28.12.2011 by emily Category Electromagnetic Health Blog
A Critique by Scientific Experts, Physicians
and Oncologists
In its unsigned commentary on September 3, 2011, “Worrying
about Wireless”, The Economist makes a number of
technical errors and misleading statements about microwave radiation that we
write to correct. The governments of more than a dozen nations have issued
precautionary advice and policies about wireless devices, including restricting
cellphone use by children in France, India and Israel (See Worldwide Advisories
at www.saferphonezone.com). The Economist would do well to consult
with experts in these and other tech-savvy nations to learn the science behind
these countries’ decisions so that it can provide accurate reporting on
wireless safety and health matters.
The Economist states:
“Let it
be said, once and for all, that no matter how powerful a radio
transmitter–whether an over-the-horizon radar station or a microwave
tower–radio waves simply cannot produce ionising radiation. The only possible
effect they can have on human tissue is to raise its temperature slightly.”
This
is a red herring. Of course microwave radiation is non-ionizing
radiation. It has insufficient energy to directly break chemical
bonds including mutating DNA. Independent studies show that microwave radiation
from cellphones can damage genetic material and disrupt DNA repair without
inducing heat. Microwave radiation from cellphones can also increase the
production of damaging free radicals, which can also indirectly damage
DNA. [1a,b,c]
In 2000 the cellphone companies
T-Mobil and DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom Mobilnet commissioned the ECOLOG report.
This report acknowledged that microwave radiation damages genes, living
cells, and the immune system. Since then, the evidence base
suggesting that prolonged cellphone use can harm human health has grown
substantially. In May 2011, after a rigorous review of the evidence, the
World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) classified radiation emitted by wireless devices including cellphones as
“possibly carcinogenic.”
In addition, scientific studies carried out in Russia
in the 1950s and 1960s and corroborated by European researchers more recently
show that microwave radiation affects the heart, brain and liver, as well as
the production of hormones and male human and animal fertility.
The
Economist states:
“In the real world…sources of ionising radiation…are the
sole sources energetic enough to knock electrons out of atoms–breaking chemical
bonds and producing dangerous free radicals in the process…that can damage a
person’s DNA and cause mutation, radiation sickness and even death.”
Growing
evidence demonstrates that cancer and other types of illness do not only derive
from direct damage to the ionic bonds that hold together our DNA.
Researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) have shown that 2 out of every 5 known causes of cancer do not directly
damage DNA.
In addition, several investigators have shown in animal
experiments that microwaves can damage the blood-brain barrier (BBB), a vital
biological mechanism for protecting the brain from toxins. In fact,
radiation similar to that of cellphones forms the foundation for important new
uses of microwave and other non-ionizing radiation to treat brain, breast and
liver tumors. Given these therapeutic uses of microwave radiation, it
would be folly to assume that other exposures have no biological consequences.
Furthermore,
a 2011 NIH Study showed that simply placing a phone that is turned on next to
the ear for just fifty minutes can significantly increase the metabolism of the
brain’s main fuel—glucose. The long-term impact of this change is not
known, but altered glucose metabolism is one hallmark of Alzheimer’s and other
neurodegenerative diseases. [2] Other
studies show that rabbits exposed prenatally to cellphone radiation produce
offspring with damaged brains, liver and skin. [3] Experiments have confirmed that cellphone-exposed
rodents that have been trained to run mazes lose the capacity to find food or a
hidden platform or recognize objects with some speculation that these are form
of dementia. [4a,b,c]
Case-control studies report that those who use cellphones regularly for a
decade have increased rates of malignant tumors of the brain, cheek (parotid
gland), and hearing nerve (acoustic neuroma)—in areas of the head that receive
the highest exposures to cellphone radiation.[5-6]
Recognizing the scientific foundation for this damage,
Austrian workers’ compensation cases have provided remuneration for
cellphone-related workplace damages. An Italian Court recognized that
cellphones and cordless phones may cause adverse health effects and awarded
full disability to a heavy user of both types of phones.
The
Economist states:
“…radio waves do not pack anywhere near enough energy to
produce free radicals. The “quanta” of energy (i.e. photons)
carried by radio waves in, say, the UHF band used by television, Wi-Fi,
Bluetooth, cordless phones, mobile phones,…have energy levels of a few
millionths of an electron-volt. That is less than a millionth of the
energy needed to cause ionisation.”
The Economist is
practicing the cliché, “Beating a dead horse” by continuing to harp that this
is not ionizing radiation. No one disagrees! While cellphone
signals are weak, their fluctuating nature (highly complex modulation) may
explain why they are so biologically active. Furthermore, long-term
exposure to the fields from electrical power distribution frequencies,
specifically those associated with the 50 and 60 hertz power grids, have been
linked to leukemia and neurological diseases, such as Lou Gehrig’s disease and
Alzheimer’s, in scientific studies and in official reports from the states of
New York and California. A decade previous to the recent IARC declaration, IARC
declared Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B
Possible Carcinogen in 2001. In addition to microwave emissions, cellphones
also expose users to these ELF fields from the phone’s battery. Four
milli-Gauss (mG) is linked to a doubling of incidence of childhood leukemia,
and a 2005 study of phones on the market found fields of 47 to 146 mG at 5 mm
from the surface of the phones. [7]
The
Economist states:
“A year earlier, after a landmark, decade-long study
undertaken by teams in 13 countries, the IARC had reported that no adverse
health effects associated with the use of mobile phones could be found.”
In
fact, within the 13-country Interphone study organized by IARC, those with the
highest use for a decade had a doubled risk of brain tumors. The study
reported no overall increased risk when looking at all those who had made one
call a week for 6 months. But, when researchers reviewed evidence on
those subjects who had used cellphones for ten years or more, they found a
statistically significant doubling in the risk of glioma (190 cases,
OR=2.18, 95 % CI=1.43-3.31) for long-term users in comparison to short-term
users who used a phone for 1.0-1.9 years. [8]
Interphone also reported significantly increased risk for acoustic neuromas and
parotid gland tumors. [5,9]
The
Economist states:
“The Group 2B classification…rates the health hazard
posed by mobile phones as similar to the chance of getting cancer from coffee,
petrol fumes and false teeth.”
The Economist fails to
note that many nations have taken serious regulatory actions regarding other
substances placed in this classification, including some pesticides that are
banned around the world today such as DDT, engine exhausts, and toxic and
persistent brominated or fluorinated flame retardants. There are numerous
examples of substances first classified as Class 2B that were later moved into
Class 2A (probably carcinogenic) or Class 1 (carcinogenic). Given the short
time for which cellphones have been used relative to the induction periods of many
cancers, the current evidence base can only hint at the extent of the evidence
that will ultimately materialize. In this respect, cellphone radiation is quite
unlike coffee (coffee does slightly increase the risk of bladder cancer, while
reducing that of colon cancer) or false teeth.
The
Economist states:
“…by classifying mobile phones as a Group 2B risk, what
the IARC was effectively saying…was that, even if such a health risk exists,
there is no way of ever ruling out bias, chance or other confounding
circumstance with any reasonable degree of confidence.”
This
misreads the intent of the IARC review. The purpose of an IARC evaluation
is to anticipate harm and prevent or reduce danger. In looking at
experimental evidence along with human data, IARC indicated that data on
long-term incidence of brain cancer will ultimately clarify the nature of the
hazard. In fact, there were relatively few regular cellphone users in the
Interphone study (which completed data collection in 2004) who had more than ten
years use. Three other studies have carried out meta-analyses of all
published data on people with over ten years of cellphone use [10-12]. All of these reported a significant risk in
gliomas (cancer of the brain). One of these also found an approximate
doubling of the risk of being diagnosed with a glioma on the same
(“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for long-term (>10 years)
cellphone use (118 cases, OR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4). [11]
If a 2-fold risk occurs in the world’s 5.6 billion cellphone
users, this could conservatively result in 250,000 avoidable brain tumors every
year. In addition to the devastating health consequences (half of those
diagnosed die within two years) a single case of brain cancer costs nearly
$500,000 to treat in one year. The economic impact of such an illness
around the globe could be staggering. Phone use is expanding rapidly in
developing countries that lack personnel, resources and the infrastructure to
provide cancer surgery and treatment.
Brain and other cancers are not the sole
health impact of concern from cellphones, which have been linked in a number of
separate peer-reviewed published studies to serious health problems including
reproductive and neurological damage. The potential social and economic
impacts of these other chronic health threats has led many governments and
health organizations, including the IARC experts, to advocate sensible
cellphone use (e.g. texting holding phone away from lap, use of the speaker
mode or a wired hands-free headset, and use of a land-line in the home or
office, especially by children, etc.).
The Economist states:
“…the
number of text messages sent and received by [older] Americans…rose by 75%…Over
the same period the number of phone calls made and received by adults of all
ages fell by 25%.”
Many people speak on the phone for durations exceeding
those of past years, and while texting is removing the locus of radiation from
the brain, data intensive texts create radiation bursts directed at other parts
of the body. People who repeatedly text are getting frequent,
intermittent high doses of this radiation.
Adults are not the only age groups
using cellphones today. Children’s use of cellphones has grown
dramatically in many nations. Several peer-reviewed published studies
indicate that the risks for children are significantly higher than for
adults. This is not surprising as children’s brains are less well
protected (due to thinner skulls and less myelin covering the nerve fibers).
The
Economist states:
“The whole brouhaha over mobile phones causing brain
cancer is a monumental irrelevance compared with scofflaws who insist on using
their handsets to text or talk while driving.”
There
is no doubt that texting while driving is dangerous and should be
banned. The personal and economic costs of treating the potential
brain tumors and other serious illnesses that could occur from the long-term
impact of frequent cellphone use could very well dwarf those of texting while
driving.
History is replete with failures to control highly profitable
carcinogenic substances, ranging from tobacco to asbestos, until proof of harm
became irrefutable. We can ill afford to go through that same course with
cellphones today, given the long latency involved with brain cancer and their
ubiquity. The Economist owes its staff and readers better than to
rehash outdated physics and hollow reassurances of safety.
Readers are left to
wonder whether the significant advertising revenues generated from cellphones
may account for The Economist’s lopsided and misleading editorial.
One analysis of U.S. newspaper advertising conducted by
ElectromagneticHealth.org in 2010 showed that print ad space from
telecommunications businesses was estimated to be between 1.77% and 11.40% of
total print advertising space during the sample period.
How much advertising
revenue does The Economist and its related entities receive from
telecommunications advertising, and what steps has The Economist taken
to ensure balanced reporting on this vitally important industry?
With this
unsigned opinion piece (which appeared to be a news article) containing so many
technical errors and misleading statements, The Economist has undermined
its reputation for independent and probing analysis. The
Economist owes its readers a better accounting of the science on this
important public health issue. The fact that questions remain is
undeniable, but to state that all is fine in the face of growing evidence that
it is not, fails to provide critical information about this important public
health challenge. We need to promote safer wireless device use and public
health policies for our children and ourselves.
In light of the many errors
and misstatements in its commentary, The Economist should publish a
correction on the issues we have raised.
Very truly yours,
Mikko Ahonen,
PhD (public health), Finland – mikko.ahonen[at]uta.fi
Igor Belyaev, PhD
(radiobiology), Slovak Republic – Igor.Belyaev[at]gmt.su.se
Martin Blank,
PhD (physiology/cellular biophysics), USA – mb32[at]columbia.edu
Michael
Carlberg, MSc (statistics), Sweden – michaelrita[at]yahoo.se
Devra
Davis, PhD, MPH (epidemiology/toxicology), USA – ddavis[at]ehtrust.org
Alvaro
Almeida Augusto de Salles, PhD (electrical engineering), Brazil –
aasalles[at]ufrgs.br
Vicky Fobel (cellphone safety), UK –
vicky.fobel[at]mobilewise.org
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, MSc, PhD Cand.
(radiation biology), Greece- madofrag[at]biol.uoa.gr
Lennart Hardell, MD,
PhD (neuro-oncology), Sweden – lennart_hardell[at]hotmail.com
Magda Havas,
PhD (environmental & resource studies), Canada –
drmagdahavas[at]gmail.com
Ronald B. Herberman, MD (oncology), USA –
rherberman[at]intrexon.com
Olle Johansson, PhD (neuroscience), Sweden –
olle.johansson[ at ]ki.se
Deborah Kopald, MBA (public health advocacy
& policy), USA – Deborah_Kopald[at]ymail.com
Donald Maisch, PhD
(electromagnetic standards), Australia – dmaisch[at]emfacts.com
Lukas H.
Margaritis, PhD (cell biology), Greece- lmargar[at]biol.uoa.gr
L. Lloyd
Morgan, BSEE (electronic engineering), USA – Lloyd.L.Morgan[at]gmail.com
Wilhelm
Mosgöller, MD (toxicology), Austria – wm[at]scigenia.com
Mona Nilsson
(investigative journalism), Sweden – mona[at]monanilsson.se
Eileen O’Connor
(public health advocacy & policy), UK – info[at]radiationresearch.org
Alasdair
Philips, B.Sc. (Eng), DAgE (electrical engineering), UK –
alasdair[at]powerwatch.org.uk
Camilla R. G. Rees, MBA (public health
education & advocacy), USA – crgr[at]aol.com
Stephen Sinatra, MD
(cardiology), USA – stsinatra[at]msn.com
Fredrik Söderqvist, DMedSc
(epidemiology), Sweden – fredrik_soderqvist[at]yahoo.se
Brian Stein, CEO (public
health advocacy & policy) – Brian.Stein[at]SamworthBrothers.co.uk
Charles
Teo, MD (neurosurgery), Australia – charlie[at]neuroendoscopy.info
Stelios
A Zinelis, MD (Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia), Greece –
zinelis[at]otenet.gr
Note: Scientists, Physicians and Other Experts
Wishing to Add their Names to the List of Signers of “The Economist—and the
Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies” please
contact Deborah Kopald, MBA: Deborah_Kopald[at]ymail.com.
Literature Cited:
[1b]
Friedman J, Kraus S, Hauptman Y, Schiff Y, Seger R Mechanism of short-term ERK
activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies. Biochem J.
2007 Aug 1;405(3):559-68.
[1c] De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ.
Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA
damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 31;4(7):e6446.
[2]
Volkow N et al., Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal
Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism. JAMA, 2011 Feb 23
(305,8):808-813.
[3] Tomruk A, Guler G, Dincel AS. The
influence of 1800 MHz GSM-like signals on hepatic oxidative DNA and lipid
damage in Nonpregnant, Pregnant, and Newly born rabbits. Cellular
Biochemistry and Biophysics. 2010;56(1):39-47.
[4a] Fragopoulou AF,
Margaritis LH. Is cognitive function affected by mobile phone radiation
exposure? In, ” Non Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of interaction between
electromagnetic fields and living matter “, European J. Oncology-Library vol.5,
pp 261-273, 2010 L. Giuliani and M. Soffritti (eds).
[4b] Fragopoulou AF,
Miltiadous P, Stamatakis A, Stylianopoulou F, Koussoulakos SL, Margaritis LH.
Whole body exposure with GSM 900MHz affects spatial memory in mice.
Pathophysiology. 2010 Jun;17(3):179-87. Epub 2009 Dec 1.
[4c] Ntzouni MP,
Stamatakis A, Stylianopoulou F, LH Margaritis LH. Short term memory in mice is
affected by mobile phone radiation. Pathophysiology, 18(3):193-9, 2011. Epub
2010 Nov 26.
[5] Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A,
Cardis E, et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant
Parotid Gland Tumors- A Nationwide Case Control Study. American
Journal of Epidemiology. 2008 Feb 15;167(4):457-67. Epub 2007 Dec 6.
[6]
Han Y, Kano H, Davis D, Niranjan A, Lunfsord L. Cell Phone Useage and Acoustic
Neuroma: The Need for Standardized Questionnaires and Access to Industry Data. Surgical
Neurology. 2009 Sep;72(3):216-22; discussion 222. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
[7]
Tuor M, Ebert S, Schuderer J, Kuster N. “Assessment of ELF
Exposure from GSM Handsets and Development of an Optimized RF/ELF Exposure
Setup for Studies of Human Volunteers” Foundation for Research on Information
Technologies in Society. BAG Reg. No. 2.23.02.-18/02.001778:17. January
2005.
[8] The Interphone Group. Brain tumour risk
in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international
case–control study, Appendix 2. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010;1–20
[9]
The Interphone Group. Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile
telephone use: Results of the Interphone international case–control
study. Cancer Epidemiology, In-Press August 2011.
[10] Myung SK,
Ju W, McDonnell DD, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a
meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 27(33):5565-72.
[11] Khurana
VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Cell phones and brain tumors: a
review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol. 2009 Sep
72(3):205-14; discussion 214-5. Epub Mar 2009.
[12] Kan P, Simonsen SE,
Lyon JL, Kestle JR. Cellular phone use and brain tumor: a meta-analysis. J
Neurooncol. 2008 Jan;86(1):71-8. Epub 2007 Jul 10.
Note:
Scientists, Physicians and Other Experts Wishing to Add their Names to the List
of Signers of “The Economist—and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted
from Wireless Technologies” please contact Deborah Kopald, MBA:
Deborah_Kopald[at]ymail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment