1 / 38

Do Cell Phones Give You Brain Tumors? Do the Fields From Power Lines Give Children Leukemia?

Do Cell Phones Give You Brain Tumors? Do the Fields From Power Lines Give Children Leukemia? . 1 How do you go about finding out? 2.Top down or bottom up. 3. Start with Epidemiology Studies or start with the physics to chemistry to biology to animal studies to health effects .

wood
Télécharger la présentation

Do Cell Phones Give You Brain Tumors? Do the Fields From Power Lines Give Children Leukemia?

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. Do Cell Phones Give You Brain Tumors? Do the Fields From Power Lines Give Children Leukemia? • 1 How do you go about finding out? • 2.Top down or bottom up. • 3. Start with Epidemiology Studies or start with the physics to chemistry to biology to animal studies to health effects . • 4. Basic problem the biological systems are very complex, nonlinear, time dependent and contain multiple feed back , feed forward and repair processes.

  2. Conflicting Data • 1 You get many conflicting studies? • 2. You get irreproducible results. • 3. Correlations may not be cause and effect.

  3. Epidemiological StudiesELF • 1. Wertheimer, N. and Leeper, E., Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer, Am.J. Epidemiol., 1979, 109(3): 273–284. • 2. Savitz, D., Wachtel, H., Barnes, F. et al., Case–control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields, Am. J. Epidemiol., 1988, 128(1): 21–38.3. • Linet, M., Hatch, E., Kleinermann, R. et al., Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, N. Engl. J. Med., 1997, 337(1): 1–7. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile

  4. Approaches to Field Measurements • 1. Limited access to the house to about 1hour so what do you measure? • 2. Need to spend time on questions with respect to income, smoking, other possible confounders. • 3. The fields vary by about 2 to 1 with time of day and another 2 to 1 with season of the year. • 4. Wiring Configuration Estimate from Size of Wire, Distance to the house and from transformer.

  5. Case–control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields Standard incidence rate 3.5/105 for females and 4.2/105 for males. The Savitz et al. Study • 1. Children under 15 , Wire Code 97 Cases, 239 controls. HCC Odds Ratio 2.7 (CI 0.9 -8.00 • Measured Fields 39 Cases, 207 Controls,>0.25µT Odds Ratio 1.9 (CI 0.7-5.6) • 2 The results are a weak correlation of increased leukemia with proximity to power lines and for fields greater than 2.5µT.

  6. ELF Epidemiological Studies • 1 Summary Data is a slight positive correlation between exposures for Baverage > 0.4 µT and a possible causal association with ELF exposures and childhood leukemia. • 2. However accepted in some circles that no cellular effects for B< 100 µT. • 3. Our data disagrees and we have a reduction in growth rates forΔB≈ 20 µT • 4. The energy for the changes in the biology could come from the free radicals that are created Chemically.

  7. Additional Data from 12 Studies • 1.For 2656 cases and 7084 controls OR of 1.68 and Ci of 95% at (1.23-2.31) for B>0.3µT • 2. Lots of potential confounders, • Selection Bias, Current in the Plumbing, 3. A big problem is the lack of a mechanismand an understanding of how cancer is initiated and grows. 4.Correlation is not necessarily cause and effect.

  8. RF Epidemiology Studies • 1. Hardell L, Hallquist A, Mild KH, Carlberg M, Pahlson A, and Lilja A. Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumors. Eur. J. Cancer Prev., 2002; 11(4):377–386. • Hardell L, Nasman A, Pahlson A, Hallquist A, and Hansson Mild K. Use of cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours: A case–control study. Int. J. Oncol ., 1999; 15(1):113–116. • Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, Wilcosky TC, Shapiro WR, Selker RG, Fine HA, Black PM, LoefflerJS, and Linet MS. Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. N. Engl. J. Med ., 2001; 344(2):79–86.

  9. The Interphone Study • An interview-based case–control study with 2708 glioma and 2409 • meningioma cases and matched controls was conducted in 13 countries • using a common protocol. • Results A reduced odds ratio (OR) related to ever having been a regular • mobile phone user was seen for glioma [OR 0.81; 95% confidence • interval (CI) 0.70–0.94] and meningioma (OR 0.79; 95% • CI 0.68–0.91), possibly reflecting participation bias or other methodological • limitations. No elevated OR was observed 5-10 years • after first phone use (glioma: OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.76–1.26; meningioma: • OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.61–1.14). ORs were <1.0 for all deciles of • lifetime number of phone calls and nine deciles of cumulative call • time. • In the 10th decile of recalled cumulative call time, 51640 h, • the OR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.03–1.89) for glioma, and 1.15 (95% CI • 0.81–1.62) for meningioma; but there are implausible values of reported • use in this group. ORs for glioma tended to be greater in the • temporal lobe than in other lobes of the brain, but the CIs around • the lobe-specific estimates were wide. ORs for glioma tended to be • greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side

  10. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors—A Nationwide Case-Control StudySiegal Sadetzki1,2, Angela Chetrit1, Avital Jarus-Hakak1, Elisabeth Cardis3, Yonit Deutch1, Shay Duvdevani4, Ahuva Zultan1, Ilya Novikov5, Laurence Freedman5, and Michael Wolf2,4 , American Journal of Epidemiology, vol 167,no 4 ,2007 • The objective of this nationwide study was to assess the association between cellular phone use and development of parotid gland tumors (PGTs). The methods were based on the international INTERPHONE study that aimed to evaluate possible adverse effects of cellular phone use. The study included 402 benign and 58 malignant incident cases of PGTs diagnosed in Israel at age 18 years or more, in 2001–2003, and 1,266 population in- dividually matched controls. For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio ¼ 0.87; p ¼ 0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. The risk for contralateral use was not significantly different from 1. A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements. Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs. • case-control studies; cellular phone; head and neck neoplasms; Israel; parotid gland

  11. Mechanisms • Direct Electric Field Effects with High Power Short Pulses. Membrane Damage • Heating, RF • Drift Currents and Dielectrophoresis • Change in Free Radical Lifetimes and Chemical Reaction Rates • A Mechanism for Long Exposures at Low Levels?

  12. RF Standards • 1. Some History back to the 50’s and radar, TV, Radio • 2. Results from injury at high levels and short time exposures. • 3. Different Philosophies Lead to different numbers. U.S at the highest level not known to be dangerous and a safety factor. • 4. Heating at 60mW/cm2 to 10mW/cm2 then up dated. • 5. USSR at 10µW/cm2

  13. RF Standards For Exposures • 1. Types of Standards • A. Voluntary • B. Government Mandated • .C. Different Philosophies and Enforcement 2. Emission Standards, Microwave Ovens, Cell Phones 3. Exposure Standards may be different for different groups of people. Children, Workers, General Public etc.

  14. Multinational and National Standards Bodies • 1, WHO, world health organization works to harmonize standards • 2. International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) evaluates evidence and advises on exposure limits. Non industrial members. These recommendations are used by most of Europe and Asia • 4. IEEE C95.1 RF, C95.6 ELF , ANSI, Open to all including industry. Set other interoperability standards. • 5. Local governments may impose lower limits. California, Salzburg

  15. Objective is to Protect Health • 1. This comes down to questions of relative risk. We do not live in a safe world!! • 2. How much risk to you let people take on themselves and when to your have governments or industry set the standards. • 3. Issue with electro sensitive people.

  16. Standards Body Approach • 1. Review of Literature • 2. Check for good dosimetry. • 3. Weight of evidence. • 4. Establish Thresholds + Safety Factor • 5. Evaluate and present for public review. • 6. Current limit protect against short term acute effects.

  17. RF Exposure Reference Levels Electric Fields

  18. RF Exposure Limits Magnetic Fields

  19. Risk Source (Daily Exposure) Carcinogen 0.3 Coffee (1 cup) Hydrogen peroxide 0.4 Bread and grain products (average US diet) Ethylene Dibromide 0.5 Food with pesticides (average US diet) PCBs, DDE/DDT 8.0 Swimming in a pool (1 hour for a child) Chloroform 9.0 Cooked bacon (100 grams) Dimethylnitrosamine 30 Comfrey herbal tea (1 cup) Symphytine 30 Peanut butter sandwich Aflatoxin 60 Diet cola (12 oz.) Sacchrin 70 Brown mustard (5 grams) Allyl isothiosamine 90 Shrimp (100 grams) Formaldehyde 100 Mushrooms (1 raw) Hydrazines 300 Pain relief pill (300 mg) Phenacetin 400 Bread (2 slices) Formaldehyde 604 Breathing air at home (14 hours) Formaldehyde 2,700 Regular cola (12 oz.) Formaldehyde 2,800 Beer (12 oz.) Ethyl alcohol 4,700 Wine (1 glass) Ethyl alcohol 5,800 Breathing air at work (8 hours) Formaldehyde 16,000 Sleeping pill (60 mg.) Phenobarbital Relative Risk of Getting Cancer Source:B.N. Ames, R. Magaw, L.S. Gold, 1987, “Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards”; Science,V236, p 271-236.

  20. Cancer and Electric Power.

  21. Cancer Increase • 1

  22. Cause Days Cause Days Being unmarried-male / female 3,500 / 1,600 Average job accident 74 Cigarette smoking-male / female 2,250 / 800 Drowning 41 Heart disease 2,100 Falls 39 Being overweight 30% / 20% 1,300 / 900 Fire-burns 27 Being a coal miner 1,100 Generation of electricity 24 Cancer 980 Suffocation 13 Low Socio-economic status 700 Fire arms accidents 11 Living in unfavorable state 500 Natural radiation / From nuclear industry 8 / 0.02 Army in Viet Nam 400 Medical x-rays 6 Smoking Cigar / Pipe 330 / 220 Poisonous gases 7 Job Dangerous / with RF exposure / safe 300 / 40 / 30 Coffee 6 Accidents Motor vehicle / to pedestrians 207 / 37 Oral contraceptives 5 Pneumonia, influenza / Diabetes 141 / 95 Reactor accidents-UCS / RCS 2 / 0.002 Alcohol (US average) 130 PAP exams -4 Accidents in home 95 Smoke detector in home -10 Suicide 95 Air bags in car -50 Legal drug misuse 90 Mobile coronary care unit -125 Average job accident 74 Safety improvement ‘66-’76 -110 Loss of life expectancy and total number of lost days Source: Cohen, Bernard L. And Lee. I-sing, “A Catalog of Risks.” Health Physics (36) 707-722. 1979.

  23. Risk From Power Sources

  24. Membrane Damage High Power Short Pulses

More Related