CellphonesWhat Does the Science

Tell Us?

1

L. Lloyd MorganSenior Research Fellow Environmental Health Trust

Member Bioelectromagnetics SocietyRetired Electronic Engineer

510 841-4363bilovsky@aol.com

The Health Effects of Electromagnetic FieldsCommonwealth Club, San Francisco

November 18, 2010

What Does Industry Tell Us?• “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

2

What Does Industry Tell Us?

• “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?

3

Tumor Risks From Cellphone Use

• Brain cancer• Acoustic neuroma (acoustic nerve tumor)• Meningioma (tumor of the meninges)• Parotid (salivary) gland tumor• Uveal melanoma (eye cancer)• Testicular cancer

4

• No increase in brain tumors was found until– 40 years later

Atomic Bombs Survivors

5

What Does The Science Tell Us?

Human Studies

6

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)

7

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

8

Hardell Studies: Risk to Children

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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 StudyRe-evaluation of the Interphone Study

Application of a Correction FactorApplication of a Correction Factor – 25%, 95% Confidence Interval: 11% to 47%

13

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 significant

protection14

Risk of Brain CancerHardell Vs Interphone

15

NoIndustryFunding

SubstantialIndustryFunding

Risk of Other Tumors• 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

16

17

Salivary Gland TumorsTripled in Israel, 20% under age 20

Risk of Other Tumors

• 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

18

Risk to Male Fertility• Cleveland Clinic study (among many others)

– Sperm count degradation– Surviving sperm degradation

19

What Does the Science Tell Us?

Animal (In Vivo) StudiesCellular (In Vitro) Studies

20

Animal Studies

• 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

21

Human Cellular Studies• EU REFLEX studies

– Multiple replications– GSM genotoxicity

• G2 phones– UMTS genotoxicity

• G3 (Smart) phones• 10 X larger than GSM

22

Schwarz C et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008, 81 (6): 755-767Slide courtesy of Devra Davis

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

Time-dependent formation of DNA strand breaks UMTS Modulation(G3 or Smart Phones)

What Does Industry Tell Us?

• “All agencies say there is no problem– World Health Organization (WHO)– Food and Drug Administration (FDA)– Federal Communications Commission (FCC)– National Cancer Institute (NCI)”

25

What Does Industry Tell Us?• 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

26

What Does Industry Tell Us?• 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 27

What More Is Required Before Our Public Health Agencies

Act?

With human studies, animal studies, cellular studies all

showing serious health effects

28

Thank You

Questions?

29