Results of research on radiofrequency fields from

telecommunications

Dr Mike RepacholiVisiting Professor, University of Rome “La Sapienza”

Former Coordinator, WHO Program on Radiation and Environmental Health

RF interaction chain to produce effects

Research is conducted to determine whether RF can affect any point in this chain

In vitro studies are conducted on cells and tissues to investigate mechanisms and effects on cells to be tested to see if they occur in vivo

In vivo studies are conducted on experimental animals to investigate short and long-term effects such as cancer

Human laboratory studies determine whether short term ethical and non-damaging effects occur

Epidemiology studies compare the incidence of health effects in RF exposed and non-exposed populations

Types of research

For research to be useful it must:Conform to good research standards as shown in the following worksheets from Repacholi et al 2012.Be replicated by independent laboratoriesShould be explained by a mechanism that is in agreement with generally accepted scientific knowledge unless there is substantial evidence for a new mechanism that still conforms with the laws of physics

Good Research

Epidemiology Study Quality Assessment Worksheet

In Vivo Study Quality Assessment Worksheet

Based mainly on 2 epidemiology results: Interphone and Hardell.Wiedemann et al (2014) notes:Interphone did not consider it had a positive result.Hardell’s results consistently found to be outliers and inconsistent with the studies showing time trends in cancer incidenceThe meaning of the 2B categorization is misunderstood by most intelligent people: A communications problem for IARC

Recent epidemiology studies have not supported the 2B classification

IARC’s categorization of RF as 2B

Lagorio and Rooslie (2013) conducted a consistency analysis of 47 epidemiology studies and did not find evidence that mobile phones affect intracranial tumours up to 15 years use. Heterogeneity among results was explained by methodological differences. They concluded more research was needed on children and in adults after 15 years mobile phone use.However, Elwood (2014) asks whether epidemiology can detect a small increased risk in a rare disease with a long latency period after a difficult to measure exposure; can these studies ever definitively measure the hazard, or with even more difficulty show it is too small or too unlikely to matter?Remember the Chernobyl and Fukashima accidents….

Limits of epidemiology

Compounding the problem of determining whether mobile phones cause head cancers is the increasing numbers of bad or fraudulent science published in journals that do not have good peer review, or can be published for a fee to authors and put online free of charge. Many of these are “predatory” journalsWhile some of these studies have been detected (e.g. by Prof A Lerchl), most go undetected and remain in the literature to create further studies that will lead nowhere, or are not replicated and stay in the literature as possible questions about health risks.

Bad and fraudulent studies

The open access movement in publishing has seen an extraordinary increase in “scientific” journals available.

All scientific fields are covered and authors can have their papers published for a fee of about $1000.

Peer review is poor or absent, so low quality studies are published Predatory journals are for profit only and “spam” emails are

regularly sent out to authors of previous publications requesting papers

These publications are now distorting the science base and threaten to erase the line between good and bad science

Predatory journals

Elliot-Friend et al (2014) conducted a meta-analysis on 10 studies (in vitro and in vivo) and suggested sperm quality was affected by RF exposures from mobile phones.

This study received significant press Lerchl (2014) points out their meta-analysis

was conducted on a very heterogeneous group of studies and so completely uninformative.. Poor science

Poor or uninformative studies

Lerchl found fraudulent results in many studies: eg Diem et al (2008), Schwaz et al (2008), Pilger et al (2004) etc

His analyses were made of the methodology, inconsistences in the data, statistical analyses and quality of the data

Some of the papers were retracted but many remain in the literature to confuse the scientific database from which health risk assessments are made.

Fraudulent studies

Soviet scientists reported laboratory studies suggesting organisms can adapt to low-level exposures to RF and extrapolated this to humans for their RF standards.

There is other laboratory evidence that animals adapt to various low-level chemical and radiation exposures

Vijayalaxmi and Prihoda (2014) suggests an adaptive mechanism may explain the low Odds Ratios or apparent “beneficial” effect of RF exposures reported in the Interphone study… credible?

Adaptation to RF?

WHO’s Fact Sheet noted IARC’s review of “the carcinogenic potential” of RF fields while finding “[t]o date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use”.

WHO’s finding was based on animal studies consistently showing no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to RF fields and the lack of an established mechanism by which RF fields from cell phones could cause any adverse health effects.

This fact sheet is still valid

WHO

The ICNIRP Standing Committee on Epidemiology’s finding that within about 10-15 years after first use of cell phones there is “unlikely to be a material increase in the risk of brain tumours in adults,” and their conclusion that “the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause head tumours in adults” took into account the results of Interphone and other epidemiological studies including studies of trends in brain tumor incidence, in vitro and in vivo laboratory studies, and the lack of an established biological mechanism.

ICNIRP

Neither the in vitro or animals studies provide any convincing evidence of harm from exposures mobile phone RF signals below the ICNIRP guidelines

Results from epidemiology studies are providing the real driver for more research, and these studies may not be able to provide definitive answers. Long term cohort studies are probably the only ones to give convincing results.

My opinion is that from a review of the >6000 scientific publications in this area there is no harm to health from mobile phone use or from base station signals. If there was an effect it would have been seen by now…..

Overall conclusions

Thank youMuchas gracias

Dr Mike RepacholiUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”

Email: mrepacholi@yahoo.com

Dr Mike RepacholiUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”Email: mrepacholi@yahoo.com