally believes that spending 10 hours a day on the phone isn't exactly a fertility-friendly lifestyle, radiation or no.
No sign anywhere of a meeting of the minds.
Beyond Risk and Reason
The handbook runs 91 pages with case studies on hot-button issues, including genetically modified food, mad cow disease and EMFs.
It offers some sensible recommendations, such as: Don't provide biased, selective or incomplete information about potential risks,
especially from stakeholders who may seek to advance their own interests (pp.22-23). Just about everybody would agree with that advice,
but when the report turns to EMFs, forget about it. Once again, the basic rules governing conflicts of interest don't apply to EMFs.
Here's the summary of the EMF case study reprinted in the IRGC report:
A success? Hardly. The only EMF success stories over the last 30 years tell how the electric utility and cell phone industries have prevailed —largely by suppressing research and marginalizing
the health issue. We have made very little progress understanding what power-line or cell phone EMFs do to us over the last 25 years, and that owes a lot to the success of their game plan.
The case study itself paints an even rosier picture:
If this reads like industry propaganda, that's because it is. The case study was written by two long-time operatives of the electric utility industry: Leeka Kheifets and John Swanson (together with Shaiela Kandel, an Israeli associate).
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the EMF health issue would be aware that Kheifets has been associated with EPRI
for most of her professional career and that Swanson is an employee of the National Grid, one of the world's largest electric utilities.
Clearly, they are "stakeholders" of the utility industry and IRGC should have asked a more neutral party to write the EMF case study, if it had operated under its own rules. (For more on Kheifets and Swanson's activities, see
"The Real Junk Science of EMFs.")
If those who teach us the rules of conduct can violate them with such ease, what hope can there be for evenhanded risk assessment?
One of the four principal authors of the IRGC report is John Graham, who is himself
a controversial figure in the risk business. He was the founder of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis,
whose corporate sponsors read like a roster of the S&P500.
More surprising is that the chair of the IRGC's Scientific and Technical Council is Granger Morgan
of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). Morgan was a coauthor of an influential EMF report back in 1989
—the first to introduce the concept of precaution for EMF health risks; they called it "prudent avoidance." (One lesser known fact: Morgan was Graham's thesis advisor at CMU.)
Graham is no stranger to EMFs either. He provided cover for George Carlo's research project for the cell phone industry.
Carlo paid Graham's Center for Risk Analysis over $400,000 to help him camouflage the fact that Carlo's enterprise, known as WTR, was a scam, whose primary objective was to avoid doing health research.
Swiss Re, a large reinsurance company, was a sponsor of the IRGC report. Some 15 years ago, Swiss Re issued its own report on
EMFs, Electrosmog A Phantom Risk,
which warned that the EMF problem could "threaten [the insurance industry's] very existence" (see MWN, J/A97, p.8).
That won't happen as long it's so easy to break the most basic rules of risk and reason.
February 1… Two news items, both posted today, show once again the polarization within the RF–health community.
The Oman Daily Observer features a report
from a meeting held in Muscat over the weekend, under the headline, "International Conference Allays Fears on Effects of RF Exposure."
Mike Repacholi, the former head of the WHO EMF project and chairman emeritus of ICNIRP,
is quoted as reassuring the 400-strong audience that none of the close to 3,000 studies that have been done to date worldwide has established that there are any adverse effects below the level set by the international standards. The
invited speakers at the meeting reads like a Who's Who of ICNIRP, past and present —including Anders Ahlbom, David Black, Jim Lin, Ken McLeod, Paolo Vecchia, Luc Verschaeve and Bernard Veyret. The cell phone
industry was also well represented. Mike Dolan, Mike Milligan and Jack
Rowley from the MOA, MMF and GSMA,
respectively, were all on the schedule. Two representatives from ICEMS, Libby Kelley from the U.S. and Nesrin Seyhan from Turkey, were also invited. ICEMS, unlike ICNIRP,
favors a precautionary approach. Kelley decided to withdraw two weeks ago.
Before we had a chance to finish the story from Oman, we received the latest bulletin from
NEXT-UP, the European
activist group. "Repacholi has betrayed the obligations of his office [at WHO]," it charged, "he is corrupt, he must answer for what he has done. He must be brought to justice!"
Where's the middle ground?
January 22 (updated January 26)… Out on the newsstands today: the February issue of GQ magazine with a feature article on cell
phones and cancer. "Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health," by Christopher Ketcham, draws a parallel between the cover-up of incriminating research on tobacco and microwaves. Ketcham cites
the work of Allan Frey, Henry Lai,
Jerry Phillips, Leif Salford — and the
coverage by Microwave News. The article is available on the magazine's
Web site.
Will NIEHS Ever “Get” EMFs?
January 18… Most managers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) refuse to allow that the EMF–cancer playbook may be different from the one for chemicals.
Even now, when there is ample evidence that
power line EMFs can increase the risk of childhood leukemia and there is a growing suspicion that cell phone radiation is associated with three different types of tumors,
NIEHS prefers to look the other way. The institute has long resisted endorsing precautionary policies for any kind of EMFs.
The latest case in point involves John Bucher, a senior NIEHS official who
runs the National Toxicology Program (NTP). During his 27-year career at NTP/NIEHS, Bucher has
evaluated the dangers of any number of chemicals. He is currently taking the lead on BPA, the
controversial plastic additive, as well as radiation from cell phones.
In a story featured on the front pages of North Carolina's
leading newspapers earlier this month, Bucher declared that he doesn't believe that cell phones can cause cancer. "I anticipate either no correlation or, if anything
is seen at all, it won't be a strong signal," he said.
Bucher was referring to a massive NTP project designed to see whether long-term exposure to cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats and mice.
It is the largest single cancer study ever undertaken by the NTP/NIEHS with a budget of $25 million, maybe more. NIEHS spent ten years planning the project.
What's not explicitly stated in the news article is that the long-term study has not actually started.
Spin, Spin, Spin
December 18… Pity those who are trying to follow the cell phone–brain tumor story. Their sense of the cancer risk is most likely a reflection of the last thing they read or
saw on TV —It all depends on whose sound bite they happen to catch.
Take, for example, a paper published earlier this month in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI)
by a team of Scandinavian epidemiologists, under a rather bland title —
"Time Trends in Brain Tumor Incidence Rates
in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, 1974–2003." But its message is anything but:
Because there has been no increase in brain tumors between 1998 and 2003, a period when the use of cell phones "increased sharply,"
cell phones are cancer safe.
December 7… Bioelectromagnetics has posted
“Comments” by Louis Slesin,
the editor of Microwave News on
the call to stop research on power-frequency electric fields by
Leeka Kheifets and John Swanson (see “The Real Junk Science of EMFs,” below). The two electric utility insiders declined the journal's
offer to respond. The comments are now on the journal's Web site and will be published in its February 2010 issue.
The Real Junk Science of EMFs:
Stop Electric Field Cancer Research,
Say Industry Scientists
See also “Three Cases of Alleged Scientific Misconduct”
November 23… A decade after some of the world's leading epidemiologists agreed that exposure to power line EMFs could lead to childhood leukemia, the denial continues.
Some people still believe that the studies that link EMFs to cancer are nothing more than junk science. Even those who should know better refuse to acknowledge the risks.
The World Health Organization (WHO) says the association is so weak that it can be pretty much ignored, and the
leading radiation protection group, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), has refused to endorse precaution.
Here in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scarcely acknowledges that EMFs are even a health issue.
As a result, money for research has dried up, and any number of promising avenues that might have moved the issue forward remains unexplored.
How did this happen? The answer has a lot to do with junk science, but not the kind often associated with EMFs.
No one would deny that the EMF literature is peppered with poor studies —those that claim to show effects that can't be repeated.
This happens with EMFs, as well as all other types of research. In this case, we are referring to industry's own brand of junk science that promotes misinformation
and confusion and presents a distorted picture of EMF science.
The story that follows illustrates how electric utilities play the junk science game. It shows how two of its long-time operatives are corrupting the EMF literature.
Leeka Kheifets and John Swanson, together with two utility
associates, are calling for an end to research on the links between power-line electric fields and cancer.
In a paper that will appear in the February 2010 issue of Bioelectromagnetics, Kheifets and Swanson argue that studies on electric fields and
cancer have come to a dead end and that its time to close the book on them. There is "little basis for continued research," they claim. In fact, it is just the opposite.
Epidemiologic studies on electric field effects on workers have produced some of the most provocative findings in the entire EMF cancer literature. This work has been
ignored for years and now Kheifets and Swanson want to bury it for good.
Very Weak Magnetic Fields Lower Sperm Quality
November 6… De-Kun Li's new epidemiological study showing that extended
exposure to weak magnetic fields as low as 1.6 mG (0.16 µT) can have negative effects on sperm quality was published today by Reproductive Toxicology.
"This is the first demonstration of a link between EMF exposure and the decline of semen quality," Li told Microwave News. The study, which was carried out in Shanghai, has important
implications for overall fertility because approximately 40% of the Shanghai population is exposed to more than 1.6 mG for 2.4 hours on a daily basis.
The study, a collaboration with Chinese researchers, documented detrimental effects on a number of different indices of male fertility including semen morphology, motility, density and vitality. The effect on sperm
quality follows a dose-response relationship: the longer the daily exposure above 1.6 mG, the greater the risk. Men who were exposed for more than six hours a day were three-to-four times more likely to have decreased fertility.
The research team notes that the real risk is probably higher. "[S]ince everyone is exposed to some levels of magnetic fields, we did not have a totally 'unexposed' reference group in our study population. Therefore, the magnitude of
the effect observed in this study is likely underestimated," they note.
They also comment that what they have seen is biologically "plausible" because experimental studies in China and Korea have shown that magnetic fields can affect the reproductive system of mice.
Li first announced this finding at a scientific conference a year ago last summer: see our
post of July 3, 2008. Now the full
details are available in the new paper. Li is with Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA.
Deleterious effects have now been shown for both power-frequency EMFs and RF/microwave radiation (see
"Keep That Phone Out of Your Trouser Pocket!"). The same mechanism could be at work at both high and low frequencies," Li said.
Interphone: U.K. “Telegraph” Jumps the Gun
October 28… Saturday's lead story in the Telegraph made believe that the U.K. daily had gotten hold of the much-delayed and
much sought-after final results of the Interphone study — and that they showed that using a cell phone does
indeed increase the risk of developing a brain tumor. Under the headline "Mobiles: New Cancer Alert," the newspaper proclaimed that, "Long-term use of mobile phones may be linked to some cancers, a landmark international study
will conclude later this year." In its inside pages were a number of related stories, notably "People Must Be Told About Mobile Phone Dangers, Say Experts" and a sidebar about
Larry Mills who had developed a tumor "exactly
where he held the phone." The story was pitched as an "EXCLUSIVE" and was soon picked up by many other newspapers and Web sites.
In fact, the Telegraph had no scoop. Its reporters did not have an advance copy of the Interphone brain tumor paper. The story was mostly a rehash of what has
already been disclosed —a lot of it a long time ago. For instance, quotes from Elisabeth Cardis,
the head of Interphone, which ran three paragraphs on the front page, were exactly the same as had been reported in Microwave News back in June 2008
(see: "Interphone Project: The Cracks Begin To Show; Cardis Endorses Precaution").
Cardis was also quoted in the Telegraph as saying the Interphone paper would include a public health message. "I said of course there would be one," she told
Microwave News, "We need to make a statement about the public health relevance of our findings." But, she added, she had also told the Telegraph that she was "not at liberty to discuss it or the results of the
study." Cardis is with the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL) in Barcelona.
The source of the Telegraph story remains unknown. (The obvious possibility is the newspaper's marketing department in a ploy to boost circulation.)
"I have no clue what initiated this article," Joachim Schüz told Microwave News. Schüz, the head of the German Interphone group, is now in Copenhagen at the Danish Cancer Society.
Two other members of the Interphone project have also stated that that there was no basis for the story. "There is, as far as I know, absolutely no information circulating at the
moment that is accurate and correct with respects to the results of that study," Bruce
Armstrong, the head of the Australian Interphone team at the University of Sydney, told the Australian Broadcasting
Corp. Earlier this year, Armstrong gave a public lecture in which he said that the Interphone study is inconclusive but that the suggestion of a long-term risk
prompted him to advise taking precautionary measures such as discouraging children from using mobile phones (see: "Cell Phone Link to Tumors? — "We Don't Know").
The harshest criticism of the Telegraph came from the Karolinska Institute's Maria Feychting, who
leads the Swedish Interphone group. "It's unethical and astounding for this to be in the press before the study is completely and fully analyzed," she told the
Expressen, a Swedish
tabloid. Feychting also voiced her disagreement with the substance of the Telegraph's story. "There is no indication that cell phones pose any health risk
over the short term," she said. "In the long run, that is, for more than ten years, the data are less reliable."
When then can we expect to see the Interphone results? Ten months after the new director of IARC,
Christopher Wild,
made their release a high priority, that is still a matter of speculation (see "IARC Director
Forces Publication of Interphone Brain Tumor Results"). When asked this question at a conference
in Paris last week, Dan Krewski, of the University of Ottawa and a member of the Canadian Interphone team, replied that the paper is
currently under review at a journal and that "hopefully" it would be available "this calendar year." But in the halls outside the lecture room, some expressed a less sanguine outlook. They
predicted that the results would not be available until sometime in 2010.
New Analysis Reaffirms Long-Term Tumor Risk
October 14… A new analysis of already-published studies points to a tumor risk following long-term use of cell phones. This
meta-analysis by a joint Korean-U.S. team of 13 past studies was published yesterday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Its conclusions support
two previous similar efforts: All three indicate a 20-25% increase in tumors after ten or more years of cell phone use. September 30 (last updated on October 2)… Mice that were placed under short-term stress before being exposed to UV radiation, a known cancer-causing agent,
developed fewer skin tumors than those that just got the UV. These new findings from
Firdaus Dhabhar's lab
at Stanford University medical school were released by Brain, Behavior and Immunity a few days ago.
"I went into this really dubious that anything was going on," Joel Moskowitz
of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, told the
Los Angeles Times.
"Overall, you find no difference. But when you start teasing the studies apart and doing these subgroup analyses, you do find there is reason to be concerned."
Moskowitz is one of the coauthors of the new study; the lead author is Seung-Kwon Myung of South Korea's National Cancer Center.
The Korean and U.S. researchers argue that the epidemiological studies by Lennart Hardell, of
Sweden's Örebro University, are of a higher quality than those from the
Interphone project.
A team from the University of Utah published the first meta-analysis with long-term exposure data two years ago.
Hardell's group published the second last year.
Still no word on when the Interphone group will release its paper on brain tumor risks.
Stress Can Protect Against Cancer;
New Study Confirms Confounding in Cell Phone Animal Project
Dhabhar's study is the first specifically designed to test the hypothesis that stress can protect against tumors.
But his results are eerily similar to those obtained in a set of $10 million animal experiments, known as PERFORM-A,
that were supposed to investigate the cancer risks associated with cell-phone radiation.
In each case, the animals were restrained inside plastic tubes: in Dhabhar's study to put the mice under stress, and in the PERFORM-A project to keep the animals in a fixed position in order
to deliver a well-defined dose of radiation. And, in each case, the stress had a dramatic —and very similar— impact on the animals.
In the six PERFORM-A experiments, carried out in six different countries, mice and rats that were
restrained for a few hours a day developed, in most cases, fewer tumors than free-roaming animals. See, for instance,
the graph below from the PERFORM-A study on rats by Robert Hruby at what is
now known as the Austrian Institute of Technology.
Compare the incidence of tumors among the shams (in pink), which were restrained inside the tubes and placed in a Ferris wheel exposure system but did not
get any radiation, with that of
the cage controls (top, in blue), which also did not get any radiation, but were allowed to run free. (The three middle curves are for the rats that were exposed to varying
levels of RF/microwave radiation in the Ferris wheel.) The shams had much fewer tumors —a result that is consistent with Dhabhar's study.
Dhabhar applied the stress intentionally to see its effect on tumor formation; the PERFORM-A researchers did it in error, a side effect of the experimental design.
The two sets of results may help us get a better handle on the biology of stress. But it also means that the PERFORM-A results cannot do what they were supposed to do. They cannot shed
light on whether cell phones can lead to cancer because the effects of the stress are mixed up with any possible effects of the radiation, and they cannot be disentangled.
There are many differences between the two studies. For instance, in the Dhabhar experiment, the mice were placed inside the plastic tubes for two-and-a-half hours before their 10-minute UV
exposures. In the Hruby study, the rats were restrained in the tubes for four hours a day during the radiation or sham exposure. Also Dhabhar only put the mice under stress for the first ten weeks of
his 32-week study. Hruby's sham-exposed rats were placed in the tubes throughout the six-month experiment. And most of all Dhabhar's animals were treated with radiation, while the shams in
PERFORM-A were not. Nevertheless, the similarity of the results is remarkable.
Members of the PERFORM-A project chose to ignore the possible confounding effects of stress on the animals, even after a preliminary
experiment clearly indicated that mice placed in the exposure system were showing biochemical signs of stress.
For a detailed discussion of these RF-animal experiments, see our special report:
"Wheel on Trial: $10 Million Industry Research Project Flops."
Nor has there been any detailed discussion of the potential role of stress in the PERFORM-A studies since the final results were published. All the while, they
continue to be cited as evidence that mobile phones are cancer-free. PERFORM-A was the brainchild of Motorola and
was largely funded by the mobile phone industry through the MMF and the
GSMA, with support from the EC's Fifth Framework Program.
For more on Dhabhar's study, see his abstract, the
Stanford press release and the write-up in
The Scientist. For specifics on each of the PERFORM-A
experiments, including tumor counts, see the Table of Cell Phone Animal Studies (1997–2007),
which is part of our special report, "Wheel on Trial."