15 Reasons Why Cellphones Are Dangerous

15 Reasons Why Cellphones Are Dangerous

Cellphones and Brain Tumors

15 Reasons for Concern

Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone

August 25, 2009

“Today, more that ever before, science holds the key to our

survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation.

It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and

work to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and

technology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to

say, even when it’s inconvenient¾especially when it’s

inconvenient.”

—President Barack Obama

The Precautionary Principle

“The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is

insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific

evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that

the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or

plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection

chosen.”

European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle

2nd February 2000

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/docum/20001_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

(i)

Endorsements

We the undersigned believe it is essential that governments and the media understand the

independent science regarding cellphone use and brain tumors, as well as the design flaws of

the 13 country Interphone study. The widespread nature of wireless telecommunication

systems requires that society understand any potential risks, and that this understanding be as

current as possible with the latest evidence-based science. We endorse both the message and

urgency of this report.

Initial Endorsers (from 14 countries):

USA Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics,

Columbia University

USA David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment,

University at Albany

USA Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer

Institute

USA Elizabeth A. Kelley, MA, Environmental and Public Policy Consultant

USA Henry Lai, PhD, Research Professor, Dept. of Bioengineering, University of

Washington

USA Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Science Learning Center, University of Colorado at

Colorado Springs

USA Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD, Editor, The Environmental Physician, American

Academy of Environmental Medicine

USA Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New

York Medical College; President, The American Institute of Stress; Emeritus

Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society

USA Bert Schou, PhD, CEO, ACRES Research

USA Narendra P. Singh, Research Associate Professor, Department of Bioengineering,

University of Washington

USA Morton M. Teich, MD, Physician, New York, NY, Past President, American

Academy of Environmental Medicine

Australia Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor of

Neurosurgery, Australian Capital Territory

Australia Don Maisch, PhD (Cand.), Researcher, EMF Facts Consultancy

Australia Dr Charles Teo, MBBS, FRACS, Neurosurgeon, Director of The Centre for

Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, New South Wales.

Austria Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, State Government Salzburg and

Speaker for Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association, Vienna

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

(ii)

Brazil Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do

Sul- UFRGS

Canada Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental

Medicine; CEO, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic

Canada Joe Foster, 29 year member of the International Association of Fire Fighters

Finland Mikko Ahonen, MSc, Researcher, University of Tampere

Finland Osmo Hänninen, PhD, Professor in Physiology (Emer.), University of Kuopio

France Daniel Oberhausen, Physicist, Association PRIARTÉM

Germany Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Dr.med., Executive Director and Member of the Board of the

VerUm Foundation, Foundation for Behaviour and Environment; Germany

Germany Christine Aschermann, Dr. med., Psychiatry, Psychotherapy. Originator of

Doctors’ Appeal (2002 Freiburg Appeal)

Germany Horst Eger, Dr med., Bavarian Ärztekammer Medical Quality No. 65143:

"Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin - Diagnostik, Therapie, Umwelt"

Germany Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Dr.med, General Practitioner; Initiator of the

Bamberg Appeal (2005)

Germany Ulrich Warnke, Dr. rer. nat., Academic High Councilor, Biosciences, University of

Saarland

Greece Adamantia Fragopoulou, MSc, Medical Biology, PhD (cand.), Electromagnetic

Biology Research Group, Athens University

Greece Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept. of

Cell Biology and Biophysics Faculty of Biology, University of Athens

Greece Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society

Ireland Con Colbert, Association Secretary, Irish Doctors Environmental Association

Ireland Senator Mark Daly, National Parliament, Republic of Ireland

Russia Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-

Ionizing Radiation Protection, a member of WHO International Advisory

Committee on "EMF and Health"

Spain Alfonso Balmori, PhD, Biologist, Researcher on effects of electromagnetic fields on

wildlife

Sweden Örjan Hallberg, MSEE, Hallberg Independent Research

UK Mike Bell, Lawyer, Trustee, Radiation Research Trust (RRT)

UK Ian Dring, PhD, Independent Consultant Scientist

UK Gill Evans, M.Phil, Member of European Parliament for Wales Plaid Cymru

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

(iii)

UK Ian Gibson, PhD, biologist and geneticist, cancer researcher, ex-senior M.P. and

Chair of Science and Technology Select Committee UK Parliament

UK Andrew Goldsworthy, PhD, Imperial College London, Lecturer in Biology (rtd)

UK Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, FRSA, Founder and Director Institute of Science in Society

UK Caroline Lucas, PhD, Member European Parliament, UK Green Party Leader,

Trustee of the Radiation Research Trust

UK Philip Parkin, General Secretary, Voice, union for education professionals

UK Chris Woollams, M.A. Biochemistry (Oxon), Editor, Integrated Cancer and

Oncology News (icon magazine), CEO CANCERactive

Endorsements will be updated on an ongoing basis with the updated list of endorsers which

will be maintained at:

The Radiation Research Trust www.radiationresearch.org

Powerwatch www.powerwatch.org.uk

EMR Policy Institute www.emrpolicy.org

The Peoples Initiative Foundation www.ThePeoplesInitiative.org

ElectromagneticHealth.org www.electromagnetichealth.org

Editors

The following have been responsible for the creation and editing of the document into its

current form:

Primary Author

L. Lloyd Morgan, USA, Bioelectromagnetics Society, Electronics Engineer (retired)

Co-Authors

Elizabeth Barris, USA, ThePeoplesInitiative.org, Founder

Janet Newton, USA, EMR Policy Institute, President

Eileen O’Connor, UK, Radiation Research Trust, Director

Alasdair Philips, UK, Powerwatch, Director; Electronics Engineer & EMF Consultant

Graham Philips, UK, Powerwatch, Technical Manager (ICT Systems)

Camilla Rees, USA, ElectromagneticHealth.org, Founder

Brian Stein, UK, Radiation Research Trust, Chairman

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

(iv)

A quote from one of this report’s endorsers:

“In a world where a drug cannot be launched

without proof that it is safe, where the use of

herbs and natural compounds available to all

since early Egyptian times are now questioned,

their safety subjected to the deepest scrutiny,

where a new food cannot be launched without

prior approval, the idea that we can use mobile

telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi

and mobile phones without restrictions around

our 5 year olds is double-standards gone mad. I

speak, not just as an editor and scientist that has

looked in depth at all the research, but as a father

that lost his beloved daughter to a brain

tumour.”

Chris Woollams M.A. Biochemistry (Oxon).

Editor Integrated Cancer and Oncology News (icon

magazine). CEO CANCERactive.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

1

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................3

Major Points .................................................................................................................................3

Interphone Study Background ..................................................................................................4

Recommendations in Brief .........................................................................................................6

15 Reasons for Concern...............................................................................................................7

Concern 1: Industry’s own research showed cellphones caused brain tumors.......................7

Concern 2: Subsequent industry-funded research also showed that using a cellphone elevated

the risk of brain tumors (2000-2002)................................................................... 7

Concern 3: Interphone studies, published to date, consistently show use of a cellphone for

less than 10 years protects the user from a brain tumor..................................... 8

Concern 4: Independent research shows there is risk of brain tumors from cellphone use. ... 9

Concern 5: Despite the systemic-protective-skewing of all results in the Interphone studies,

significant risk for brain tumors from cellphone use was still found...................9

Concern 6: Studies independent of industry funding show what would be expected if wireless

phones cause brain tumors.................................................................................10

Concern 7: The danger of brain tumors from cellphone use is highest in children, and the

younger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone, the higher the risk.....10

Concern 8: There have been numerous governmental warnings about children’s use of

cellphones........................................................................................................... 11

Concern 9: Exposure limits for cellphones are based only on the danger from heating. ...... 12

Concern 10: An overwhelming majority of the European Parliament has voted for a set of

changes based on “health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields.” ....13

Concern 11: Cellphone radiation damages DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer. ................14

(a) Paper with concern ..................................................................................................................... 14

(b) Industry response....................................................................................................................... 14

(c) Paper with concern...................................................................................................................... 14

(d) Industry response ....................................................................................................................... 14

(e) Paper with concern...................................................................................................................... 15

Concern 12: Cellphone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain barrier to leak. ...15

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

2

Concern 13: Cellphone user manuals warn customers to keep the cellphone away from

the body even when the cellphone is not in use..................................................16

Concern 14: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) warning for cordless phones......17

Concern 15: Male fertility is damaged by cellphone radiation. .............................................. 17

Summary.....................................................................................................................................17

Recommendations.....................................................................................................................18

Appendix 1 - A Description of the Interphone Study Design Flaws ...............................21

Flaw 1: Selection Bias .......................................................................................................... 21

Flaw 2: Insufficient Latency Time .......................................................................................21

Flaw 3: Definition of “Regular” Cellphone User .................................................................22

Flaw 4: Exclusion of Young Adults and Children from the Interphone Study ...................23

Flaw 5: Brain Tumor Risk from Cellphones Radiating Higher Power in Rural Areas

Were Not Investigated .......................................................................................25

Flaw 6: Exposure to Other Transmitting Sources Are Not Considered..............................25

Flaw 7: Exclusion of Brain Tumor Types ............................................................................26

Flaw 8: Tumors Outside the Cellphone’s Radiation Plume Are Treated as Exposed.......... 26

Flaw 9: Exclusion of Brain Tumor Cases Because of Death or Too Ill to Respond.............. 27

Flaw 10: Recall Accuracy of Cellphone Use...........................................................................27

Flaw 11: Funding Bias ...........................................................................................................28

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………..……..29

Appendix 2 - The Precautionary Principle Applied to Cellphone Use ............................30

Government Mandated Actions ..........................................................................................30

Personal Actions.....................................................................................................................31

References...................................................................................................................................32

Cellphones and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern .................................................32

Appendices 1 and 2 - A Description of the Interphone Study Design Flaws and the

Precautionary Principle Applied to Cellphone Use...................................35

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

3

Cellphones and Brain Tumors

15 Reasons for Concern

Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone

Introduction

Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern has been prepared to enable balanced

reporting on this important subject. It provides information on scientific findings from studies

on the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use. It includes studies independent of industry

funding as well as telecommunications industry funded studies. Further, it includes

background information on the soon to be published Telecom-funded Interphone study.

In particular, the report’s purpose is to inform journalists and government officials of the

independent scientific findings that raise red flags, and also to address the design flaws in the

Interphone study protocol that results in an underestimation of the risk of brain tumors from

cellphone use. This report is fully referenced to enable further investigations and for detailed

fact checking.

We urge all readers to review the results from independent studies on the risk of brain tumors

from cellphone use discussed in this report, and to become familiar with the Interphone

study’s design flaws (see Appendix 1, A Description of Interphone Study’s Design Flaws). We

also urge readers to learn about the Precautionary Principle actions (see inside front cover)

that can be implemented by governments and by individuals to greatly reduce cellphone

radiation exposure (see Appendix 2, The Precautionary Principle Applied to Cellphone Use).

Major Points

· Studies, independent of industry, consistently show there is a “significant” 1 risk of

brain tumors from cellphone use.

· The electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure limits advocated by industry and used by

governments are based on a false premise that a cellphone’s electromagnetic

radiation has no biological effects except for heating.

1 Significant as used throughout this document, is a shorthand term-of-art for “statistically significant” which

means there is a 95% or greater probability that the finding is not due to a chance finding. Conversely, “nonsignificant”

is shorthand for “statistically non-significant” meaning that there is less than a 95% confidence that the

finding is due to chance. Also see the footnote in Concern 2.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

4

There are thousands of studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic

radiation at exposure levels far below where heating occurs (non-thermal effects). The

BioInitiative Report provides extensive documentation of studies that show that there

are non-thermal effects. We urge readers to review this report. It can be found online

at www.bioinitiative.org.

· The names of the persons responsible for these Interphone study design flaws have

not been made public so they could be questioned about why these design choices

were made.

In no profession, and in particular for a public health matter, are the responsible people

not held accountable for the product of their work.

· In aggregate, the Interphone study’s design flaws substantially reduce the reported

risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.

These flaws are discussed in detail in Appendix 1. The flaws that result in an

underestimation of the risk of brain tumors include:

o selection bias

o treating study subjects who used a cordless phone as “unexposed” to microwave

radiation

o insufficient latency time to expect a tumor diagnosis

o unrealistic definition of a “regular” cellphone user

o exclusion of children and young adults from the study

o exclusion of many types of brain tumors, and

o exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a

consequence of their brain tumor

In the interest of truth in science, and fair reporting, this document has been prepared to provide

journalists and government officials access to additional information, independent of industry, in order

to enable a better understanding and balanced reporting of all sides of this important topic.

Interphone Study Background

The multi-million dollar, 13-country Interphone study was implemented to determine whether

there is a risk from cellphone use and 3 types of brain tumors: glioma (brain cancer in the

brain’s glial cells), acoustic neuroma (a tumor of the auditory nerve in the brain), and

meningioma (a tumor of the meninges - the lining of the brain and spinal cord). The

Interphone study included the risk of other tumors (e.g., salivary gland) but the results of

these studies are outside the scope of this document.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

5

The combined 13-country Interphone brain tumor results will soon be published, delayed by

four years since first promised [1] and still incomplete. Though the Interphone data collection

was completed in 2004, publication has been repeatedly delayed to such a point that the

European Parliament declared the delay ‘deplorable.’ [2] Here we highlight the possible causes

of these delays.

Much is not known. Certainly, for considerable time we have known there has been internal

squabbling, with the Interphone researchers divided into 3 warring camps: those who believe

“there is no risk”, those who believe that “higher tumor risks are showing up and

precautionary measures are called for”, and those who believe in just not saying (publishing?)

anything. [3] As will be explained below, another reason for this four-year delay may be

embarrassment.

Though the combined results from all 13 countries have yet to be published there have been 14

Interphone studies with partial results published. Three studies have combined results from 5

countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK), [4-6] and the 11 other studies have

reported results from individual countries [Denmark (AN); 2 Denmark (G & M); France (AN,

G & M); Germany (AN); Germany (G & M); Japan (AN); Japan (G & M); Norway (AN, G & M);

Sweden (AN); Sweden (G & M), and; UK (G)]. [7-17]

Surprisingly, the dominant finding of all 14 studies was that use of a cellphone protects the user

from a brain tumor! There are 2 possible conclusions that can be drawn from this unlikely

finding:

1) either using a cellphone does provide protection from a brain tumor, or

2) the study design is fundamentally flawed.

Many epidemiologists believe such a finding is prima facie evidence of a deeply flawed study.

With the identification of 11 design flaws, [18] there is good evidence to support the second of

the 2 possible conclusions, as the most likely. These flaws create a systemic-protective-skew

that underestimates the risk to such an extent that it creates the appearance that using a

cellphone protects the user from a brain tumor.

The 11 flaws, and the resultant systemic-protective-skew may be a source of embarrassment to

Interphone study authors. For example, Professor Bruce Armstrong, Principle Investigator of

the Australian Interphone study, stated during his keynote address at an ACRBR3 annual

meeting in November 2008,

“For meningioma you can see the upper 95% confidence bound is well below one.

Which means this is a highly significant reduction, an apparent reduction, in risk of

meningioma with ever having used a mobile phone. [pause] Does anyone here know

why mobile use protects against brain tumors, [laughter], particularly meningioma?

Does that sound plausible? Do you think it is at all likely, particularly to that extent?

2 AN: Acoustic Neuroma; G: Glioma; M: Meningioma.

3 Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

6

No! So, immediately it tells you there something wrong here, there’s a problem here.”

[Italics indicates tonal emphasis during the talk] [19]

Appendix 1, A Description of the Interphone Study’s Design Flaws, provides the details of each

flaw.

It is also important to point out that in 2004, the second Interphone study to be published

raised considerable alarm when it reported a nearly 300% increased risk of acoustic

neuroma. [7] When a cellphone is held to the ear, it is the acoustic nerve that receives the

highest exposure. When results from all 13 countries are finally published, they will be

incomplete because acoustic neuroma results will not be included as “a complete set of the raw

Interphone data on acoustic neuromas has yet to be circulated.” [20] Five years have gone by

since the full set of acoustic neuroma data has been available, but it has “yet to be circulated.”

Finally, after a delay of 4 years, the 13-country combined Interphone study results, though still

missing the acoustic neuroma results, has been submitted for publication. We are concerned

that the “media statement” (AKA press release) accompanying the publication will mislead

the public into thinking there are no concerns.

Recommendations in Brief

It is our considered view that there are reasons to be concerned about cellphones and brain

tumors. We believe scientists, physicians, health advocates and concerned citizens should call

on their national governments to take a strong public health stand on this issue. Immediate

actions are available and are described in Appendix 2, The Precautionary Principle Applied to

Cellphone Use. We wholeheartedly echo the European Parliament’s recent call for actions. In

brief they are:

· Review the scientific basis and adequacy of existing exposure limits

· Keep certain establishments free of wireless device radiation, including schools, child

day care centers, retirement homes and health care institutions.

· Fund a wide-ranging awareness campaign aimed at young people and children

· Increase communications to the public about the potential health hazards of wireless

devices

· Create yearly reports on electromagnetic radiation exposures, describing the sources

and actions taken to protect public health.

See Recommendations on page 18 for a more extensive list of recommendations.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

7

15 Reasons for Concern

Concern 1: Industry’s own research showed cellphones caused brain tumors.

Dr. George Carlo, leader of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association’s (CTIA)

$25M research project held 3 successive meetings in February 1999: first with the executives of

the CTIA, second with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Interagency Working

Group chartered with determining the safety of cellphones, and third with the CTIA Board of

Directors. At each meeting Dr. Carlo presented the results of CTIA’s own studies, which found

cellphone use was causing brain tumors. [21, p 211] Among the findings Dr. Carlo presented

were:

· a statistically significant doubling of brain cancer risk;

· a statistically significant dose-response4 risk of acoustic neuroma with more than 6

years of cellphone use, and;

· findings of genetic damage in human blood when exposed to cellphone radiation. [21, pp

205-206]

Concern 2: Subsequent industry-funded research also showed that using a

cellphone elevated the risk of brain tumors (2000-2002).

Three of the five subsequent brain tumor studies published between 2000 and 2002 had

Telecom industry funding. All 5 studies found “non-significant” 5 elevated risks for brain

tumors (from 64% to 94.7% confidence that the result was not due to chance) including a

“significant” 20% increased risk of brain tumor for every year of cellphone use. [21-26] 6

4 Dose-response, an important credibility factor in epidemiology. In this context dose-response means, the longer

the use of a cellphone, the higher the risk.

5 Clearly the use of a threshold 95% confidence level to define “significance” in science papers is an arbitrary

convention. Statistical Process Control (SPS), used in factories throughout the world, uses 63% confidence as a

threshold to investigate process problems. Statistical significance is a continuum, not a threshold. To illustrate: is

94.999% confidence “non-significant,” while 95.000% confidence is “significant”?

6 Brain tumor risk with confidence intervals, p-value, and percent confidence are listed with the references.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

8

Concern 3: Interphone studies, published to date, consistently show use of a

cellphone for less than 10 years protects the user from a brain tumor.

All 14 Interphone studies published to date have found use of a cellphone for less than 10

years protects a cellphone user from a brain tumor. As Professor Armstrong said, commenting

on his Australian Interphone study’s finding of protection, “So, immediately it tells you there

something wrong here, there’s a problem here.” As noted above, either this is due to a genuine

protective effect from cellphone use, or it is because the Interphone study is riddled with

design flaws that underestimate the risk of brain tumors. [18] The effect of these design flaws is

that there was systemic-protective-skewing of all results. That is, the true risk is larger than the

published risk. For an explanation of these flaws, see Appendix 1, A Description of the

Interphone Study’s Design Flaws.

A similar example of results from another Telecom industry-funded study on the risk of

cancer among Danish cellphone subscribers found that cellphone use resulted in significant

protection from cancer, and also found for use of a cellphone for 10 or more years, significant

protection from brain tumors. [27]

In both the Interphone studies and the Danish study, the authors disguised their statistically

significant protective results, by stating there was “no risk” of brain tumor, or cancer, from

cellphone use instead of communicating the actual results obtained.

The phenomenon that studies funded by an agency with a financial interest in the results

reports results favorable to their financial interest is, not surprisingly, common. It occurs

across many industries and is known as funding bias.

Dr. Henry Lai, Research Professor, Dept. of Bioengineering, University of Washington, has

analyzed studies investigating effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). EMF

industry-funded studies found effects from EMF exposures 28% of the time, and independent

studies found effects from EMF exposures, 67% of the time. [18]

For more information see Flaw 11: Funding Bias in Appendix 1, A Description of the Interphone

Study Design Flaws.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

9

Concern 4: Independent research shows there is risk of brain tumors from

cellphone use.

Studies led by Professor Lennart Hardell7 in Sweden found significantly increased risk of brain

tumors from 10 or more years of cellphone or cordless phone use. Among their many

significant findings are the following:

· For every 100 hours of cellphone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 5%; [28]

· For every year of cellphone use, the risk of brain cancer increases by 8%; [28]

· After 10 or more years of digital cellphone use, there was a 280% increased risk of brain

cancer; [29]

· For digital cellphone users who were teenagers or younger when they first starting

using a cellphone, there was a 420% increased risk of brain cancer. [30]

Concern 5: Despite the systemic-protective-skewing of all results in the

Interphone studies, significant risk for brain tumors from cellphone use was still

found.

The Interphone study always finds a significant increased risk, or in one study, [14] a nearsignificant8

increased risk (91% confidence), of brain tumors when cellphone use is for 10 or

more years on the same side of the head where the brain tumor was diagnosed. [18] Because the

systemic-protective-skew remains, the true risk is greater than the reported risk for every Odds

Ratio9 reported in any of the Interphone studies. [18, 31]

This suggests that when the 2 highest risks are combined:

1) 10 or more years of cellphone use, and

2) the cellphone was held on the same side of the head where the tumor was diagnosed,

then the true risk overwhelms the systemic-protective-skew such that a significant increased

risk is reported. Nevertheless, even in this case the true risk is still greater than the reported

increased risk.

7 Professor Oncology and Cancer Epidemiology, Orebro University, Orebro, Sweden

8 Near-significant means, >90% confidence, p<0.10 (the probability of a chance finding).

9 Odds Ratio: The relative risk of brain tumors in cellphone users when compared to non-cellphone users.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

10

Concern 6: Studies independent of industry funding show what would be

expected if wireless phones10 cause brain tumors.

We would expect:

· The higher the cumulative hours of wireless phone10 use, the higher the risk; [28]

· The higher the number of years since first wireless phone use, the higher the risk; [28]

· The higher the radiated power from cellphone use, the higher the risk; [32]

· The higher the exposure (use on the same side of head as the brain tumor), the higher

the risk, [29,33] and;

· The younger the user, the higher the risk. [34]

Indeed, Professor Hardell’s Swedish studies, which were not funded by industry, are

consistent with what would be expected if cellphone use caused brain tumors. Such

consistency increases the credibility of any epidemiological study.

Besides the Hardell studies, tellingly, there has been only one other study independent of the

Telecom industry. Published in January 2001, this early (data collection was from June 94 to

August 98) study reported a 70% increased, though non-significant, risk (75% confidence), of

acoustic neuroma. [24]

Why are there no other independent studies? The $4-trillion-a-year Telecom industry [35] has

provided large sums of money for studies on the risk of tumors from cellphone use. Before the

Interphone study existed, Telecom industry groups went to various national governments

saying they would provide funds for such studies if these governments would do the same.

Many of these governments agreed to participate with the Telecom industry groups, and thus

these governments were effectively pre-empted from funding studies independent of the

Telecom industry.

And, these governments’ attitudes towards the Telecom industry are certainly not immune

from the influence of the billions of dollars in annual revenues received from this industry.

Concern 7: The danger of brain tumors from cellphone use is highest in

children, and the younger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone, the

higher the risk.

“In [2005 in] the United States, studies show that over fifty percent of children own their own

personal cell phones.” [36] Since 2005, the percentage of children using cellphone is much

higher.

10 Wireless phones: cellphones or cordless phones

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

11

Since “texting” became popular it is common that children sleep with their cellphones

underneath their pillows. The cellphones are in vibrate-mode so their parents won’t hear the

phone ring. When a message arrives, the child wakes up, and sends a text message reply (so

the parents won’t hear them talking). Because cellphones are frequently radiating unless

turned off, and irrespective of sleep deprivation, even though the cellphone beneath the pillow

is radiating far less average power than when a phone call is being made, sleeping with a

cellphone beneath a pillow results in a night-long exposure, every night.

An Israeli study of brain tumors resulting from scalp irradiation of children (average 7 years of

age) with X-rays found 40 years later, that the children who were exposed when they were

younger than 5 years had the highest risk (a 356% increased risk of a brain tumor), children

who were irradiated between 5 and 10 years of age had a 224% increased risk, and those who

were irradiated at over 10 years of age, had a 47% increased risk of a brain tumor. [37]

Brain tumor risk increases as the age of an exposed child decreases. But the age at exposure

has no effect on latency time. Whether children or adults, the latency time between first

exposure and brain tumor diagnosis remains the same (~30 years). [37]

If the risk of brain tumors is still increasing after 40 years from a single X-ray to the scalp,

could it also be that risk of brain tumors would still be increasing 40 years after children first

started using cellphones? In response to this question the appropriate thing to do would be to

take precautionary measures now instead of taking no action and waiting to see what may

happen. See Appendix 2, The Precautionary Principle Applied to Cellphone Use for a description of

appropriate actions.

Compounding this concern is a recently published Swedish study reporting a 420% increased

risk of brain tumors from cellphone use, and a 340% increase risk from cordless phone use

when wireless phone use began as teenagers or younger. [30]

For more details including numerous graphs see Appendix 1, A Description of the Interphone

Study’s Design Flaws, Flaw 4: Exclusion of young adults and children from studies.

Concern 8: There have been numerous governmental warnings about children’s

use of cellphones.

“France is nearing the point where it will make it illegal to market cell phones to children and

recently banned cellphones in elementary schools. Russian officials have recommended that

children under the age of 18 years not use cell phones at all. Similarly, the United Kingdom,

Israel, Belgium, Germany and India have discouraged use of cell phones by children. In

Finland, the Radiation and Nuclear Power Authority has urged parents to err on the side of

caution.” [Underlines added] [39]

The French government has become the first European government to publicly announce a

proposal for an outright ban on some aspects of mobile phone usage based exclusively on

potential risks to health. The proposed bill could lead to a ban on advertising of mobile phones

to children under 12. It will also be illegal for sales of phones that are intended for use by

children under the age of 6, and it will be compulsory for all handsets to be sold with

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

12

accompanying earphones. While similar to the recommendation of other countries, this is the

first recommendation to have made its way into proposed national legislation. [40]

France is also requiring manufacturers to come up with a new kind of phone for children—it

would only allow sending and receiving of text messages and thus does not allow children to

place the cellphone to the side of their heads. [40]

Toronto’s Department of Public Health has advised that children under eight should only use

mobile phones in emergencies and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes, and

Israel’s Health Ministry has also advised caution. [39]

In January 2009, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) also issued a

position paper stating, “With children, we have reason to be especially careful,” and

recommended children’s mobile phone use should be restricted to text messages, parental

limitation of the number and duration of calls, use of hands-free devices, avoidance of calls

from a moving car or train, and calls from rural areas (where the cellphone radiates more

power in order to connect to a distant cellphone base station. [41] Appendix 2, The Precautionary

Principle Applied to Cellphone Use describes in some detail these same actions.

On July 9, 2009 the Korean Times reported, “The Seoul Metropolitan Council plans to draw up

draft regulations next week to ban the use of cell phones at primary and secondary schools.

For elementary schools, the rules would mean that students can't come to school with phones.

Middle and high schools would collect cell phones and return them after school. ‘Cellular

phones could harm the study atmosphere at schools and could cause health risks for kids. It is

desirable to prohibit students from using cell phones at schools,’ said Lee Jong-eun, head of

the city council for education and culture.” [42]

Even the head of the Interphone studies, Dr. Elizabeth Cardis, stated in an interview with the

French newspaper Le Monde, “I am therefore globally in agreement with the idea of restricting

the use [of cellphones by] children.” [43]

For additional details why children are at higher risk of brain tumors from cellphone use see

Appendix 1, A Description of the Interphone Study’s Design Flaws, Flaw 4: Exclusion of young

adults and children from study.

Concern 9: Exposure limits for cellphones are based only on the danger from

heating.

Cellphones radiate microwaves, as do microwave ovens. The exposure limits set by the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, and by the International

Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protecting (ICNIRP) for most countries in the

European Union, assume the only danger from microwave radiation would come from

temperature increases in our brains, or from temperature increases to any other part of our

bodies. Short and long-term non-thermal effects are not considered.

If there are no non-thermal biological effects, why does medicine use these fields for healing

bone fractures that did not previously heal with a cast, and the military use them to discourage

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

13

the enemy? The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard

for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), presents the irrationality of the existing exposure limits,

which do not consider non-thermal effects, in great depth. [44]

Concern 10: An overwhelming majority of the European Parliament has voted

for a set of changes based on “health concerns associated with electromagnetic

fields.”

In April 2009 the European Parliament by a vote of 559 to 22 (8 abstentions) called for a set of

changes. Among the actions called for were: [45]

· “To review of the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF [exposure] limits.”

· To consider “biological effects when accessing the potential health impacts of

electromagnetic radiation” and for “research to address potential health problems by

developing solutions that negate or reduce the pulsating and amplitude modulation”

used in transmission.

· “Member States to make available … maps showing exposure to high-voltage power

lines, radio frequency and microwaves …telecommunication masts, radio repeaters

and telephone antennas.”

· Publish “a yearly report on the level of electromagnetic radiation by the EU.”

· Finance “a wide ranging awareness campaign” aimed at young people to minimize

their exposures to cellphone radiation. See Appendix 2, for similar methods.

· “Member States to increase research funding” to evaluate “long-term adverse effects”

from cellphones for an “investigation of harmful effects … [from] different sources of

EMF, particularly where children are concerned.”

· Condemnation of “marketing campaigns” for the “sale of mobile phones designed

solely for children.”

· Imposition of “labeling requirements” for transmitted powers on all “wireless operated

devices.”

· “Greatly concerned” that “insurance companies are tending to exclude coverage for the

risk associated with EMFs [from] liability insurance.”

· Member States “to recognize persons with electrohypersensitivity [EHS] …as being

disabled” so as to assure their protection and equal opportunity under law.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

14

Concern 11: Cellphone radiation damages DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer.

Concern 11 not only describes studies that have shown that electromagnetic fields cause DNA

damage, but also describes the role of Telecom industry-funded studies that repeatedly

contradict independent studies. What follows is a kind of “call & response” used to illustrate

both the concerns raised by an independent paper and industry’s attempt to nullify the

concern (Paper with concern & Industry response).

(a) Paper with concern

In a March 2009 paper, “Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage,” Dr. Jerry Phillips, Director,

Science/Health Science Learning Center, University of Colorado, along with Dr. Singh and Dr.

Lai from the University of Washington in Seattle, reviewed all the studies, from exposure to

radio frequency radiation (RFR), with significant cellular DNA damage and studies with no

significant cellular DNA damage. [46] Their paper cites 14 studies showing significant effects

and 17 studies that did not find significant effects.

(b) Industry response

Motorola funded Professor Joseph Roti Roti from Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Roti

Roti is an author on 8 of the 17 “no significant effect” papers.

(c) Paper with concern

Most of the 17 “no effect” studies, used a “comet assay” to determine the extent of DNA

damage. Commenting on the “no significant effect” papers, the authors of the

“Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage,” study stated, “Different versions of the assay have

been developed. These versions have different detection sensitivities and can be used to

measure different aspects of DNA strand breaks. A comparison of data from experiments

using different versions of the assay could be misleading. Another concern is that most of the

comet assay studies were carried out by experimenters who had no prior experience with this

technique and mistakes were made.” [46]

Dr. Roti Roti used a variation of the comet assay referred to as the Olive assay. In this context,

the comet assay used by Drs. Singh and Lai is referred to as the Singh variant. At a

Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) meeting, with Dr. Roti Roti in attendance, a presentation

was made showing that the Olive variant’s sensitivity was far less than the sensitivity of the

Singh variant.

(d) Industry response

Very soon after the BEMS presentation, a Motorola funded study was published (Dr. Roti Roti

was an author) that purported to show that the Olive variant of the Comet assay “is as sensitive

as other modifications of the comet assay reported in literature.” [Italics added] [47] However,

this paper failed to mention that in using human fibroblast cells instead of the human

lymphocytes cells, the “sensitivity” was an artificial result because, “Fibroblasts in culture

have higher background DNA damage than lymphocytes. Therefore, it is more difficult to

detect low levels of DNA damages in fibroblasts. Their paper [Malyapa et al. 1998] [47] said that

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

15

the Olive method is at least as sensitive as the Singh method. It actually would mean that the

Olive method is more sensitive because they determined sensitivity using fibroblasts, instead

of lymphocytes.” [48]

(e) Paper with concern

When the BEMS presentation was published it reported, “The Singh and Olive methods are

identical in principle and similar in practice, but the Singh method appears to be at least oneor

two-orders of magnitude [10 to 100 times] more sensitive.” [49]

Non-technical readers may not understand the import of this seemingly endless debate. Even

those who understand the import are fatigued by the debate. However, the true measure is

which of these Comet assay variants dominate? The table below answers this question. It

shows the number of times each variant has been cited in the peer-reviewed science literature,

providing the answer.

Results as of

July 1st, 2009

Google Scholar

Citations

Scopus

Citations

Web of Science

Citations

Singh et al., 1988 2,956 2,717 2,760

Olive et al., 1990 595 526 571

For additional details, see Appendix 1, “A Description of the Interphone Study Design Flaws”,

Flaw 11: Funding bias.

The above discussion illustrates how industry responds to independent studies by casting

doubt on the validity of the independent studies. When the independent studies show results

not favorable to those with a financial interest, an industry study quickly follows casting doubt

on the original study. The back & forth (call & response) of independent studies followed by

industry studies adds to the sense of doubt. It is a highly successful technique used to

neutralize alarming findings by independent science. It fatigues the mind to such an extent

that few pay attention to what is going on. Yet, as seen in the above table, the big picture is

that the overwhelming conclusion of science favors the independent science.

Concern 12: Cellphone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain

barrier to leak.

Strictly speaking this concern is not about cellphones and brain tumors, but is about a problem

with known and unknown consequences from Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB) leakage resulting

from cellphone use, including the possibility of brain tumors.

The BBB protects the brain from many molecules that are toxic to the brain (e.g., albumin).

Professor Leif Salford, of the Department of Neurosurgery, from Lund University in Sweden

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

16

has shown cellphone radiation results in leakage of the BBB. The highest BBB leakage occurs

at lower exposure levels and decreases for higher exposure levels.

Of considerable alarm, these results show that a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) 11 of 1 Watt of

power deposited per kilogram (1W/kg) of brain tissue results in significantly increased

leakage of albumin across the BBB, and the highest leakage occurs at 100 times lower SAR

levels (0.010 W/kg). [50]

Professor Salford’s study clearly showed BBB leakage killed neurons in the brain of exposed

rats. His findings are of major concern because one of many potential outcomes of BBB

leakage is dementia. As a measure of this concern Section 6 of BioInitiative Report, Evidence

For Genotoxic Effects, cites 23 papers about Blood-Brain Barrier leakage. [44]

Concern 13: Cellphone user manuals warn customers to keep the cellphone

away from the body even when the cellphone is not in use.

In order to insure “safe” operation, many cellphone User Manuals state that the phone must be

kept a certain distance from the user’s body to insure “safe” operation. For example, the

Apple iPhone warns the user, “Tested for use at the ear and for body worn operation (with

iPhone positioned 15 mm (5/8 inch) from the body).” [51] This means that even the existing

exposure limits (based on a false premise), will be violated if the cellphone is less than 15 mm

from the body (e.g., held to the ear, in a shirt pocket, in a pants/trousers pocket, etc.).

Other warnings include:

· Nokia 1100 warns, “This product meets RF exposure guidelines…when positioned at

least 1.5 cm (~1/4 inch) away from the body…and should position the product at least

1.5 cm away from your body.” [52]

· Motorola V195 GSM warns, “keep the mobile device and its antenna at least 2.5

centimeters (1 inch) from your body.” [53]

· BlackBerry 8300 warns, “When using any data feature of the BlackBerry device, with or

without a USB cable, keep the device at least 0.98 inches (25 mm) from your body,” and

“SHOULD NOT be worn or carried on the body.” [CAPITALIZATION in the original]

[54]

Since these manuals are rarely read, the devices will likely be placed against the body. As a

result our so-called “safety” agencies should require that such products be manufactured such

that it would not be possible to place it closer that the stated “safe” limits, if they were truly

concerned about safety. At minimum, the warnings in the user manuals should be on a

warning label prominently displayed on the cellphones or on similar products.

11 In the United States the exposure limit for SAR is 1.6W/kg, and 2.0W/kg in most other countries.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

17

Concern 14: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) warning for cordless

phones.

The FCC warning label attached to the most common cordless phone technology, Digitally

Enhanced Cordless Technology (DECT), warns, “This equipment should be installed and

operated with a minimum distance of 20 centimeters [almost 8 inches] between the radiator

and your body.” [51] Unlike previous cordless phone technology, DECT base stations are

continuously radiating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

DECT phone radiation, based on GSM cellphone technology, is similar to cellphone radiation.

Concern 15: Male fertility is damaged by cellphone radiation.

This concern also is not about brain tumors per se, but is of such potential consequence that it

is discussed here.

Men, and particularly teenage boys, place their cellphone in the pants/trousers pockets when

they are not holding it to their heads in conversation. There are multiple studies showing

deleterious effects on sperm including decreased sperm counts and reduced sperm motility. [55-

57] One study found a highly significant (99.99% confidence) 59% decline in sperm count in

men who used cell phones for 4 or more hours per day as compared with those who did not

use cell phones at all. [56]

Another study reported an 80% increased near-significant risk (93.9% confidence) of testicular

cancer when the cellphone was kept in the left pocket, then the left testicle developed cancer;

kept in the right pocket, then the right testicle developed cancer. [58]

Because there have been no cellphone studies on female fertility it is unknown if there are

deleterious effects. And, it is also a truism, if you don’t look for an effect, you will not find an

effect.

Summary

In conclusion, Telecom-funded studies have been reporting highly questionable results in

comparison with independent studies. Studies independent of industry consistently show

there is a significant risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.

The existing ICNIRP and FCC exposure limits are based on a false premise that only thermal

effects cause harm. In this regard the European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly for a

review of the existing exposure limits.

The risk to children is far greater than to adults, and though some government

recommendations or guidelines have been published, no mandatory actions have been taken.

Soon, after years of delays, for the first time, partial results from all 13 countries of the

Interphone study will be published.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

18

Whatever these results show, they must be interpreted with the understanding that the

Interphone Protocol’s design flaws result in a systemic-protective-skewing of all reported

results.

The Telecom industry “media statement” (AKA press release) and similar messages will do

their best to cast doubt about the risk of brain tumors from wireless phone use. But the facts

remain. We encourage journalists to report on the independent science, to make the dangers of

cellphone use known to the public, and to thoroughly investigate who was responsible for the

Interphone design protocol. In particular who decided, despite asking subjects if they used a

cordless phone, to treat cordless phone use as an unexposed use. This had the effect of

underestimating risk by contrasting cell phone users’ incidence of brain cancer with a group of

“unexposed” people that had high radiation exposure from cordless phone use, the more

common form of wireless phone used at that time.

Recommendations

We the Endorsers and the editors of Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons To Be

Concerned support the full set of actions called for by the European Parliament as a result of

the “Health Concerns Associated With Electromagnetic Fields” vote. We call on our respective

governments to give the highest priority to this list of actions:

· Ban marketing campaigns of cellphones designed solely for children.

· Require proof of liability insurance coverage for potential health risks associated with

cellphones and similar wireless devices prior to their being offered for sale.

· Review the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF exposure limits.

· Allocate research funding, independent of industry funds and influence, to evaluate

long-term adverse effects from cellphones and other harmful effects from different

sources of EMF, particularly where children are concerned.

· Finance a wide-ranging awareness campaign aimed at young people to minimize their

exposures to cellphone radiation.

· Require warning labels on all wireless devices.

· Make available maps showing exposure to high-voltage power lines, radio frequency

and microwaves from telecommunication masts (cell towers), radio repeaters and

telephone antennas.

· Publish a yearly report on the level of electromagnetic radiation in our respective

nations.

And, we the Endorsers and editors call for these additional actions by our respective

governments:

· Fund comprehensive research, independent of industry influence and funds, into the

biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields from all sources.

· Pass legislation that rewards whistle-blowers who produce cellphone industry

documentation that acknowledges harmful effects from their products.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

___________________________________________________________________________________

19

· Adoption of “biologically based” exposure guidelines and limits based on non-thermal

electromagnetic field exposure effects, in contrast to use of the false premise that the

only effects from electromagnetic field exposures are from heating.

· Call on all governments that provided part-funding of the Interphone study to see that

the Interphone study management group expedite release of the complete results from

the Interphone study including, but not limited to, the risk of acoustic neuroma, and

the risk by tumor location (e.g., temporal lobe tumor on the side of the head where

there cellphone was used) from cellphone use. If the complete results are not

published by a specified date, then government funding of the Interphone study shall

be refunded by the Telecom industry.

· Finally, call for all Interphone studies previously published to be revised by treating

subjects who used a cordless phone as ‘exposed’ subjects, and the revised results

published by a specified date certain, correcting for a serious design flaw (See Flaw #6

in Appendix 1). As above, if not published by a specified date, the funds provided by

governments are to be refunded by the Telecom industry.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

20

The science is here.

The problem exists.

Action is required.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

21

Appendix 1

A Description of the

Interphone Study Design Flaws

Flaw 1: Selection Bias

In a case–control cellphone study both brain tumor cases and controls without a brain tumor

are asked if they would like to participate in a “cellphone study.” It is reasonable to assume

controls who use a cellphone are more likely to participate than controls who do not use a

cellphone. This would result in selection bias. And, such selection bias would result in an

underestimation of risk.

The impact of selection bias increases as the percentage of controls that refuse to participate

increases. The Interphone weighted-average refusal rate for controls was a remarkably high

41%. [1] Dr. Sam Milham, an occupational epidemiologist with over 100 published papers,

states that, in the past, science journals would not accept a study with such a high refusal

rate. [2]

One Interphone study investigated the possibility of selection bias by asking controls that

refused participation if they used a cellphone; 34% said they used a cellphone and 59% said

they did not use a cellphone, confirming selection bias in that Interphone study. [3]

Flaw 2: Insufficient Latency Time

The known latency time (the time between exposure and diagnosis) for brain tumors is 30+

years [4], similar to lung cancer from smoking, [5] and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. [6]

An ICNIRP study states, “Most types of cancer occur many years, or even decades, after initial

exposure to known carcinogens.” [7] Yet, they also note, “However, the important issue is not

how long it takes for maximum risk to occur, but how long before detectable risk is present.

Even for asbestos, a carcinogen that has a notoriously long induction period, detectable

elevations in risk occur 10–14 years after first exposure,” [7]

Ten or more years was the longest cellphone use time reported in the Interphone studies.

Three of the 11 single country Interphone studies had very few people who had used a

cellphone for more than ten years and had no brain tumor cases among these people, and 3 of

the remaining 8 studies had less than 10 cases. Not including sufficient numbers of longerterm

cellphone users results in an underestimation of risk.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

22

Flaw 3: Definition of “Regular” Cellphone User

The Interphone Protocol defines “regular” cellphone use, as use for at least once a week, for 6

months or more, with any cellphone use 1 year prior to diagnosis (Dx) excluded. Based on UK

cellphone subscriber data, [8] and the UK study’s Dx eligibility dates [9], the rapid rise of

cellphone subscribers finds 85% of “regular” UK users had used a cellphone for less than 5

years; 98% of “regular” UK users had used a cellphone for less than 10 years (all Interphone

countries had similar rapid increases in cellphone users). See Figure 1: UK Cellphone

Subscribers by Year.

Given known latency times how could any risk of brain tumors be expected for “regular”

users? Inclusion of such a large proportion of short-term users (use for at least once a week, for

6 months or more) underestimates the risk of brain tumors.

Dr. Elizabeth Cardis, the head of the Interphone study stated, “Reporting ‘regular’ user [data]

was not intended to be a risk factor.” [10] Yet, the abstract of every Interphone brain tumor

study highlights that there is “no risk” of brain tumors from “regular” cellphone use.

Figure 1: UK Cellphone Subscribers by Year

Figure 1 provides a picture showing the number of UK cellphone subscribers who have used a cellphone

for a particular length of time in years (latency time). Clearly, the vast majority of “regular” cellphone

users had used a cellphone for a relatively short period of time. Given known latency times for brain

tumors, risk of brain tumors in the Interphone studies would not be expected to be diagnosed given the

definition of “regular” cellphone users.

UK Subscribers by Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Years from Eligibility Date

(Latency Time)

Millions

0

UK

Eligibility

Date

2002.5

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

<5 year latency

85% User-Year

>5 year latency

15% User-years

>10 year latency

2% User-years

UK Subscription Source: History of Mobile Phone Usage

Mobile Operators Association UK (2008)

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

23

Flaw 4: Exclusion of Young Adults and Children from the Interphone Study

The Interphone Protocol requires subjects to be between 30 and 59 years of age (some studies

have included ages as low as 20). There is strong evidence that the young adults and children

are at greater risk from exposure to carcinogens than mature adults suggesting that the young,

with greater cell growth, are more vulnerable to genetic mutations.

Two cellphone studies report higher brain tumor risks in young adults (20–29 years of age)

compared to mature adults. The first study found a 717% increased risk of brain tumor

compared to a 35% increased risk for all adults using an analog cellphone [11] (see Figure 2:

Increased Risk of Brain Tumor in Young Adults Compared to All Adults), and the second

study found a 217% increased risk of brain tumor [12] compared to 26% to 84% increased risk in

older adults (see Figure 3: Increased Risk of Brain Tumor in Young Adults Compared to All

Adults). An ionizing radiation brain tumor study of children found the younger a child’s age,

the greater the increased risk of brain tumors (356% increased risk/Gy12 of brain tumors for

children less than 5 years of age; 224%% increased risk/Gy for children 5 to 9 years of age,

and; 47% increased/Gy risk for children 10 or more years (See Figure 4 Increased Risk of Brain

Tumors in Children by Age at Exposure). [4]

Exclusion of children and young adults underestimates the risk of brain tumor.

In c r e a s e d R is k o f B r a in T u m o r , > 5 Y e a r s o f U s e

0 %

1 0 0 %

2 0 0 %

3 0 0 %

4 0 0 %

5 0 0 %

6 0 0 %

7 0 0 %

8 0 0 %

2 0 -8 0 y e a rs 2 0 -2 9 y e a rs 2 0 -8 0 y e a rs 2 0 -2 9 y e a rs

A n a lo g c e llp h o n e C o rd le s s p h o n e

In c r e a s e d

r is k

Figure 2: Increased Risk of Brain Tumor in Young Adults Compared to All Adults

Figure 2 shows a dramatic difference in the increased risk of brain tumor from use of either an analog

cellphone or a cordless phone exists in young adults (red column) when compared to all adults (blue

column).

12 Gy, abbreviations for Gray, a unit of measure for an X-ray dose. The average dose in this study was 1.5Gy.

Hardell, et al. Arch. Environ. Health 2004

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

24

Figure 3: Increased Risk of Brain Tumor in Young Adults Compared to Older Adults

Figure 3 demonstrates how the risk for brain tumors from cellphone use is much higher in young adults

(red column) when compared to older adults (blue columns).

Risk per Gray (Gy) for Malignant Brain Tumors

by Age at Exposure from Ionizing Radiation Exposure

356%

224%

47%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

<5 5-9 10+

Age at Exposure

Increased

Risk/GY

Mean estimated dose: 1.5 Gy (range 1.0 to 6.0 Gy)

Source: Sadetzki et al., RADIATION RESEARCH V.163 2005

Mean Age at Exposure: 7.1 years (range <1 to 15 years)

Figure 4: Increased Risk of Brain Tumor in Children by Age at Exposure

Figure 4 demonstrates that the younger the age of a child when the head is exposed to ionizing radiation,

the higher the risk of brain tumor.

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years

Age Range

Risk of

Brain Tumor

>99% confidence

Source: J.W. Choi el al.Case-control Studies on Human

Effects of Wireless Phone RF in Korea, BEMS 2006

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

25

Children’s heads and brains are not miniature adult heads. Their skulls are thinner, the

proportion of water is higher, myelin (thought to be like wire insulation for neurons) is still

developing, etc. As a result, as shown in Figure 5, the cellphone radiation penetrates a far

larger proportion of the brain. [13]

Source: Gandhi et al., IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 1996.

Figure 5: Estimation of the absorption of electromagnetic radiation from a cell phone based

on age (Frequency GSM 900 MHz) (Color scale shows the Specific Absorption Rate in W/kg)

Figure 5 demonstrates how much greater the cellphone’s radiation plume penetrates a 5 year old child’s

head, and a 10 year old child’s head as compared to an adult’s head.

Perhaps Figure 5 explains why in Figure 4, the younger the child when first exposed, the

higher the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor?

Flaw 5: Brain Tumor Risk from Cellphones Radiating Higher Power in Rural

Areas Were Not Investigated

Because rural users are farther away from the cell towers (base stations or masts) compared to

urban users, the cellphone’s radiated power is higher. [14] Unfortunately the Interphone studies

selected mostly metropolitan areas to locate brain tumor cases. When higher radiated power is

not included there is an underestimation of risk.

Flaw 6: Exposure to Other Transmitting Sources Are Not Considered

Subjects who used cordless phones, walkie-talkies, Ham radio transmitters, etc., and who did

not use a cellphone, are treated as unexposed in the Interphone study when in fact they are

exposed to radiation quite similar to cellphone radiation. Further, during the period when the

Interphone investigation was underway, far more people used cordless phones that used

cellphones. So arguably there were greater exposures from cordless phone use than for

cellphone use.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

26

It is important to note that two independently funded cellphone studies found that use of a

cordless phone results in an increased risk of brain tumors. [15,16] Treating exposed subjects as

unexposed, once again, underestimates the risk of brain tumors.

The existence of Flaw 6 is perhaps the most egregious example of either ignorance by the

authors of the Interphone Protocol,13 or a conscious attempt to downplay a discovery of a risk.

DECT cordless phones are based on GSM cellphone technology. The unpublished portion of

the Interphone Protocol requires asking subjects if they use a cordless phone. Yet cordless

phone use was not analyzed. Since cordless phone use data exists, a further analysis treating

cordless phone users as being exposed, and publication of the results, is required.

Flaw 7: Exclusion of Brain Tumor Types

The Interphone study includes three brain tumor types: acoustic neuroma, glioma and

meningioma, but excludes all other types of brain tumors (e.g. brain lymphoma,

neuroepithelial brain tumors, etc.). Exclusion of these other tumors underestimates the risk of

brain tumors. Interestingly, as noted above in “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Key

Reasons for Serious Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone”, another

Telecom-funded study reported a 2.1-fold risk of a neuroepithelial brain tumor, [17] and a

Telecom-funded cellphone study showed an excess risk of lymphoma in mice exposed to

cellphone radiation. [18] Given this prior knowledge that cellphone radiation exposure

increased the risk of these tumors, it is surprising that these tumours were not included, even

if all brain tumor types were not.

Flaw 8: Tumors Outside the Cellphone’s Radiation Plume Are Treated as

Exposed

The cellphone’s radiation plume’s volume is a small proportion of the brain’s volume. Treating

tumors outside the radiation plume as exposed tumors results in an overestimation of risk (the

only flaw that overestimates risk), while at the same time creating a hidden underestimation of

risk. Instead, if the risk of brain tumors within the cellphones’ radiation plume were analyzed,

the existing data suggests that this risk would be greatly increased above what has been

reported in the Interphone study.

The adult brain absorbs the cellphone’s radiation almost entirely on the side of the head where

the cellphone is held (ipsilateral); almost no radiation is deposited on the opposite side of the

head (contralateral). In adults the ipsilateral temporal lobe absorbs 50–60% of the total

radiation and is ~15% of the brain’s volume. The ipsilateral cerebellum absorbs 12–25% of the

total radiation and is ~5% of the brain’s volume. Thus, 62–85% of the cellphone’s radiation is

absorbed by ~20% of an adult’s brain’s volume (see Adult Head in Figure 5). [19]

13 Interphone investigators must follow the Interphone Protocol, and thus are not responsible, per se, for the

systemic-protective-skew. The Interphone Protocol is partially the published version [20], though substantial

portions of the Interphone Protocol remain unpublished.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

27

Because a child’s brain absorbs far more radiation than an adult’s brain, these data are not

applicable for a child’s brain.

Flaw 9: Exclusion of Brain Tumor Cases Because of Death or Too Ill to Respond

A large number of brain cancer (glioma) cases died before they could be interviewed or were

too ill to be interviewed. Common practice would be to interview a proxy (e.g., a spouse). The

published portion of the Interphone Protocol requires use of proxies in case of death. [20] Yet, 3

of the 7 glioma studies excluded deceased, or too ill to be interviewed cases from their studies

[21-23] and a 4th did not use proxies for all of the cases who were too ill to be interviewed or who

had died. [24] The weighted average of these exclusions was 23% of all glioma cases. This flaw

limits determining the risks, if any, from the most deadly and debilitating brain tumors from

cellphone use.

Another study found significant risks for high-grade glioma (the most deadly), but not for

low-grade glioma (less deadly). [25]

Flaw 10: Recall Accuracy of Cellphone Use

Memory accuracy, particular in the distant past, is limited at best. An Interphone validation

study investigated this problem by asking cellphone users to recall their cellphone use, and

then compared their recall to billing records.

The validation study reported that light cellphone users tend to underestimate their use, and

heavy users tend to overestimate their use. This results in an underestimation of risk. [26] Thus,

though recall accuracy is a genuine problem, its effect would be to underestimate the risk. In

other words, because of the effects of inaccurate recall the true risk is larger than the published

risk.

Accurate data for the Interphone study could have been obtained by accessing subjects’

cellphone-billing records as was done in the validation study of recall bias. [26] An August 2005

magazine article describing the Interphone study with the head of the Interphone study, Dr.

Elizabeth Cardis, reported, “… the researchers carried out personalized and in-depth

interviews of the control groups to assess for how long and how frequently they used mobile

phones. Important details were recorded carefully – including which ear the mobile phone is

usually held against. … These recall data were then compared with the invoicing data

available from the service operators, the network technical characteristics and the phones

used.” [27] Yet, none of the 14 Interphone studies reported use of invoice data, and instead

stated they relied solely on the subjects’ memory. This raises the question whether the

magazine report was wrong, or was the invoice data that was collected never used.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

28

Flaw 11: Funding Bias

If studies are funded by an entity with a financial interest in the findings, it has been shown,

more often than not, the findings of such a study are favorable to the financial interest

compared to studies where the funding has no financial interest.

Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington in Seattle maintains a database of cellphone

biological studies. The results (Table 1) from his database (July 2007) report the magnitude of

funding bias. The EMF industry-funded studies found an effect from EMF exposures in 28% of

the studies, and the independently funded EMF studies found an effect from EMF exposures

67% of the time. The probability that this is a chance finding is extraordinarily minute (p =

2.3×10−9).14

A study on the source of funding of cellphone studies and the reported results reported, “We

found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to

report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health.”

[28]

Cellphone Biological Studies

Effect Found No Effect Found

Studies

% All

Studies Studies

% All

Studies Studies

% All

Studies

Industry No. 27 8.3% 69 21.2% 96 29.4%

Funded

% 28.1% 71.9%

Independently No. 154 47.5% 76 23.5% 230 70.6%

Funded

% 67.0% 33.0%

Totals 181 55.5% 145 44.5% 326 100.0%

Chi2 =39.8 (p=2.3x10-9) 11 July 2006 [1]

Table 1: Industry-Funded and Independently-Funded Cellphone Biological Studies

Financial bias is pervasive across all fields of science. It is sufficiently pervasive that books

have been written on the subject and science journals have brought it to the attention of their

readers. A search for books about “Funding Bias in Science” at Amazon.com found 86 titles. [29]

14 p is the probability of a finding being due to chance alone.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

29

In a review of a book by Sheldon Krimsky, “Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Its

Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?”, Dr. Roger Porter wrote, “The major theme of this

superb book, therefore, is the degradation of the academic scientist, who is lured to the

pecuniary gains offered by industry and now asks the scientific questions posed by industry

instead of independently pursuing scientific investigation of public needs.” [30]

A substantial portion of the Interphone study funding comes from the cellphone industry. For

European studies, industry has provided more than €3.2 million ($4.5M), [31] another $1 million

came from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association [32] and it is unknown if

industry funding has been provided for studies in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

In addition to the €3.2 million, the Interphone Exposure Assessment Committee received an

unknown amount of funding from the UK Network Operators (O2, Orange, T-Mobile,

Vodafone, ‘3’) and French Network Operators (Orange, SFR, Bouygues). [20] A cellphone

company employed at least one member of the Exposure Assessment Committee: Dr. Joe

Wiart from France Telecom. [20]

Beyond the €3.2 million available to the European Interphone studies, the French study [22]

received an unknown amount of funding from “Orange, SFR, Bouygues Télécom.” [33]; the UK

study received an unknown amount of funding from O2, Orange, T-Mobile, and Vodafone,

and [9]; the Danish study received an unknown amount of funds from the for-profit

International Epidemiology Institute (IEI). The source of the IEI funds is not stated. [21]

Conclusion

The 11 Interphone study design flaws, taken together, greatly distort the true risk of brain

tumors from cellphone use. Any consideration of Interphone study conclusions must weigh

an understanding of these design flaws so as not to mislead the public about risks of cell

phone use. It is the view of the editors and endorsers of this report that there is a far greater

risk of brain tumors from cellphone use than has been reported in the Telecom-funded Danish

cellphone subscriber study or in the Telecom-funded Interphone study.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

30

Appendix 2

The Precautionary Principle

Applied to Cellphone Use

Simply put the Precautionary Principle is a policy that says if there is some evidence that a

problem may exist, and low or no-cost actions are available, then these actions should be

undertaken. Colloquially, we say, “Better safe than sorry.” If cellphones induce brain tumors

the potential public health costs are enormous. There is a simple action that can reduce the

absorbed cellphone radiation by several orders-of-magnitude (factors-of-10) for virtually no

cost.

Cellphone radiation decreases as the square of the distance from the phone. As a result even

small changes in distance have a dramatic effect. For example, say when the speaker on the

cellphone is placed to the ear, the cellphone is 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) from the head, and if the

cellphone is held 10 inches (25 cm) it is 100 times farther from the head. The square of 100 is

10,000. Because of the inverse square decrease of radiation with distance, this increase in

distance would result in a 10,000-fold reduction in the radiation absorbed by the head.

With use of a headset (not a wireless headset) connected to a cellphone, the cellphone is not

held directly against the ear and thus the absorbed cellphone radiation could be reduced by

several orders-of-magnitude.

Government Mandated Actions

1. An appropriate Precautionary Principle action would be for governments to mandate

cellphone manufacturers remove the existing cellphone speaker that is placed to the ear

and replace it with a headset directly connected to the cellphone. The cost would be

near zero (potentially a net cost savings): remove one cellphone speaker¾add another

speaker (AKA headset).

2. Given the greater vulnerability of younger people to cellphone radiation, governments

should mandate that schools post warnings about the potential health risks of

microwave radiation from cellphones.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

_______________________________________________________________________________

31

Personal Actions

Here are 8 simple steps you can take to substantially reduce your or your children’s, exposure

to cellphone radiation:

1. When on a call, use a wired headset (not a wireless headset such as a Bluetooth), or use

in speaker-phone mode, or send text messages. [7]

2. Keep the cellphone away from your body (particularly pant/trouser or shirt pockets)

or use a belt holster designed to shield the body from cellphone radiation, when not in

use (stand-by mode).

3. Avoid use in a moving car, train, bus, or in rural areas at some distance from a cell

tower (AKA mast or base station) as any of these uses will increase the power of the

cellphone’s radiation. [7]

4. Use the cellphone like an answering machine. Keep it off until you want to see who

has called. Then return calls, if necessary, using steps 5 and 1.

5. Use a corded land-line phone, whenever possible, instead of a wireless phone.

6. Avoid use inside of buildings, particularly with steel structures.

7. Do not allow your children to sleep with a cellphone beneath their pillow or at the

bedside.

8. Do not allow your children under 18 to use a cellphone except in emergencies.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern - References

_______________________________________________________________________________

32

References for the main document

Cellphones and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

1. Elizabeth Cardis. Cellphones and Cancer, Session 2-3, Bioelectromagnetics Society Meeting, Maui,

Hawaii. June 2003, Slide 22.

2. Electromagnetic Health.org, “European Parliament Takes Stand on Health Hazards of Wireless

Technologies.” Posted 21 April 2009. (http://sn.im/ksrev) accessed 5 July 2009).

3. The INTERPHONE Study, Mobile Madness, Science and technology. The Economist, September 28,

2008, pp 93-94.

4. Lahkola, et al., Meningioma and mobile phone use—a collaborative case–control study in five North

European countries, Int. J. Epidemiol. (2008) August 2 [Epub ahead of print].

5. Schoemaker, et al., Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case–

control study in five North European countries, Br. J. Cancer (2005) 1–7.

6. Lahkola, et al., Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries, Int. J. Cancer

120 (2007) 1769–1775.

7. Lönn, et al., Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma, Epidemiology 15 (6 Nov 2004).

8. Christensen, et al., Cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma, Am. J. Epidemiol. 159

(2004) 277–283.

9. Lönn, et al., Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk, Am. J. Epidemiol. 161 (2005) 526–

535.

10. Christensen, et al., Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors. A population-based, incident case–

control study, Neurology 64 (2005) 1189–1195.

11. Schüz, et al., Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone

Study Group, Germany), Am. J. Epidemiol. 163 (March 15 (6)) (2006) 512–520.

12. T. Takebayashi, S. Akiba, K. Kikuchi, et al., Mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma risk in Japan,

Occup. Environ. Med. 63 (2006) 802–807.

13. Hours, et al., Téléphone mobile, risque de tumeurs cérébrales et du nerf vestibuloacoustique: l’étude

cas-témoins INTERPHONE en France (Cell Phones and Risk of brain and acoustic nerve tumours:

the French INTERPHONE case–control study), Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (2007).

14. Hepworth, et al., Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case–control study, BMJ 332 (April

15 (7546)) (2006) 883–887.

15. Klaeboe, et al., Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours, Eur. J. Cancer

Prev. 16 (April (2)) (2007) 158–164.

16. Takebayashi, et al., Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain

tumour: a case–control study, Br. J. Cancer 98 (2008) 652–659.

17. Schlehofer, et al., Environmental risk factors for sporadic acoustic neuroma (Interphone Study

Group, Germany), Eur. J. Cancer 43 (July (11)) (2007) 1741–1747.

18. Morgan LL. Estimating the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use: Published case–control studies.

Pathophysiology. 2009 Apr 6. [Epub ahead of print].

19. Bruce Armstrong, Keynote Address, Annual ACRBR Meeting 12 November 2008

(http://acrbr.org.au/SW2008/SW08.aspx?section=Keynote, (12:20 to 13:00, as on 15 July 2009)

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern - References

_______________________________________________________________________________

33

20. Microwave News, IARC Director Forces Publication Of Interphone Brain Tumor Results (Acoustic

Neuroma Analysis Languishes as the Feud Continues), 11 May 2009

(http://www.microwavenews.com./docs/mwn.5(4)-09.pdf, (as on 26 June 2009).

21. Cell Phones, Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, An Insiders Alarming Discoveries About Cancer

and Genetic Damage, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carrol & Graf Publishers, Inc. New

York, 2001.

22. Hardell, et al., Case–control study on radiology work, medical X-ray investigations, and use of

cellular telephones as risk factors for brain tumors, MedGenMed. 2 (May 4 (2)) (2000) E2. [Risk of

temporal, parietal and occipital lobe brain tumors on the same side of head as where cellphone was

held: OR=2.42. 95% Confidence Interval, 0.97 to 6.05. p= 0.053, 94.7% confidence]

23. Muscat, et al., Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 284

(December 20 (23)) (2000). [Risk of neuroepithelial brain cancer: OR=2.1, 95% Confidence Interval,

0.9 to 4.7, p=0.073, 92.7% confidence]

24. Inskip, et al., Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors, N. Engl. J. Med. 344 (January 11 (2)) (2001)

79–86. [Risk of acoustic neuroma with 5 or more years of use: OR=1.9, 95% Confidence Interval, 0.6

to 5.9, p=0.26, 74% confidence]

25. Muscat, et al., Handheld cellular telephones and risk of acoustic neuroma, Neurology 58 (2002)

1304–1306. [Risk of acoustic neuroma with 3 to 6 years of cellphone use: OR=1.7, 95% Confidence

Interval 0.5 to 5.1, p= 0.36, 64% confidence]

26. Auvinen, et al., Brain tumors and salivary gland cancers among cellular telephone users,

Epidemiology 13 (May (3)) (2002) 356–359. [Risk of glioma (cancer) with more than 3 years of

cellphone use: OR=1.7, 95% Confidence Interval 0.9 to 3.5, p=0.12, 88% confidence, and percentage

increase risk of glioma per year of cellphone use: OR=1.2, 95% Confidence Interval 1.0 to 1.4, p=

0.050, 95% confidence]

27. Schüz, et al. Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 98, No. 23, December 6, 2006 [Risk of male cancer,

OR=0.93, 95% Confidence Interval, 0.92 to 0.95, p<10-9, ~100% confidence; risk of brain and CNS

tumors and leukemia with more than 10 years of cellphone use, OR=0.66, 95% Confidence Interval

0.44 to 0.95, p=0.031, 96.9% confidence]

28. Hansson Mild, et al., Pooled analysis of two Swedish case–control studies on the use of mobile and

cordless telephones and the risk of brain tumours diagnosed during 1997–2003, Int. J. Occup. Safety

Ergon. (JOSE) 13 (1) (2007) 63–71.

29. Hardell et al. Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones

and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997–2003. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ.

Health 79 (September (8)) (2006) 630–639.

30. Hardell and Carlberg. Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 35: 5-17, 2009.

31. Kundi, M. The Controversy about a Possible Relationship between Mobile Phone Use and Cancer.

Environmental Health Perspectives doi: 10.1289/ehp.11902 (available at http://dx.doi.org/) Online

26 September 2008).

32. Hardell, et al., Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas, Occup.

Environ. Med. 62 (2005) 390–394.

33. Hardell, et al., Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on the use of cellular and cordless

telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997–2003, Int. J. Oncol. 28 (2006)

509–518.

34. Hardell, et al., Cellular and cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in

different age groups, Arch. Environ. Health 59 (March (3)) (2004) 132–137.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern - References

_______________________________________________________________________________

34

35. (Plunkett Research, Ltd. (http://snurl.com/ostwb) (as on 19 July 2009)

36. Cell Phone Usage Statistics http://www.cellnumbers.com/cell-phone-usage.aspx (on 27 June 2009)

37. S. Sadetzki, A. Chetrit, L. Freedman, Long-term follow-up for brain tumor development after

childhood exposure to ionizing radiation for tinea capitis, Radiat. Res. 163 (2005) 424–432.

38. Cell Phone Warning: Nations Warning against and Banning Cell Phone Use in Children

(www.chetday.com/cellphonewarning.htm, accessed 28 June 2009)

39. French government bans advertising of mobiles to children, New limits will be placed on radiation

levels amid fears of increased risk of cancer from phone use. Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor. 11

January 2009 (http://sn.im/k14u1, accessed 28 June 2009).

40. Charles Bremner, Mobile phones to be banned in French primary schools to limit health risks, The

Times, May 27, 2009.

41. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority: Children's mobile phone use should be limited, 7 January

2009 (http://www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/en_GB/news_527/, accessed 28 June 2009).

42. Kang Shin-who, Cell Phone Ban at School Sought. The Korea Times

(http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/117_48198.html, (as on 9 July 2009)

43. Microwave News. Interphone Project: The Cracks Begin To Show, Cardis Endorses Precaution. 19

June 2008 (http://snurl.com/ostx9, accessed 28 June 2009).

44. BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A

Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and

RF) at www.bioinitiative.org, August 31, 2007.

45. The text adopted by the European Parliament can be found at http://sn.im/k2tjz (on 21 July 2009).

46. Phillips et al., Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Pathophysiology. 2009 Mar 3. [Epub]

47. Malyapa et al. SHORT COMMUNICATION, Detection of DNA Damage by the Alkaline Comet

Assay after Exposure to Low-Dose Gamma Radiation. RADIATION RESEARCH 149, 396-400

(1998).

48. Narendra Singh, Personal communication, 6 July 2009.

49. Rojas et al. Single cell gel electrophoresis assay: methodology and applications. Journal of

Chromatography B, 722 (1999) 225–254.

50. Salford et al. TOPIC IN FOCUS 2: RF-EMF and BBB, Non-thermal Electromagnetic Fields from

Mobile Phones and Base Stations do have Effects Upon the Mamalian Brain. BioEM 2009 Meeting,

Davos, Switzerland. 16 June 2009.

51. Rewire Me eMagazine, version 1.1, page 17 (http://www.rewire.me/, accessed 28 June 2009)

52. Nokia 1100 User´s Guide, page 63

53. Motorola V195 GSM User’s Manual, page 70

54. Safety and Product Information, BlackBerry Curve 8300 Smartphone, p15 and 17

55. Baste et al. Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields; male infertility and sex ratio of offspring. Eur J

Epidemiol. 2008 Apr 16 [Epub ahead of print]

56. Argarwal et al. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an

observational study. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):124-8. Epub 2007 May 4.

57. Fejes et al. Is there a Relationship Between Cell Phone Use and Semen QUALITY? Archives of

Andrology, 51:385–393, 2005.

58. Hardell et al. Use of cellular and cordless telephones and risk of testicular cancer. Int. J. Androl. 30

(2) (2007) 115–122.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

References for Appendices 1 and 2

_______________________________________________________________________________

35

References for Appendices 1 and 2

A Description of the Interphone Study Design Flaws and

the Precautionary Principle Applied to Cellphone Use

1. Morgan LL. Estimating the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use: Published case–control studies.

Pathophysiology. 2009 Apr 6. [Epub ahead of print].

2. S. Milham, Personal communication, 18 August 2008.

3. Lönn, et al., Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma, Epidemiology 15 (6 November

2004).

4. S. Sadetzki, A. Chetrit, L. Freedman, Long-term follow-up for brain tumor development after

childhood exposure to ionizing radiation for tinea capitis, Radiat. Res. 163 (2005) 424–432.

5. W.Weiss, Cigarette smoking and lung cancer trends. A light at the end of the tunnel? Chest 111

(May (5)) (1997) 1414–1416.

6. C. Bianchi, L. Giarelli, G. Grandi, et al., Latency periods in asbestos related mesothelioma of the

pleura, Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 6 (April (2)) (1997) 162–166.

7. Ahlbom et al. Epidemilogical Evidence on Mobile Phones and Tumor Risk. Epidemiology. Vol. 20,

No. 5, September 200.

8. History of Mobile Phone Usage Mobile Operators Association UK (2008),

http://www.mobilemastinfo.com/information/history.htm, accessed 20 November 2008.

9. Hepworth, et al., Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case–control study, BMJ 332 (April

15 (7546)) (2006) 883–887.

10. Elizabeth Cardis (in response to questions), Plenary Session II, Epidemiology Studies on Cellular

Telephones Use and the Risk of Brain Tumors, Bioelectromagnetics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA,

June 9, 2008.

11. Hardell, et al., Cellular and cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in

different age groups, Arch. Environ. Health 59 (March (3)) (2004) 132–137.

12. Choi, et al., Case–control studies on human effects of wireless phone RF in Korea, in:

Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) 28th Annual Meeting, Cancún, Mexico, 2006.

13. Gandhi et al., IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 1996. 44 (10): 1884-1897

14. Lönn, et al., Output power levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications

for exposure assessment, Occup. Environ. Med. 61 (2004) 769–772.

15. Hardell, et al., Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on the use of cellular and cordless

telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997–2003, Int. J. Oncol. 28 (2006)

509–518.

16. Hardell, et al., Pooled analysis of two case–control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones

and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997–2003, Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health

79 (September (8)) (2006) 630–639.

17. Muscat, et al., Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 284

(December 20 (23)) (2000). [Risk of neuroepithelial brain cancer: OR=2.1, 95% Confidence Interval,

0.9 to 4.7, p=0.073, 92.7% confidence]

18. Repacholi, et al., Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900MHz

electromagnetic fields, Radiat. Res. 147 (5) (1997) 631–640.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

References for Appendices 1 and 2

_______________________________________________________________________________

36

19. Cardis, et al., Distribution of RF energy emitted by mobile phones in anatomical structures of the

brain, Phys. Med. Biol. 53 (2008) 2771–2783.

20. E. Cardis, M. Kilkenny, INTERPHONE, International Case Control Study of Tumours of the Brain

and Salivary Glands, Protocol, rev. 1, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France

2001, IARC internal report 01/002.

21. Christensen, et al., Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors. A population-based, incident case–

control study, Neurology 64 (2005)1189–1195.

22. Hours, et al., Téléphone mobile, risque de tumeurs cérébrales et du nerf vestibuloacoustique: l’étude

cas-témoins INTERPHONE en France (Cell Phones and Risk of brain and acoustic nerve tumours:

the French INTERPHONE case–control study), Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (2007).

23. Hepworth, et al., Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case–control study, BMJ 332 (April

15 (7546)) (2006) 883–887.

24. Schüz, et al., Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone

Study Group, Germany), Am. J. Epidemiol. 163 (March 15 (6)) (2006) 512–520.

25. Hansson Mild, et al., Pooled analysis of two Swedish case–control studies on the use of mobile and

cordless telephones and the risk of brain tumours diagnosed during 1997–2003, Int. J. Occup. Safety

Ergon. (JOSE) 13 (1) (2007) 63–71.

26. Vrijheid, et al., Validation of short term recall of mobile phone use for the Interphone study, Occup.

Environ. Med. 63 (April (4)) (2006) 237–243.

27. RTD info, Magazine on European Research, No.46 August 2005, page 11.

28. Huss, et al., Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use:

systematic review of experimental studies, Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (2007) 1-4.

29. http://www.amazon.com keywords=Funding+Bias+in+Science, 30 November 2008.

30. Neurology Today, vol. 4(9), September 2004, pp. 56, 57, 58.

31. Elizabeth Cardis (in response to questions), Plenary Session II, Epidemiology Studies on Cellular

Telephones Use and the Risk of Brain Tumors, Bioelectromagnetics Society Meeting, San Diego, CA

June 9, 2008

32. Linda Diebel, Ottawa linked to cellphone lobbyists, Toronto Star, August 2, 2008,

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/471613, accessed 2 August 2008.

33. Cardis, et al., The INTERPHONE study: design, epidemiological methods, and description of the

study population, Eur. J. Epidemiol. 22 (9) (2007) 647–664.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

References for Appendices 1 and 2

_______________________________________________________________________________

37

A quote from the main editor of this report:

“Exposure to cellphone radiation is the

largest human health experiment ever

undertaken, without informed consent,

and has some 4 billion participants

enrolled. Science has shown increased

risk of brain tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular

cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and

leukemia. The public must be informed.”

L. Lloyd Morgan, USA, Bioelectromagnetics

Society, Electronics Engineer (retired)

For further information contact:

U.S.A.:

L. Lloyd Morgan

E-Mail: bilovsky@aol.com

Tel. +510 841-4362

U.K.:

Graham Philips

E-Mail: graham@powerwatch.org.uk

Tel. +44 (0)1353 778422





Family Owned and Operated.