1 / 29

Cellphones What Does the Science Tell Us?

Cellphones What Does the Science Tell Us?. The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Commonwealth Club, San Francisco November 18, 2010. “The weight of the evidence says there is no problem” This is not true

rasia
Télécharger la présentation

Cellphones What Does the Science Tell Us?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. L. Lloyd Morgan Senior Research Fellow Environmental Health Trust Member Bioelectromagnetics Society Retired Electronic Engineer 510 841-4363 bilovsky@aol.com CellphonesWhat Does the Science Tell Us? The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Commonwealth Club, San Francisco November 18, 2010

  2. “The weight of the evidence says there is no problem” This is not true remove industry studies and the weight of the evidence is overwhelming there is a problem “There is no known mechanism [implying the data must be wrong]” Probable mechanisms exist, but requiring a mechanism is anti-science. First comes the data, then decades to centuries later mechanisms are understood There is no known mechanism for smoking and lung cancer What Does Industry Tell Us? 2

  3. “With so many cellphones in use, if they were causing brain tumors, then we should see an incidence increase in brain tumors and there is no such increase” It is true there is no increase incidence of brain tumor YET. But the average latency time for brain tumors is 30+ years. THE question to ask is What % of all people were using cellphones 30+ years ago? What Does Industry Tell Us? 3

  4. Brain cancer Acoustic neuroma (acoustic nerve tumor) Meningioma (tumor of the meninges) Parotid (salivary) gland tumor Uveal melanoma (eye cancer) Testicular cancer Tumor Risks From Cellphone Use 4

  5. No increase in brain tumors was found until • 40 years later Atomic Bombs Survivors 5

  6. What Does The Science Tell Us? Human Studies 6

  7. Cellphone Case-Control Studies • Cases are people with brain tumors • Controls are people without brain tumors • Matched to cases by gender, age, region, etc. • Questions are asked about cellphone use • Question are asked about confounders • Cordless phone use • Smoking • Ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays)

  8. Case-Control Studies • Six early studies (5 industry funded) • Too early to expect to find a risk • Typical use <3 years • Swedish studies (no industry funding) • Dr. Lennart Hardell’s team • Cellphone and cordless phone use • Interphone studies (substantial industry funding) • 13 countries • Defines “User” as once per week for 6 months • Only cellphone use, but • Asks all subjects about cordless phone use • More subjects used cordless phone than cell phones • Cordless phone use treated as non-exposure • Systematic under-estimation of risk

  9. Hardell Studies: Risk to Children

  10. Hardell: Risk of High-Grade Brain Cancer by Hours or Years

  11. Hardell: Risk of Tumor on Same Side of Head Where Cellphone Was Used

  12. Hardell: >10 Year of Use or >2,000 Hours of Use

  13. Interphone Study’s Underestimation of Risk 13-country pooled results reports brain cancer underestimation 19%, 95% Confidence Interval: 6 to 30% " [The protective effect] could result from the sources of error discussed above, although … their magnitude and effects may not account fully for the observed reduction in risk [protection]." Morgan, Kundi, Carlberg: BEMS (June 2010) Re-evaluation of the Interphone StudyApplication of a Correction Factor 25%, 95% Confidence Interval: 11% to 47% 13

  14. Interphone Results: brain cancer • Pooled results from 13-countries • No overall increased risk with median use of 2-2.5 hours a month and 100 cum. hours of use • But with longer term use • 118% increased risk with >10 years of use • Compared to very short use (1 to 1.9 years) • Systematic underestimation of risk • Most common finding, <10 years is use of a cellphone protects the user from brain cancer • 32 different results report statistically significantprotection 14

  15. Risk of Brain CancerHardell Vs Interphone No Industry Funding Substantial Industry Funding 15

  16. 290% increase risk of acoustic neuroma >10 years, cellphone used on same side of head as tumor, Swedish Interphone study 380% increased risk of meningioma >1,640 cum hours in 1 to 4 years of use, pooled 13-country Interphone study 81% increased risk of parotid gland tumor >1,035 cum hours of use, Israeli Interphone study Risk of Other Tumors 16

  17. Salivary Gland TumorsTripled in Israel, 20% under age 20 17

  18. 320% increased risk of uveal melanoma (eye cancer) “Probable/certain exposure to mobile phones” Stang et al. 2001 80% increased risk of testicular cancer Left pocket, left testicle Right pocket, right testicle Risk of Other Tumors 18

  19. Risk to Male Fertility • Cleveland Clinic study (among many others) • Sperm count degradation • Surviving sperm degradation 19

  20. What Does the Science Tell Us? Animal (In Vivo) Studies Cellular (In Vitro) Studies 20

  21. Double-strand DNA breaks in rat brains after a 2-hour cellphone exposure Blood-Brain Barrier Leakage in rat brains after 2-hour cellphone exposure Dead neurons Loss of cognition Animal Studies 21

  22. EU REFLEX studies Multiple replications GSM genotoxicity G2 phones UMTS genotoxicity G3 (Smart) phones 10 X larger than GSM Human Cellular Studies 22

  23. Dose-response increase in DNA strand breaks UMTS Modulation (G3 or Smart Phones) Schwarz C et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008, 81 (6): 755-767 Slide courtesy of Devra Davis

  24. Time-dependent formation of DNA strand breaks UMTS Modulation(G3 or Smart Phones) Schwarz C et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008, 81 (6): 755-767 Slide courtesy of Devra Davis

  25. “All agencies say there is no problem World Health Organization (WHO) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) National Cancer Institute (NCI)” What Does Industry Tell Us? 25

  26. Regulators are controlled by the corporations they regulate WHO WHO’s EMF Project is industry funded and source for WHO FDA Requires pre-market safety testing of all electrical devices held to body Granted exclusive waiver to cellphone industry FDA’s waiver champion went to work for Motorola Approved VIOXX in spite of data showing increased heart attacks When heart attacks among VIOXX users was overwhelming, Merck pulled it from the market The FDA never acted What Does Industry Tell Us? 26

  27. Who is in charge, regulators or industry? FCC Exposure limit based on false industry premise Only biological effect from cellphone radiation is heating Only protects against cooking the brain Allows use of an industry designed cellphone certification process that substantially underestimates the cellphone’s SAR, especially in children (2.5 fold underestimation) NCI Found no risk of brain tumors in a study finished in 1998 Before study: researchers protested to management It is too early for a study because cellphones use had barely begun Management prevailed What Does Industry Tell Us? 27

  28. What More Is Required Before Our Public Health Agencies Act? With human studies, animal studies, cellular studies all showing serious health effects 28

  29. Thank YouQuestions? 29

More Related